Talk:Pat Buchanan/Archive 3

NPOV Needed on Women
I've read Right from the Beginning and I find Buchanan to be anti-Feminist, but at the same time I feel strongly that the quote is misrepresented: Buchanan expresses that those things saved women time enough to liberate them from the world they had and did more to bring women out of the house than the feminist movement. Yes, if you only include the quote, it looks bad, but its horribly out of context. Please do not remove the tag until this is discussed, as this quote bounces around and is simply an unfair and inaccurate representation. It can definitely be alledged he is sexist, but to do this, proper sources should be used.J. M. 13:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That has been taken out of context to make him look misogynistic. 09:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Foreign policy part should be moved to the global affairs article
The parts under "Israel and accusations of anti-Semitism" that deal with foreign policy of other Middle Eastern countries should be moved to the article about his views on global affairs, and simply link to that page.Shield2 00:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

1992 Campaign
I think the sentence referring to Molly Ivins' quote, under the 1992 Campaign, can be eliminated. I've now listened to the speech three times and haven't found a single referrence to anything that reasonable people would call Nazi-like. There's plenty for people of different political affiliations to disagree with, but I think Ivin's quote is categorically unfounded and out of place in what ought to be a biography of a living person (Unless the point, here, was merely to emphasize Ms. Ivins' inherent dislike for Germans.).Bobert432 (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Too big
This article is WAY too big. It is the only article that exceeds 100k. Somebody please try to shorten this article down by at least half. Plus, it mostly contains his views on certain topics, which warrant their own article, which would dramatically decrease size. Somebody please consider this. Dylanlip 18:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just added the bars for an article that is too long. Anyone suggest putting it up for cleanup? Dylanlip 18:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please add his "white supremacy" views? Thanks. �Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.60.136 (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow... so, the article needs to be shortened by more than half, and you wish to add even more to it???!!! Please add the info when the article is shortened, and plus, all topics he talked about shouldn't be put up. If someone put everything larry King talked about, the page would be over 150k large, but we need to suppress info. We can't have an article to be too large. We should seriously begin creating sub-articles for Pat Buchanan and then create a category to hold the sub-articles. If this plan works, we can cut about 50-60% of the info on this page. If not, we need to do an old fashioned shortening. Dylanlip 15:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

FEC records about his holdings are trivial and irrelevant. they look like a political stunt. even michael moore has investments in halliburton. i'm removing them. -- 128.128.98.46 (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

'National Conversation on Race'
The NCOR section was filled with original research written from a POV, seemingly anti-Buchanan perspective. The section itself was non-notable since the columns in question were written in response to an Obama campaign speech, and, to my knowledge, Buchanan's arguments did not generate major media coverage. Unless someone can establish notability for this section I think it should be removed. Algabal (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I thought it was simply some quotes published by Buchanan with some information from verifiable sources that provided different facts from Mr. Buchanan's. Seems like publishing Mr. Buchanan's material without discussing the hard data behind it (or counter to it) constitutes POV. Is notability strictly confined to "major media coverage"? If so, it logically follows that all references to information obtained from non-major media sources needs to be deleted, and a list of acceptable "major media outlets" needs to be published. 69.116.242.16 (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing Tags
Its been a while and I don't see a need for them. I worked a lot on the article and don't think its POV. If it is POV change it but do not leave the tags indefinitely.

GordonUS (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

College Education
The article states he graduated from Georgetown in 1961 and then obtained a master's degree in journalism from Columbia in 1962. How could he have gotten a masters degree in one year? Is this correct?


 * Completing a professional master's degree in a calendar year is not uncommon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.31.41.67 (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Columbia J School masters is and was a one-year program. So are most journalism masters degrees.68.174.146.237 (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Buchanan Diversity Definition
Pat Buchanan is making the rounds plugging a book he wrote. I've heard him on CSPAN at least twice now. He has claimed that diversity will destroy America. He says "diversity" is people who have nothing in common and do not even share a common language. I understand this is not correct denotation of the word "diversity" under any previously known use of the word. Under Buchanan diversity, he says America will "Balkanize". He cited the movie "Crash" as evidence. Ace Frahm (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Has the book he's pushing been added to the article? I don't know what the title is.
 * Is this re-definition of "Diversity" unique to Buchanan or has anyone observed it elsewhere?
 * Is Buchanan "diversity" a new example of "framing the debate" or is he just struggling to give a label to "nothing at all in common"?
 * Is there some other word which better describes the state of "having nothing in common at all, not even language? (other than D-I-V-O-R-C-I-T-Y) :-) Ace Frahm (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it time to add Buchanan diversity to the article, or do we need to wait to hear him say it some more?
 * I'm not 100% sure what you are saying about diversity, but my understanding is that he is talking about diversity of cultures and/or ethnicity and/or religion. He believes that having multiple ethnicities in a country causes problems such as we see causing wars in other countries around the world. JettaMann (talk) 01:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The 1996 Primary Election Map
The map is in error; it shows Steve Forbes having carried New Mexico, but Steve Forbes carried Arizona (and presumably not New Mexico, although I can't say for sure what happened in New Mexico; in any event, Dole did NOT carry Arizona, as is presently shown on the map). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-war, anti-interventionist
The article seems to me to be lacking in exploration of perhaps the most important of Buchanan's views, i.e., there is no discussion of the history of Buchanan's opinion on U.S. involvement in the various wars that have taken place from Korea to the present day. His war views have evolved and this is perhaps one of the most interesting topics one could read about, given the unusual combination of his strong conservatism and his current anti-war stances on just about every conflict(cf: A Republic, Not an Empire), one of his main themes. OTOH there is a boatload of text on smears alleging anti-Semitism and replies to such. It seems like the weight should be reversed here. Presently the article seems POV against Buchanan. Another error is the statement that "Buchanan denies gun ownership and violence are linked." I would like some citation here. From what I've read I suspect that Buchanan would assert a link - that private gun ownership reduces crime. PhilLiberty (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think most know Pat Buchanan for that. While it is true that he believes in those things, it should also be known that Pat Buchanan's image is one that is tied to being culturally conservative. I think some of his supporters lately have been making the Ron Paul rounds to clean his image up. There should be some mention in a sub section of Pat Buchanan's political positions. --Spikeleefan (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

People who are informed are well aware of Pat Buchanan's opposition to military interventionism, since it is what he has been primarily associated with since he first came out in opposition to the Gulf War in the autumn or late summer of 1990. He mentions his opposition to the present war in Iraq in nearly every article every he writes, and often several times per day during his regular appearances on MS-NBC (as well as during all of his weekly appearances on PBS's The McLaughlin Group). Foreign policy, and the anti-interventionist thrust he thinks ours should take, has been his signature issue for nearly two decades. I suppose some people made up their minds about Pat Buchanan in 1985, and then never bothered to listen to anything he ever had to say afterward, but to suggest that Pat Buchanan is primarily associated with the articulation of conservative positions on social issues is ludicrous. That's a liberal stereotype that is twenty years out of date, not an intellectually serious assessment of Mr. Buchanan's public career, and the socio-political significance thereof.KevinOKeeffe (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Malta
So is he a member of the knights of Malta or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.47.45.53 (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Paleoconservatism
An editor keeps removing the term "paleoconservative" from this an other articles. In one case he said, "Paleoconservative is not a term used for any reason other than as an insult." I'm not aware that the term is only used as an insult. There are sources for the use, especially in regard to this subject. Are there any sources that either contest that characterization, of call it an insult?  Will Beback   talk    04:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the term "paleoconservative" again. It was used 7 times in reference to many organizations and publications he is referenced to being associated with. Is this necessary for clarification? Or is just used as an insult? You (Will Beback) restored a reference to Chronicles magazine as "paleoconservative", even though the text to the book cited is available on google books and can be searched and can be demonstrated as false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.221.36 (talk • contribs)


 * It may not be necessary 7 times, but it is a common characterization of the subject and it should be included prominently as needed. For example, here are links to paleoconservative sites that mention the subject. One sites says "The most prominent paleoconservative is Pat Buchanan. The two leading paleoconservative publications are Chronicles and The American Conservative, which Buchanan helped to create." As for reliable sources, a quick check of Google books finds these cites: . This is a good, clear citatoin: "Over the past decade, immigration has emerged as a key concern in the writings of all major paleoconservatives, especially Buchanan, ..." Please register and sign your talk page postings.    Will Beback    talk    17:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

split article(s)
I would do a political positions of Pat Buchanan and maybe political career of Pat Buchanan or professional career of Pat Buchanan. Just some food for thought.--Levineps (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust Denial
I removed the section on Holocaust Denial. This section was clearly put in as a smear. The Holocaust "forum" the section was referring to was an online forum on Buchanan's website. It seems as if Buchanan and the webmaster put in a forum function without any oversight. The forum capacity on Buchanan's website has since been disabled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.84.128 (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"gun control" text in Abortion and Euthanasia section
I'm not sure of the wiki-lingo, but I see something wrong with the text "While certain there is no correlation between a lack of gun control and violence in society, he says this is very much so for the legal availability of abortions, comparing legalization to the downfall of Weimar Germany." Mainly the beginning of the sentence: "While certain there is no correlation between a lack of gun control and violence in society". He may or may not be certain of that, but it seems completely off-topic in this section. It reads like someone's opinion and it seems like it isn't NPOV. I think the first part of the sentence should be removed so it only states the information about his position on abortion. --AnalogWeapon (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Is/was Buchanan CIA?
OK, this gets a bit into conspiracy stuff, but it's not completely wild... Braden, with whom Buchanan presented Crossfire, was in the CIA, and was part of Operation Mockingbird which was an operation to influence the media, which was made public by the Church committee. Timothy Leary is supposed to have made an accusation about this:

"That’s the left wing of the CIA debating the right wing of the CIA."


 * Discussing CNN’s Crossfire as quoted in Rolling Stone (14 December 1989)

So that appears to me to be someone notable alleging that Buchanan is/was CIA. That's about all I've found of any note though. Searching google just turns up sites which would probably not be considered suitable for wikipedia to reference. So at this stage what I'm asking is does anyone know anything about this topic, especially if you know of any reputable sources, as it does seem to be quite an interesting idea and could be appropriate for the article if anyone can find a decent source on the discussion. Marty funkhouser (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt it. The government does spend quite a bit of money to influence public opinion (see Chomsky).  Buchanan typically takes positions that haven't been in favor since at least the Reagan Administration.  The CIA would gain nothing by Buchanan damning AIPAC.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.197.143 (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Needed on Trade and Economic Nationalism
PB has for decades supported vigorous protection of the American market for American products of all sorts.

How can a biography of the man say not one word about that topic, one of the few on which he is most vociferous and one that is highly topical, given that we are forever seeing debates between free traders (mostly GOP and conservative) and fair traders (mostly Dem and liberal to further left)?

Gaius sempronius gracchus 13:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

See Political views of Pat Buchanan on global affairs, a spin-off article. Yakuman (数え役満) 05:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be included in the article. What sets him apart from mainstream conservatism more prominently than most issues is his staunchly protectionist, pro-labor, high tariff beliefs. It's an oversight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.114.77.6 (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist?
I've read a number of books by him, including a few of his articles (though hardly all of them). Why is he labeled as a conspiracy theorist? Buchanan makes contentious claims, but they're claims that can be supported and have been supported by a number of academics. If it's because he claims AIPAC largely caused the Iraq War, then by that standard, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are also conspiracy theorists. He is obviously an anti-globalist, though he doesn't talk about the Trilateral Commission or the Bilderberg group (and they do exist, as far as I know, but no one seems to ever access their agenda for their meetings). And there have been a number of opportunities for him to introduce a conspiracy theory for the world wars, but he never did anything of such; World War II was caused by a dumb treaty, and American intervention in World War I was caused by an administration that wanted to intervene and carried on a new trend that began with the McKinley Administration. That's not a conspiracy theory. His reasoning for the Wilson Administration wanting to enter the war was because of an Anglo affinity with the British. I don't think that was the primary reason, though that is the primary reason according to Buchanan. But a more contentious claim is bankers wanted to protect their investment in lending money to the Triple Entente, and that is likely the primary reason (at least on a rational basis) for why the U.S. entered the war. So to label him a conspiracy theorist is absurd on the surface, particularly with the connotation of what a conspiracy theorist tends to believe. That's why I edited out that category. Signed Imp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.197.143 (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the action taken here. I am not aware of any rational basis by which Buchanan ought to be described as a "conspiracy theorist".  Additionally, that term has taken on a distinctly perjorative connotation in American society, hence there is a very real question whether it is appropriate for such a relatively unfounded, derogatory designation to be included in a biographical article of a living person, as per the WP:Bio guidelines. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I also agree but is he "extreme" or "fringe"? This goes to the question of whether his books can be cited as sources for Wikipedia history articles.  I've asked this question over at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.Bdell555 (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * AIPAC or not, the evidence is clear that Buchanan is a conspiracy theorist. He devoted entire chapters of his books "State of Emergency" and "Death of the West" to promoting debunked "reconquista" and "Eurabia" theories. Claiming that the Mexicans are secretly plotting to retake the American Southwest because of a hundred-year-old grudge is nothing if not a conspiracy theory (OK, it's bigoted too, but it's still a conspiracy theory). Stonemason89 (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Further evidence: he has been featured as a guest on the Alex Jones show. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And, he has promoted North American Union conspiracy theories as well: ; in a addition to being a New World Order-er . Note how in the first link ("U.S. Borders: Going-Going-Gone") he cites author Jerome Corsi, who is primarily known as a conspiracy theorist himself. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Google censorship
His name has been blocked from the auto fill feature on Google's search. Crusty wallace (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unflattering photo of Pat
Thank you for intentionally putting a very unflattering photo of Pat on his main article, Kudos, though I do have some regret that you couldn't find a worse picture of him. Machn (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Health issues
If memory serves, Pat Buchanan underwent bypass surgery, either around the time of the 1992 election or 1996 election, with an extended convalescence, which influenced his ability to campaign. There's no mention of it in the article.&mdash;QuicksilverT @ 20:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Article about Buchanan and Baltic
Pat Buchanan has made some valid points about Balkan war in 1999 that is really worth mentioning http://issues2000.org/Celeb/Pat_Buchanan_War_+_Peace.htm#Balkans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.74.116 (talk) 06:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You need to brush up on your geography, 97.123.74.116. The "Baltic" and the "Balkans" are a thousand miles apart.&mdash;QuicksilverT @ 20:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No children?
He has two children. A son William Baldwin and a daughter Catherine Elizabeth. Buchanan is anti-abortion, quite possibly anti-contraceptives with his staunch Catholic adherence, and in Death of the West, he cited declined birthrates among white Americans and Europeans as one of the reasons the West is dying. He's been married from 37 years, yet has no children. This makes me wonder if he is either a hypocrite or if he and/or his wife were unable to conceive. I'm neither pro or anit-Buchanan, I just find it interesting that he has no children. Has he ever elaborated on this? -24.149.203.34 (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not think his wife is capable of having children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.237.249 (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Some people support the Second Amendment, although they do not own guns themselves.68.174.146.237 (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

And some people get married and oppose LGBT rights, even though they solicit men for sex in airport restrooms--DCX (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And some want to have children but can´t have them... This discussion is unrelated with content of this article. --Dezidor (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Reform Party accuracy
Not that anyone really cares, but my recollection of how things went with the Reform Party convention is that it was Buchanan's side who pre-emptively invalidated the results of the popular vote, calling it "tainted" by outside agitators. This was because the Reform Party nomination was conducted via mail-in and anyone could participate. In fact, I had started an internet campaign at one point to try to drum up liberal/moderate support for John Hagelin, by emailing every liberal organizations with large membership lists that I could find, asking them to ask their members to mail in a vote for Hagelin in order to keep Buchanan from having access to $16 million in matching funds. Ironically, if outside agitators (in this case me, and anyone who mailed in a ballot because of my email campaign) had any effect on the mail-in vote, it was to make sure that Buchanan was nominated, one presumes so that his presence on the ballot could siphon off conservative votes during the general election. The official reason for the split of the convention given by the Perot faction was because Buchanan had basically taken over the proceedings via his control of the chairman of the party, who disallowed a number of procedural actions by the Perot faction that were raised using Robert's Rules of Order by simply dismissing them as "unnecessarily sophisticated" or words to that effect. Further, Buchanan had personally rented the room that the convention was to be held in, and his security people, at one point, chained the doors shut so that that the ultimate procedural action -leaving the room before a vote could be taken to seat new members so that there wouldn't be a quorum present in order to legally hold the vote- wasn't possible. This led to the famous moment when the press heard pounding on the doors and shouts of "let us out!" from inside the room, and filmed a noisy exit of virtually all the Perot faction who later reconvened in a different room to hold the "real" convention. Obviously, this is far too long a passage to be included in the wiki article, and it is based on my own first hand knowledge of my own actions, plus what I was getting via telephone updates from various Reform Party members and Natural Law Party members who were actually present at the convention, plus what I saw on TV, and therefore is "original research." But I just thought I'd set the record straight, at least here. Sparaig2 (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The Rachel Maddow Show?
"Buchanan is now a frequent guest and co-host of Morning Joe as well as Hardball and The Rachel Maddow Show." I know that they used to be on at least apparently friendly terms and she called him "my fake-uncle Pat" on the air, but has Buchanan appeared on TRMS since their set-to about the Sotomayor nomination in 2009? 72.201.235.59 (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC) I must have gotten logged out while typing that. Sorry. Cactus Wren (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that Buchanan's appearances on MSNBC in general have become few and far between. I actually came to this article wondering if there was an explanation behind it (beyond simply the general drift of the network).  If I find a source to confirm my own observations, I'll return and edit. Wickedjacob (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Needs to be linked to opposes LGBT rights
This article needs to be linked to groups who oppose LGBT rights, such as Maggie Gallagher, Jesse Helms and The Westboro Baptists.--DCX (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How so? Is there a connection between Buchanan and these others?    Will Beback    talk    05:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Their opposition to LGBT rights? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RockyDhunes (talk • contribs) 05:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The word 'racist' only appears once in the entire article.
Pat Buchanan has a quite illustrious life and I can see how this can be easily forgotten, but isn't he famed for being kind of a white supremacist? Hell, I'm quite sure any negative review of his work will mention his arguable prejudice; I'm surprised allegations of antisemitism and holocaust denial are famous enough to be featured in his article but not his not-so veiled racist remarks and associations with racist groups. This isn't just a personal opinion, it's an opinion that has been echoed by more then a few people, and widely criticized. --66.233.55.145 (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Pat is *not* a racist, even though the lefties would like to slander him that way to diminish the value of his thoughtful and documented viewpoints. Pat is *not* a white supremecist.  At best he might be, but that is unproven, a white *separatist*.  Pat speaks the truth about the USA and what is happening and that drives the liberals crazy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.65.95 (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * First, I think I have to point the users to WP:NOTAFORUM to hopefully keep this discussion from getting too far out of hand. I will comment that if you have an actual reliable source that states what you propose, you are welcome to try to put it in the article. Be Bold. That said, however, even as someone on the left on many issues, I really don't believe he is "famed for being kind of a white supremacist" as the OP stated. Need more than just your opinion of him. If it is so widely criticized, there should be sources for it. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

ali G
He's very well known for having an excellent BLT/WMD interview with Ali G. He even talks on his site about it. Let's shoehorn it into pop culture. TCO (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

"Buchanan married White House staffer Shelley Ann Scarney in 1971.[7] They have no issue."

What the heck does "They have no issue" decipher into? No bodily fluids oozing out?

And the post above; does the acronym BLT stand for bacon, lettuce and tomato? That's a good sanwich but logic hints that is not what the acronym stands for here. Or does it? 69.152.70.166 (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.70.166 (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, BLT did in fact stand for bacon, lettuce, and tomato. Ali G was trying to confuse Pat Buchanan by substituting "BLT" for "WMD" (weapons of mass destruction) during their discussion.  05:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.244.122 (talk)

"paleoconservative?" as pejorative
I don't think this term is useful. It's definitely a pejorative term, associates negative connotations with those labeled as such (like their political ideology is stone-age, outdated or dinosaur-like) and was created by those who don't subscribe to the said political mindset. It's as if Bill Clinton's executive summary described him as a "bleeding-heart communist." Just because the term exists doesn't mean it's appropriate or correct to label people as such when the point is surely to detract. 210.20.86.85 04:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What editors think isn't relevant. -- 96.247.231.243 (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Paleoconservatism was a term created in the 1980s by Paul Gottfried, who is pro-Buchanan. It refers to conservatives who oppose neoconservatism and support certain ideals. WP has two big long articles on the movement. Yakuman (数え役満) 05:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The important factor is whether a reliable source has referred to Senator Buchanan with this term. If this is the case, the fact should be mentioned. But the article should not endorse the description. Itsmejudith 09:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Senator Buchanan"? When was he elected to office? Anyway, dozens of reliable sources have called him "paleoconservative". The Economist called him "Paleocon Pat".. -Will Beback · † · 21:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think Pat has ever called himself a Paleoconservative, but he has never shied away from the views, and admits great influence from many self described paleoconservatives like Sam Francis. I seriously doubt he would mind being described as such.


 * I've removed this, at least in the section I found it ("his views generally agree with the paleoconservative blah blah") the reference didn't mention "paleoconservative" and reeked of original research and anti-buchanananism. CarlosRodriguez 20:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought I had seen him referred to as "senator", anyway I'm not all that interested in US politics. I can't remember how I found my way to this article, maybe through a Request for Comment. The Economist is a good source, so if it has written about him then that could be summarised and added. "Paleoconservative" sounds like quite a dismissive term though. Itsmejudith 21:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You have to consider the context. A "communist" is very pejorative in America but obviously not in a communist country. US politicians in general are notably more eager to self-identify as "conservative" than "liberal". Bottom line ithat "paleocon" is not particularily pejorative, especially sinces it identifies one as conservative will distinguishing one as "neocon".Bdell555 23:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I am a paleoconservative, and I can assure you that it is not an innately pejorative term (some people thinks it sounds pejorative, but the term was originally intended as a joke on the part of Paul Gottfried and Thomas Flemming of The Rockford Institute, which over the years, evolved into a serious political label; its origin stems from a person being an opponent of neoconservatism). Anyhoo, suffice it to say that Pat Buchanan is one of America's leading paleoconservatives (if not THE leading), as well as one of the two principal conservative/right-wing opponents to neoconservatism, along with Ron Paul, so to refrain from noting his association with paleoconservative ideology, and the paleocon movement, would actually be remiss. I can assure you, the article on paleoconservatism mentions Pat Buchanan, and very rightly so; it would be absurd if it did not. Calling Pat Buchanan a paleocon is about as controversial as calling Dennis Kucinich "a liberal." Pat Buchanan's status as a paleocon is about as close to objective fact as such a designation can be, and its one I've seen him proudly note (although it isn't a term he uses very often, precisely because it isn't very salient within the broader community; its a term mainly known by paleocons themselves, and their neocon opponents).KevinOKeeffe (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I am a paleo and do not consider it a pejorative term but merely an accurate way to distinguish us from the neocons and other faux "conservatives" that now infest the GOP. w.

Marilyn Manson?
The statement that Buchanan is related to Manson is referenced only to Manson himself, without a date and context, even though a 3rd-party would be more appropriate &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

"Antisemitism and Holocaust denial"
This section is unsourced and is blatant Jewish propaganda or bias. It seems to be based on the fact that Buchanan's political views represent neither rabid Zionist interventionism and Israel-firsterism or cultural Marxist social-liberalism. - 90.212.77.171 (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * While not agreeing with the "blatant Jewish propaganda" formulation of the previous editor, the "Antisemitism" subsection of the article is poorly done. It relies solely on an unsigned twenty year old quasi-editorial from Newsweek and presents nothing in the way of a rebuttal from Buchanan or his defenders. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I've created a summary of the Buckley quote as a single quote or two out of a 40,000 word essay is undoubtedly an issue with context. I've added a review of a future book that included the essay and the NY Times concludes the exact opposite of what we originally had (Buckley can't defend charges that Buchanan is anti-Semitic). In fact, Buckley goes to great length to avoid that conclusion and doesn't come to it. A summary that highlights the issue in question (comments Buchanan made about Jewish commentators supporting the Gulf War while it will be fought with non-Jewish soldiers. he left out non-Jewish supporters of the war.  Buckley (a Catholic) also supported the war.  Buckley said he didn't know where that comment came from and couldn't defend it but that Buchanan was not anti-Semitic.  Any quote or selection of quotes that is used to imply otherwise is inaccurate and BLP violation.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Even if your odd interpretation of Buckley's long piece is correct, why remove unrelated comments from the ADL and a conservative commentator? Gamaliel (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not my interpretation, it's the NY Times as I sourced it and it highlighted how your quote without context was exactly wrong. Your odd choice for a new quote is equally improper without context and supporting material.  A summary with context, proper weight, etc, is necessary.  The problem is that without summary there is simply tons of quotes that will just be back and forth support/detracting quotes and contributes to crappy articles.  There are plenty of supporting quotes from liberal commentators like Michael Kinsley, Eleanor Clift, Jack Germond, etc, etc but htey can all be summarized into support/detract instead of a long list of quotes like you seem to think will improve the article.  This is Buchanan's biography page, not "Quotes of people that have an opinion on Buchanan" It's lazy editing to just add quotes. --DHeyward (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So please suggest an edit that would be a satisfactory summary of this information. Gamaliel (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's pretty obvious to me that as the article now stands, and particularly this section of it, factoids and quotes have been selected with undue weight given to the (not uncontested) opinion that Buchanan is an Anti-Semite. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I already wrote the summary. It's sourced and complete.  More lazy out-of-context quotes don't help.  Add more to the summary if you like.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This section unfortunately misrepresents Buckley's argument via oversimplification. Buckley's position in the essay (which I have read several times) was that, although he knew Buchanan personally and therefore knew from first-hand experience that Buchanan was not an antisemite, Buckley recognized that those who knew Buchanan only through his commentary alone could reasonably conclude that Buchanan was antisemitic, as Buchanan's writings were "indistinguishable from antisemitism." I will find the section in Buckley's book and give a direct quote of where Buckley lays this out. Goodwinsands (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Including Buchanan's comments about Israel in relation to the Gulf war seems completely unrelated to any claims of antisemitism. I think this section should be removed as it detracts from the validity of the other points in this section. 73.162.102.203 (talk) 06:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Anti-war and antisemitism
I separated out these two sections as they do not belong together - as in how Iraq war was under antisemitism. Now, the connotation that his comments in the first gulf war were considered antisemetic could go under antisemitism section, but the reasons for opposing that war and the 2003 iraq war belong also in the antiwar section. The newly separate anti-war (if that is even the right word - maybe anti-imperial/anti-interventionism?) section needs further development. Also, the antisemitism section needs some clarification and organizing, but this is at least a start.Enviropearson (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Antisemitism is spread throughout the article, but a lot is focused on the McLaughlin Group section. I tagged it for a NPOV because such explications are unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poxywallow (talk • contribs) 14:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried to finally fix this old NPOV tagged issue by copy editing the sentence from McLaughlin Group to the antisemitism section, and by adding two words. All of this just took over seven years, and three editors... Ceosad (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

"Politician"...?
The guy has never been elected to office. - the WOLF  child  11:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Your point being? Involvement in politics does not require an election. Dimadick (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Pat Buchanan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081008152430/http://www.buchanan.org/pa-95-0612.html to http://www.buchanan.org/pa-95-0612.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081008152411/http://www.buchanan.org/pa-99-0405-china-commonwealth-club.html to http://www.buchanan.org/pa-99-0405-china-commonwealth-club.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081009062301/http://www.buchanan.org:80/pa-00-0812-speechnomination.html to http://www.buchanan.org/pa-00-0812-speechnomination.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Anti-Defamation League as a source
This article cites the Anti-Defamation League for evidence Patrick Buchanan is Anti-Jewish. Wikipedia's policy on bias is here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources, it states " Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". I think at the very least the fact that the Anti-Defamation League is a leftist group should be stated, I have studied their website and they seem to dislike all conservative politicians and regular compare them to Nazis or call them Anti-Jews, and they also seem to have a fixation on Nazis. I'm not saying they should not be used as a source but at the very least their ideological agenda should be noted when quoting them. RandomScholar30 (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

AntiJudaism Section
I would say that the evidence does seem to suggest Buchanan is mildly Anti-Jewish. My issue with citing the ADL is that I don't like it being presented as a neutral source, when it is a very ideologically agenda driven organization, and it has reasons for not liking Buchanan. Buchanan's Anti-Judaism is not the only one of those reasons, it is also that he is a conservative Republican. I think if a Liberal Democrat were Anti-Jewish the ADL would not be complaining about the person as much, as I said it is a very ideologically agenda driven organization. I think the quotes about Treblinka would be best cited to Buchanan's own writings instead of secondary sources. I have been looking on the google newspaper archive. I have not found the quotes mentioned but I did find this interesting article where Buchanan defended a Nazi war criminal that I remember knowing was very controversial from before. I don't know if it will help improve the Anti-Judaism section so I won't add it as a source myself but other editors can look and see if it does,. However, it is not the article where Buchanan engaged in Holocaust denial, I still have not found that one yet, but I have been looking. RandomScholar30 (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I just found an online edition of the original article by Buchanan Shapiro was quoting from. "The problem is: Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody. In 1988, 97 kids, trapped 400 feet underground in a Washington, DC tunnel while two locomotives spewed diesel exhaust into the car, emerged unharmed after 45 minutes. Demjanjuk's weapon of mass murder cannot kill. " It probably be better to quote from the original article than to quote from Shapiro, that way there is no possibility of an accusation of bias because it is directly sourced to Buchanan's own words. Although Shapiro is closer to Buchanan ideologically than to ADL, they have some disagreements, such as Shapiro's support of Israel and free trade while Buchanan is anti-free trade and appears to be Anti-Zionist, so some people might see the Shapiro quote as inferior to sourcing it to Buchanan's own words. RandomScholar30 (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've done a google search for the newspaper version of the Buchanan article Shapiro was quoting from, since the version I gave above probably is not appropriate for wikipedia, unfortunately I'm only seeing other writers' commenting on Buchanan's article, not the original, so far. If I could find it it could certainly be used in this article. RandomScholar30 (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I'm not in any way suggesting Buchanan did not say what Shapiro said he said, my link above   proves Buchanan did say it. I just want to find a way to cite it directly to Buchanan as well as quoting Shapiro's description, that there is less dispute of the quote. The link I provided there probably would not be allowed as source material on wikipedia, because its not a scholarly or mainstream website, but I'm certain its an accurate reproduction of Buchanan's article. RandomScholar30 (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed the Krauthammer quote because Krauthammer was not accusing Buchanan directly of Anti-Judaism in the quote, but only of "bigotry". Elsewhere Krauthammer has written "WASHINGTON - The Washington pundits have worked themselves into a tizzy over whether some of Pat Buchanan's TV colleagues - "Crossfire" co-host Michael Kinsley in particular - have been too soft on Buchanan's anti-Semitism. Washington is a city where turning policy into gossip is an art form. But even by Washington standards this is ridiculous, a sideshow to a sideshow.

"Nor is it [the issue that concerns Krauthammer] principally Buchanan's anti-Semitism. Now that Buchanan's media-inflated New Hampshire "victory" has made him a national political figure, the anti-Semitism debate is beside the point, or more accurately, obscuring the far larger point. The real problem with Buchanan (as Jacob Weisberg suggested two years ago in The New Republic) is not that his instincts are anti-Semitic but that they are, in various and distinct ways, fascistic." http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920302&slug=1478791 So I don't think the Krauthammer quote was appropriate to the Anti-Judaism section since Krauthammer was not talking directly about Anti-Judaism. RandomScholar30 (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Joe Sobran
I'm not sure Joe Sobran should be cited in this sentence, "Buchanan has adamantly denied that he is antisemitic, and a number of conservatives and his journalistic colleagues, some of them Jewish, including Joe Sobran,[23] Murray Rothbard,[24][25][26] Justin Raimondo,[27] Jack Germond, Al Hunt and Mark Shields, have defended him against the charge." Sobran himself has been accused of being Anti-Jewish, and there is more evidence he was Anti-Jewish than there is for Buchanan's Anti-Judaism, for example he associated with the Institute for Historical Review, a Nazi apologist Anti-Jewish group and he was much more hostile to Israel in his writings than Buchanan is, and he was fired by Buckley from National Review because his writings were perceived as Anti-Jewish. So I don't think Sobran defending Buchanan has as much weight as Mark Shields and the other people defending him because of Sobran's ideological agenda. Since we already have the other people defending Buchanan against the Anti-Judaism charge whose defense has more weight since they are not Anti-Jewish I think maybe Sobran should be removed from that list. RandomScholar30 (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Justin Raimondo is not Jewish. He is an Italian-American, as far as I'm aware. It's clearly inappropriate for the article to imply that he is somehow Jewish. The sentence you quote is obviously a mess and needs to be rewritten; "some of them Jewish, including..." implies that everyone whose name follows is a Jew. There is no indication that Joseph Sobran was Jewish either. I have never heard of Jack Germond, Al Hunt or Mark Shields, so I wouldn't know about them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The part about Buchanan defending the Reagan trip to a Nazi military cemetery during the Reagan reign should be switched to the Anti-Judaism section, I think
This line "Buchanan supported President Reagan's plan to visit a German military cemetery at Bitburg in 1985, where among buried Wehrmacht soldiers were the graves of 48 Waffen SS members. At the insistence of German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and over the vocal objections of Jewish groups, the trip went through although White House officials sought to minimize the effect of the visit. As Mr. Reagan left Bonn for Bergen-Belsen in the morning, officials disclosed that the President and Mr. Kohl would be joined at Bitburg by two prominent retired American and German military officers. The men were Gen. Matthew B. Ridgway, 90 years old, who had led the 82d Airborne Division in Europe and later fought in the Battle of the Bulge, and Lieut. Gen. Johannes Steinhoff, 71, a Luftwaffe flying ace who later rose to the highest ranks of the West German Air Force. After the wreath laying ceremony at the military cemetery, the two men shook hands.[33]

In an interview, author Elie Wiesel described attending a White House meeting of Jewish leaders about the trip:

The only one really defending the trip was Pat Buchanan, saying, 'We cannot give the perception of the President being subjected to Jewish pressure.'[34]

Buchanan accused Wiesel of fabricating the story in an ABC interview in 1992:

I didn't say it and Elie Wiesel wasn't even in the meeting.[... That meeting was held three weeks before the Bitburg summit was held. If I had said that, it would have been out of there within hours and on the news.[35]" should not be in the Reagan section but the Anti-Judaism section, I think, because when Buchanan worked for Reagan I doubt that this was one of the most important issues for him. Its only relevance is the fact that it has been viewed by some on the left and by some in the American Jewish community as evidence of Buchanan's Anti-Judaism. I don't think its very important for his years working for Reagan particularly. RandomScholar30 (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 one external links on Pat Buchanan. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20141005032823/http://buchanan.org:80/blog/1992-republican-national-convention-speech-148 to http://buchanan.org/blog/1992-republican-national-convention-speech-148
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090105221904/http://amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html to http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060105204230/http://www.taemag.com:80/issues/articleid.16969/article_detail.asp to http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.16969/article_detail.asp
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141005032823/http://buchanan.org:80/blog/1992-republican-national-convention-speech-148 to http://buchanan.org/blog/1992-republican-national-convention-speech-148
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160303182450/http://www.4president.org/speeches/buchanan1996announcement.htm to http://www.4president.org/speeches/buchanan1996announcement.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120321221221/http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/read.freetrade.html to http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/read.freetrade.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160303212936/http://www.4president.org/speeches/buchanan2000announcement.htm to http://www.4president.org/speeches/buchanan2000announcement.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110805064315/http://www.vdare.com/pb/speech.htm to http://www.vdare.com/pb/speech.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090116001625/http://www.commonwealthclub.org:80/archive/02/02-01buchanan-speech.html to http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-01buchanan-speech.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

facist?
Is the description of Buchanan as a "facist" going to be allowed to stand? Dick (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No. That was vandalism and violation of WP:BLP, and it has been removed. Anyone - including you - could have removed it immediately and without waiting for discussion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Buchanan's 1992 Republican Convention "Culture War" speech
The relevance of this passage to the "AntiSemitism and Holocaust denial" subsection of the article either needs to be made much clearer or else moved to another section of the bio: When he delivered a keynote address at the 1992 Republican National Convention, known as the Culture War speech, Buchanan described "a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America".. I remember this speech generating both (a lot of) criticism and (some) praise, but I don't remember it being widely criticized as anti-Semitic. Certainly the source we are presently using for it, Buchanan's own website, doesn't describe it that way. Motsebboh (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)