Talk:National Review/Archive 1

Links
Andrew McCarthy links to a minor American film actor - is this the same person as writes for National Review? If not, time for disambig - if not reconsidering this massive list of contributors. Also, the list claims currency but is always liable to be superceded: can't we just link to a contributors' page there? 64.229.38.70 19:53, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

John O' Sullivan in the list of contributors to National Review redirects to a John O' Sullivan who lived in the 19th century —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shatadal (talk • contribs) 00:56, 15 January 2005 (UTC)
 * If you think it's worth the trouble, you can start a new Wikipedia article for John O' Sullivan (National Review contributor).76.105.3.220 10:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Shares
Buckley surrendered his shares in NR to a trust in 2004, is there anyway to make a mention of this in the article````rajatster User:Rajatster 11:15, 29 December 2004 (UTC)
 * Sure. Sounds like a good idea.  You got more info? 76.105.3.220 10:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Derbyshire
Any conservative fans of John Derbyshire probably want to add their angle to the article about him... it's currently dominated by the "Derbyshire Award" given out by Andrew Sullivan. The result is pretty lopsided against him. Dave 16:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The Derb is my favorite contributor to the magazine. I wouldn't bother reading it without him.  Thanks for letting me know about the article.  We have to set the record straight about him.  76.105.3.220 10:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Neo
National Review isn't conservative, it's neoconservative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.213.33 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 13 June 2005 (UTC)


 * No, NR is anything but neoconservative. It was against the war in Iraq and angry about the deficits.  It is classic paleo not neo in its conservatism.   A question for old timers.  There was an associate editor of NR during the 90s with a name something like Van den Hagen who died a few years ago


 * I actually had an interview with him about the death penalty which we both supported. One of his arguments, off the record, was enough to make me against this penality.  He said, " another good thing about this is it makes people cut a deal to avoid dying."   Yeah, but they just may also cut it if they happen to be innocent.  But we two conservatives never brought up that ugly possibility
 * alrodbell.blogspot.com  Arodb 18:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply to above: I believe the National Review is a neocon publication on the extreme right. Even Fox news is not as right wing as National Review. And they have been ardent supporters of the aggression against Iraq as well as diehard supporters of the Bush admin. Any issue, you can guarantee the National Review will take the extreme right position. That is not reflected in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.36.67 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply to above: Please leave a signature or name when you reply.  It is difficult to decipher who is leaving the last remarks.  There is a good chance that you probably do not read the National Review.  Ardent supporters of aggression against Iraq?  The most resounding criticism of the Iraq policy has been from the National Review, as Buckley himself has been opposed to it.  I disagree that the NR takes an "extreme right" position, but I suggest that you investigate what "extreme right," actually is.  Neoconservatives ARE NOT the "extreme right," this is a completely incorrect thinking and it spawns from the use of the phrase "neoconservative."  The majority of people who use the phrase "neoconservative" use it incorrectly and do not know what it means.  They use it to mean "any person who is not liberal whom I happen to disagree with on two or fewer issues," (take for instance, Joe Lieberman being described as a Neoconservative in the Lamont/Lieberman democratic primary race).  "That" is not reflected in the article because it simply isn't true.  I suggest that you read the National Review before making suggestions to the content of its encyclopedia entry.  Mike Murray 15:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yipe. NR is neither paleoconservative, nor, strictly speaking, neoconservative. It is certainly not paleoconservative if one considers Pat Buchanan paleoconservative. Neoconservatives probably find much more to like in NR, but still, the magazine predates neoconservatism by years. And please - if you really need a soapbox I'm sure that there are quite a few forums that would be glad to have you pontificate there; this is a place to discuss writing articles, not spout your political opinions. --Molon Labe 06:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The NR is Buckley's magazine. It isn't strictly speaking any specific trend within conservatism.  It is what Mr. Buckley wants it to be.  If he thinks it's worth reading, and it doesn't stray too far from his own views, he prints it. 76.105.3.220 10:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

van den Haag
I'm nearly certain that Reinhold Niebuhr wrote for National Review during its 1960s heyday. Can anyone document it? Ehgil 23:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm an idiot, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.212.126 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ernest van den Haag - … (See "Lack of facts" below, part of same post)
 * You're not an idiot. Cheer up.  76.105.3.220  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Lack of facts
- … There seems to be a lack of facts in this article, eg, tracking the circulation over time. It's influence (and circulation) should be compared to, say, The New Republic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.44.175.212 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A better comparison would be with The Nation. The New Republic is nowhere near as far to the left as the National Review is to the right. 76.105.3.220 10:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Re alleged POV
Korossyl removed some passages as POV. I have reverted this, but it should of course be open to discussion.

I agree the tag neo-liberal may be somewhat problematic since the "liberals" are the newespaper's main enemy. Maybe neo-conservative is better? The point is that they, as far as I can see support a strong economic liberalism and that they are conservative They may prefer conservative themselves, but that is also a bit misleading since most people probably would regard their moral stance as something related to an upsurge of new (quite opportunistic in my eyes) moralism and not traditional conservativism.

I would agree to a rephrasing of "neo-liberalism".

The sentences regarding the newspaper's and especially the web-site's extreme loyalty to Bush and hateful attacks on it's opponents is in my view very mildly put, and is a mere (under)statement of fact. Calling the french Cheese-eating surrender monkeys and every war opponent for unpatriotic and so on clearly demonstrates the tone of it's wholehearted Bush-support. I would like to see good arguments before this is changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pertn (talk • contribs) 10:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The NR was quoting the Simpson's when they used "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkies," an introduction to pop-culture from it's writers for many of the less-popularly-affiliated readers. Not to mention, dislike or criticism of France is not an invention of George W. Bush, considering also that Chirac and Bush have mended their divide in the past, it would actually show more evidence that the NR is NOT a "wholehearted Bush-supporting" magazine.  That being said, I disagree with the use of the phrase "neo-liberalism," because -- similar to "neoconservative" -- it carries a different popular meaning from its philosophic meaning. Mike Murray 15:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Howdy.

I don't think it's fair to use the term "neoconservative" as a label in any wikipedia articles yet. It's too controversial still, and I believe lacks coherant definition. A quick scan of the entry for "neoconservative" yields the statements "Relatively few of those identified as neoconservatives embrace the term," and "The term is frequently used pejoratively, both by self-described paleoconservatives, who oppose neoconservatism from the right, and by Democratic politicians opposing neoconservatives from the left. Recently, Democratic politicians have used the term to criticize the Republican policies and leaders of the current Bush administration." Indeed, I have never heard anyone describe themselves as a neocon or neoconservative. The word cannot be used without strong connotations of POV. The claim "most people" would regard National Review as being nontraditional and opportunistically moralizing cannot really be adequately supported.

Actually, I have far less problem with neo-liberal; it seems to have a more coherant definition, and is used in reference to particular positions. Neoconservative means entirely different things depending on whom it's being used by.

In regards to Bush, his supporters and his detractors, I think the article's current wording is unfair. Being the magazine that essentially launched Reagan's presidential campaign, of course NR is going to identify much more strongly with Republican politicians and the Republican party.

HOWEVER, in my reading of it, I have noticed increasing dismay with Pres. Bush. A quick search of the archives of The Corner yields many results of deep-seated criticism of Bush's policies and actions ( this shows up on the first page of results). If I do a little more research, I can show up with a lot more articles. Indeed, the current crop of ad banners hosted ar NRO includes a CATO institute report on Bush's governmental expansions. And just today, there was a big sigh of irritation with Bush's statement on the Guantanamo prison camp.

As for the Iraq war, William F. Buckley, Jr. himself opposes it, after having stated that he would not have been in favor had he not thought there were WMDs. True, National Review has stated as its editorial position that Iraq can still be won, but there are certainly no attacks against Buckley's patriotism.

The text I would like to see, apart from taking out the relevant section altogether: Many of the magazine's commentators are affiliated with conservative thinktanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, which often leads to shared viewpoints between the magazine and such organizations. Natioal Review has maintained a strong defence of the War in Iraq. It has often voiced its support of the current Bush administration in general and has been critical of its opponents, although there has been increasing opposition in recent years to several policies and expansion programs seen as "un-conservative." Korossyl 16:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's pretty safe to say that the National Review is a pro-Republican publication. When have they ever endorsed a Democrat for President?  Never.  Not even that hard-core anti-Communist JFK got the NR's endorsement.  76.105.3.220 11:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I basically read the web version from 9/11 until the "end" of the Iraq war and must say that my impression is one of much more war mongering (against Islam, arabs and unpatriotic soft hearted "liberals") than what you seem to have percieved. However, your proposed section is ok by me. Personally I'd change some details but just go ahead. Pertn 19:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and good luck to you in the future! Korossyl 04:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems that the publication's views on the war in Iraq change depending on whether it's been a good week or a bad week. When it's been a good week, bash the liberals.  When it's been a bad week, say that the war is being waged with kid gloves.  When it's been a really bad week, say that the occupation and/or invasion was a mistake.  A lot may depend on Buckley's mood.  76.105.3.220  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a libertarian pub
I removed the reference to being a libertarian pub. It most decidedly is not and regularly rejects and maligns libertarianism. Reason is a libertarian pub.4.232.228.62 00:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Libertarian and its various merits are frequentely discussed and the main editorial staff increasingly has embraced most of libertarianism. Bjsiders 01:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that Libertarianism is mentioned in the publication now and then doesn't make it a libertarian publication. It most definitely is not.  Buckley, who supposedly has libertarian sympathies, has harshly criticized libertarianism over the decades.  Buckley was a strong supporter of making the U.S. government stronger to win the Cold War. 76.105.3.220 10:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Boosterish?
Somehow this article sounds kind of boosterish and almost seems storylike. Just to take a few examples "To understand the impact National Review has had on politics and culture, it is important to understand that before National Review, the Conservative movement in the United States was almost non-existent" and "But, things were about to change in American politics. A young Ivy League graduate from Yale published a critique on his ala mater for its abandonment of its foundering principals." This is kind of like how the John Hart (baseball) is described in the Cleveland Indians article. In sports that's kind of common as teams more objectively go through dry-spells and then revivals, but somehow to describe a political movement that way seems a bit odd.--T. Anthony 12:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. It seems more of av fan-site than a encyclopedical article. I would suggest a thorough rewrite by someone more neutral.I am most familiar with the online version, so I will not be able to do it. But as it is now, it is worthless. Pertn 08:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Worthless is a bit harsher than I was going for, but yeah it needs a bit of work. I don't know it much either except for the online edition.--T. Anthony 06:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll work on re-writing it so that it's a little more objective in relaying the same information. Bjsiders 15:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's good! Maybe I was a little harsh. But I have a feeling that pages like this too often are accepted on wikipedia, because the ones who really know a lot about the newspaper, and who cares enough to write something, are the ones who like it. It's a challenge to be NPOV for them I guess... The article is only worthless to me in the sense that as long as I have this feeling, I don't really trust it. Anyway, thumbs up to Bjsiders. Pertn 19:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is actually true that National Review can be credited with breathing life into the conservative movement - but there should be citations for any such claims. I think you can probably add a fair few quotes to state that its supporters have claimed this, without the horrifically POV version given here.Oriana Naso (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

From Encyclopedic to Current issues
This entry seems to suffer from a lapse into current issues criticism with the following lines towards the bottom:

"The conservatives have now turned their back on the Taft and Rockefeller wings of the Republican Party completely, and have also abandoned conservative principles to become a Southern evangelical/radical party, best exemplified by George W. Bush. Hart and some others state that Bush is not a real conservative and is much closer in spirit to the populist William Jennings Bryan."

This is not about the National Review, but rather, a criticism of conservatism. If there were an Encyclopedia entry about the New York Times, should anybody include a criticism of modern American liberalism or the New Left in the entry? Of course not (if there is one, objectively, it should be removed). That this is a cohesive quote from a commentator writing a book about the history of the NR relative to conservatism does not warrant this paragraph... Let's say that I wrote a book about the NYT but deviated into partisan namecalling, does that mean that my comments regarding a particular political party should be included in the entry about the NYT? No, they should not.

The National Review may have been instrumental in the founding of American conservatism, but it does not mean that conservatism and the NR are synonymous and that criticisms of one necessarily apply to the other. Anybody who reads the NR regularly knows that the print version often deviates from the "neoconservative" opinion that may have dominated in the mid-to-late 1990s. The periodical is also not a campaign for George W. Bush... and to consider Bush a radical of the "conservative" mantra is vastly overstating and sensationalizing reality. There are very few, to no, "radical" American politicians on either ideological side. Further, the paragraph is full of semantic and idiomatic errors: it refers to conservatives as a party for one ("the conservatives ... have become a Southern evangelical/radical party" : which, even if conservatism was a party, it hasn't). This paragraph also simply contradicts the rest of the article, in that the entry tries to maintain that the National Review has shifted more towards a "neoconservative" point of view and also concludes that George W. Bush and NR-conservatives are no longer conservative if properly understood. If that is the case, then a paragraph deriding conservatism does not belong in here and muddles the message of the rest of the entry.

Anyhow, for these reasons, I am removing the above quoted portion from the entry. If anybody feels the need to make this entry uncyclopedic and detach it from what it is supposed to be about, feel free to put it back in, but also realize that you are diminishing the value of the entry and of WikiPedia when you do so. Mike Murray 15:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Now this reads,


 * This critical view sees a National Review that has now turned its back on the Taft and Rockefeller wings of the GOP, abandoning conservative principles to become a Southern evangelical/radical party, best exemplified by George W. Bush.


 * Which actually says that The National Review (...) has become a Southern evangelical/radical party, best exemplified by George W. Bush It has?  I could have sworn that the National Review was a bi-weekly magazine, not a political party.  Maybe I'm just crazy though!


 * I'm sorry but simply puting "this critical view," does not make this a comment about the National Review. I know that the editor would like to slam conservatism and the republican party, and by all accounts, who wouldn't given their recent track record -- but this is an entry about the National Review, not on one authors opinions of the GOP or Conservatism, who happens to also write about the NR.  So I guess this is the question:  Is this article about the National Review or is it about Conservatism and the Republican Party?  If it is about the National Review, then the lines have no bearing on the article.  If it is about Conservatism and the Republican Party, then they make perfect sense being in the article.  Editor, please tell me what the article is about.  I know that the title is "National Review," but I could be mistaken and I may be erroneously thinking that an entry titled "National Review," would actually be about the periodical "The National Review."  I won't remove the quote because obviously the interest in contradictorilly and incorrectly bashing conservatism and the GOP is more important than the integrity and authenticity of an article, however, I would like to know why it was added back in.  Is it because an entry entitled "The National Review" is not actually about the National Review, but about something else?
 * Thanks, Mike Murray 15:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

support of administration and iraq war
the article states: "The magazine's current editor is Rich Lowry. Many of the magazine's commentators are affiliated with think-tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute. This arrangement encourages these and other groups to share most political opinions with the magazine. National Review has maintained support for the current Iraq War and strongly supports the current Bush administration, and as a rule remains highly critical of its opponents."

while this is partially true, if one picks up the magazine, you're just as likely to see a scathing indictment of the administration's bumbling in iraq as you are to see an article in support of it, as it really varies from contributor to contributor. bur overall, i'd say the magazine leans towards a more literal, little-c conservative view that holds the war and the administrations tax-and-spend policies in low regard.

--Frijole 05:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Continuing from this, it doesn't make any sense to put in the bit about the Iraq War, the Bush Administration, and critiques of its opponents, with the section on the current editor, and so on. Most pressingly, it is simply not true: anybody who has read the NR over the last two years has noticed a very stable departure from the Bush Administration and an especially prescient critique of the Administration's Iraq policy. This is only reflected partially in the NRO, and I would imagine that the editor who wrote that originally probably based it off of articles from the NRO, not from the NR -- and as the Wiki suggests in the first paragraph summary, the NRO has become a different beast altogether.

Anyway, I removed the line. It has no place in that paragraph and it is simply not true.

Mike Murray 15:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism & Opposing views
I am going to be bold and removed the Criticism sections and the Opposing views sections. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic entry on a magazine, National Review. This is not an article on a controversial idea or argument where both sides need to be presented. There are not two sides to a magazine. None of the other entries in American political magazines (Mother Jones, Harper's, The Weekly Standard, Reason, The Progressive, or The New Republic) have Criticism or Opposing views sections.

The article should describe, in a NPOV way, the generalities of the magazine, the history of the magazine, any major influence the magazine has had and information on the current staff. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to attack or criticize a particular magazine. &mdash; Linnwood (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think your edit enhanced the article.  — Athænara   ✉  04:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have again removed these sections. I can not do anything but restate what I did above back in February. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic entry on a magazine, National Review. This is not an article on a controversial idea or argument where both sides need to be presented. There are not two sides to a magazine. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

To the extent that a magazine generates controversy, there are two sides. Yakuman (数え役満) 22:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The magazine does not generate controvery. More so you are readding are things attacking said magaine. They have their place, but wikipedia is not it. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the criticism paragraphs should be restored, with some recast as simply "history" and where that's not appropriate, they should be included as well as responses to them from supporters of National Review. A search through the archives of "The Corner" at National Review Online would probably come up with a lot, but a Google search probably would as well. Steven, I really don't think you're doing the readers or National Review a favor by removing material that would be of use and interest to someone trying to find out more about National Review. As such an iconic institution of the Conservative movement, when NR takes an editorial position that is not part of the mainstream movement, that's worth noting (the same way as the Richard Brookhiser article discusses his stand on marijuana use). Another point: National Review exists to provide insight into controversies and as such it will inevitably become controversial itself. For a political magazine to be controversial is a sign of strength (unless that controversy is a scandal). Balancing criticism with defense is generally the better option. And as a decades-long subscriber to my favorite magazine, I can tell you that I certainly want to know what its critics are saying about it.Noroton 22:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Working various things in to the history section IS appropriate. A simple "List of people who think this magazine if full of shit" is not appropriate. Any cirtisims should be used in the article, not just listed as Criticism & Opposing views &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

All sorts of groups have criticism sections. See, for example, Microsoft and Amnesty International. Nothing wrong with it here. Yakuman (数え役満) 00:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all sorts of groups ... Like Mirosoft and Amnesty International. The NR isn't anything like either of those two. Mike Murray 15:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Protected
Don't edit war people... ed g2s • talk 00:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Then restore that material that one user is making an edit war about. Lift protection. Yakuman (数え役満) 01:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yakuman, you are the one making this an edit war... &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Both of you need to stop pointing fingers, reverting, and making accusations of vandalism. No on here is a vandal, and if you spent some time actually discussing the issue, rather than getting involved in petty arguments, you might actually make some progress. ed g2s &bull; talk 01:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not pointing fingers. I removed POV lists from the article two months ago. Yakuman comes along and starts calling my edits "malicious" while reverting back the POV material. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You are upset with me about another issue, ed_g2s, so I will leave it alone for now. Yakuman (数え役満) 01:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

So far there are three people for removing the sections, and two against which make this far from a clear cut issue either way. I protected the version the page that was up when I noticed the edit warring. There is no "right version" when protecting a page. I don't know who is right, and I have no opinion to add to the debate. I will say that labelling those who disagree with you as "vandals" completely ignores WP:AGF, and is counter-productive. Do not make any more edits in relation to this matter until a consensus has been reached, or the page will have to be protected again, which is bad news for everyone. ed g2s • talk 19:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * When a person creates a mass-delete of material without consensus, that can be considered vandalism. You said on your talk page that you know nothing of this issue, nor do you feel you need to. Yakuman (数え役満) 19:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Vandalism is not ... Making bold edits ... Stubbornness: Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else." - so even if his edits were universally opposed, which they are not, it wouldn't be vandalism as he clearly believes that what he is doing is the right thing for the article. ed g2s &bull; talk 20:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a wp:bold edit. Not in the slightest. This issue has been around a while and he had no consensus to make a drastic edit. Again, you said on your talk page that you know nothing of this issue, nor do you feel you need to. Yakuman (数え役満) 20:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That doesn't matter - he thinks he is right, therefore it is not vandalism. Vandals deliberately sabotage pages. ed g2s &bull; talk 20:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Blatant vandals can think they are right. They may be offended by something and decide to just blank it, for example. Again, you said on your talk page that you know nothing of this issue, nor do you feel you need to. Yakuman (数え役満) 20:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided" - several users have agreed with the edit in a lengthy and sensible manner. No one has given a frivolous explanation for the removal of the content (i.e. "this offends me"). It is quite clear the user is acting in good faith. "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.".. ed g2s &bull; talk 20:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I continue to trust Wikipedia articles?
This article contains the following unfunny entry: "Jonah Goldberg, NRO editor-at-large. Son of Lyndon B. Johnson." Could someone find the "user" that did this and have him shot? Thank you. David Turson 11:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be this known vandal, who unfortunately uses several different dynamic IPs. You're welcome to try to look for him or her, but that will necessitate a visit to Phnom Penh. In the future, you can fix it by reverting vandalism. Natalie 11:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You can continue to trust Wikipedia articles. Most vandalism is fixed quickly.  The more important the article, the more eyes are on it to catch vandals.  Even the Encyclopedia Britannica has errors.  Wikipedia: anarchy at work.  76.105.3.220 10:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Named after the British Magazine?
Just curious. WFB is a big anglophile, as is the current staff, so it would make sense if it was named after the Victorian era British conservative magazine. Deserves investigation if anyone can find out.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Buckley's Notes and Asides Department
I added an External Link with the following subject matter; Man of Letters by Andrew Ferguson (Wall Street Journal) is a rather nice reminiscence of William F Buckley's Notes and Asides department (a "best of" collection of which was recently gathered between hard covers in "Cancel Your Own Goddam Subscription"). Asteriks (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mr Buckley is now deceased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

After Goldwater: Embracing Neoconservatism?
The "After Goldwater" section reads:

"During the 1970s, NR began to embrace the rising neoconservative movement -- former liberal intellectuals revolting against the New Left counterculture. Many believe that this mindset slowly replaced the magazine's original world view by the end of the Reagan era. Buckley himself began turning to other interests (such as a series of spy novels) and would retire as full-time editor in 1990."

The alleged "embracing" of neoconservatism is unverified and uncited. Simply because they might have allowed neoconservatives to contribute does not constitute the publication's embracing of the philosophy. The section goes on to say, "Many believe..." - a statement which is certainly unveriafiable and borders on weasel word status. The note about Buckley's spy novels and retirement as full-time editor gives the impression that his contribution to the magazine greatly diminished, which certainly is not the case. Furthermore, the following part of the "After Goldwater" section reverts to the magazine's positions of the 1980s, which can hardly be classified as neoconservatism (the magazine's opposition to the welfare state, support for supply side economics, etc.) Therefore, I am removing this portion.--NebraskaDawg (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism
The criticism section was completely unverifiable. The Hart quote has no online reference, and the book summary from the publisher directly contradicts the contributor's summation (see Amazon: "As Hart sees it, National Review has regularly veered toward ideology, but it has also regularly corrected its course toward, in Buckley’s phrase, a 'politics of reality.'"). The Bozell quote link is dead. And the opening quote took Bramwell's description of the ONLINE version of National Review as 'the world’s most prolific organ of neoconservative opinion' out of context, claiming it was criticism of the magazine itself as now being entirely neoconservative, then conflated a bunch of unsourced comments about NR 'no longer being conservative' and 'advancing a liberal agenda'. It was very sloppy. There is certainly valid criticism, but it should be correctly sourced and given context.10:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fight the bias (talk • contribs)

Whitewashing
The National Review is noted for its history in defending such luminaries as Mussolini, Eichmann, Franco, Pinochet, Ferdinand Marcos, and Ian Smith. I'm sure the editors would prefer this wasn't such a consistent part of the magazine's history, but it is regardless. Why pretend otherwise? Are we really that concerned about appearing biased by presenting important facts? 98.192.175.221 (talk) 07:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's rather like saying the NYT is known for defending Hitler and Stalin (it published stories praising both at times). FellGleaming (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing citations? Original research?

 * 1) It is missing citations or footnotes. Please help improve it by adding inline citations. Tagged since October 2009.
 * 2) It may contain original research or unverifiable claims.

Those are the two complaints in the template.

This article has 27 inline citations. Some of them are primary sources, but most are not. Therefore, the article is not missing citations at the present time.

If there is original research or unverifiable claims at the present time, particular statements in the article should be mentioned here on the talk page. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the statements marked "citation needed" was already sourced. I removed the inline tag, and also support removing the original-research issue page header (the primary source issue tag should probably stay for now) FellGleaming (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. While there are primary sources among the inline citations, there are also good secondary sources, too. What would be needed in secondary sources to remove that tag, too? (WP:NPOV) --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking at it again I withdraw my objection. The source's aren't ideal, but I don't believe its enough to throw up a red flag over. FellGleaming (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation
I have removed a section of text copied from. The paragraph remaining in the National Review Institute section is rather a close paraphrase of this. I leave it up to the regular editors here to decide if this should also be removed. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Biweekly or Bimonthly?
Hi. I just checked the subscription page for the National Review (Im interested in subscribing) and the offer there is: "24 issues (a full year!) for only $29.50." If this is true, wouldn't this make the magazine bi-monthly (24 issues divided by twelve months) and not bi-weekly? Just wondering. Thanks.123.225.199.96 (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Biweekly means every two weeks. Bimonthly means every two months. Semimonthly means every half a month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.183.10 (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Endorsing Romney
I was unable to find a citation for the NR endorsing romney during the primary (as this article states). I was able to find the NR's endorsement for him in November of 2012 but not earlier: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/332484/mitt-romney-president-editors/page/0/1

DouglasCalvert (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the 2012 endorsement of Mitt Romney. I am a National Review subscriber, and the magazine did not officially endorse anyone during the primaries. It did, however, make an "anti-endorsement" of Newt Gingrich by recommending that Republicans not nominate him. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

How racist is the NR?
The following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK4IKzToq5A&feature=g-user-u collects the account of former racist NR writers, and exposes the institutionalized racism (hiring all white staff, and putting one black guy in the mail room for laughs).

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.152.158 (talk) 03:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The video completely focused on select comments by one former writer, John Derbyshire, not the magazine as a whole. And I wouldn't consider TheYoungTurks, a liberal YouTube channel, to be a neutral source of encyclopedia-worthy information to begin with. They clearly have an agenda, as likely does the IP above who posted the link. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the National Review was racist when it was founded, William F. Buckley, Jr. said so. In those days, many respected people were openly racist. Today, racism has become so unacceptable that racists usually adopt code words: "those people" or "politically incorrect", though occasionally they slip up and say what they really think, e.g. one candidate for the Republican nomination for preseident suggesting that black high-school students should be required to clean the restrooms. So, it may be that the National Review is still racist, but we would need the testimony of more than one person to include that in the article. On the other hand, if there is credible testimony, then the fact that the people giving that testimony have an anti-racist "agenda" should not disqualify them. William F. Buckley, Jr.'s son recently resigned from National Review. What reasons did he give? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

To answer User talk:Rick Norwood's question, William F. Buckley, Jr.'s son (Christopher Buckley) resigned after he published an article in The Daily Beast entitled "Sorry Dad, I'm Voting for Obama." In the article, he gave then-Senator Obama his endorsement for the presidency. Apparently, after many readers and contributors to the National Review voiced their displeasure, Christopher Buckley offered to resign from the NR--an offer which was accepted. This is according to sources from the Christopher Buckley wiki page.


 * Thank you for the information. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's a WP:RS article about NR's relationship to Naziism, fascism and anti-Semitism. https://newrepublic.com/article/122413/national-reviews-bad-conscience National Review's Bad Conscience; Why the magazine is quick to accuse liberals of fascism and Nazism By Jeet Heer, New Republic, July 29, 2015.
 * Apparently there was once a Criticism section here which was repeatedly deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Review/Archive_1#Criticism_.26_Opposing_views WP:NPOV requires criticism and opposing views. So it should be restored. --Nbauman (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

A whole section replete with dead link footnotes
Every footnote in the section National_Review has a URL that either is a "404" [not found], or gives a "no such domain name in the DNS" error, or otherwise does not work right.

There are eight of them ... "[24]" through "[31]".

Any comments? (before I overhaul all of [the URLs in] those footnotes?) --Mike Schwartz (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Review. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050922232245/http://corner.nationalreview.com/ to http://corner.nationalreview.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Review. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080308122414/http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/Goldwater--the-John-Birch-Society--and-Me-11248 to http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/Goldwater--the-John-Birch-Society--and-Me-11248

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

NR and "birther" conspiracy theories
I have deleted a section claiming that "The National Review has been widely attributed as the source that brought widespread attention to the false conspiracy theory that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States." The claim is not sourced, and the supporting evidence is weak. In 2009, National Review's editorial board published an editorial headlined "Born in the U.S.A." that decried "birther" conspiracy theories.

From the editorial: "[The conspiracy] has attracted enough interest that it needs to be addressed. The fundamental fiction is that Obama has refused to release his “real” birth certificate. This is untrue. The document that Obama has made available is the document that Hawaiian authorities issue when they are asked for a birth certificate. There is no secondary document cloaked in darkness, only the state records that are used to generate birth certificates when they are requested. . . . Like Bruce Springsteen, [Obama] has a lot of bad political ideas; but he was born in the U.S.A."

No credible sources appear to support the claim that National Review "has been widely attributed" as the source of the birther conspiracy, and a look at National Review's institutional commentary from that period shows the claim to be incorrect. I am deleting the section accordingly.
 * The language has been tweaked to reflect what the sources say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The language has been further tweaked to quote the sources in question, add clarification as to National Review's editorial stance on Barack Obama's citizenship (they criticized the birther conspiracies in no uncertain terms), and remove a section of irrelevant text about Barack Obama's parents' political views. The section as written was misleading and a possible violation of WP:NPOV; now it is more balanced. 2602:304:AB21:A6B9:5595:DB7B:E2FC:2CE6 (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Dinesh D'Souza
Why are statements independently made by Dinesh D'Souza on social media, that have nothing to do with the magazine, included here? I understand that D'Souza is on the masthead of the magazine (listed as a "contributor" -- not an editor) but he has not written for NR in several years and the comments were not made on any platform affiliated with National Reivew. A reference to a book written by NR contributing editor Andrew C. McCarthy was removed for being insufficiently related to National Review; D'Souza seems to have even less of a connection to NR than McCarthy. A section concerning his presence on the masthead might make sense if sources have discussed it, but the comments are not worthy of inclusion. 2602:304:AB21:A6B9:5595:DB7B:E2FC:2CE6 (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * When ostensibly reputable and mainstream figures and organizations associate with fringe figures and radicals, it is generally notable. The RS reporting substantiates that it is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Added section on Donald Trump, moved Obama and climate change controversies to their own section
Hi all, I beefed up the section on the magazine's current political views with a section on Donald Trump, noting the magazine's editorial stance on Trump and incorporating some RS coverage of the split opinion on Trump among NR editors and writers. Also, I created a new "Controversies" section and moved the Obama conspiracy theory and climate change controversies to that section, as these don't describe the magazine's political views but rather fringe/marginal beliefs that RS have associated with the magazine. 38.142.141.218 (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)