Talk:Pat Buchanan
|
|
| Contents |
NPOV Controversy
This is one of the least accurate and most biased entries on Wikipedia. Horribly slanted and unfair to Buchanan. I'm convinced those who keep changing the entry to reflect racism, et. al. have never read any of Buchanan's works or done any significant research into the facts as they speak for themselves. Many of us disagree with Buchanan on policy, but to resort to racist charges (which can never be factually proven - how do you document a man's internal emotion?) is an act that serves to eliminate real historical documentation in lieu of feeling. (DJ)
- By your standard, it's impossible to say whether anyone is a racist. If it quacks like an anti-Semite, it's probably an anti-Semite. KrJnX
What's wrong with Arbiter's inclusion of alleged racist. He uses the word alleged and frankly Buchanan is a racist, so having the words "alleged" neutralize the statement dont they??StoptheBus18
He can't just throw in allegations without justifying them. WHO says he's a racist? Give some quotes. RickK 19:54, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
- All right good point. If its to go in the article it should go in a seperate section. But on a personal level? Do you not think he's a racist? StoptheBus18 22:27, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Whether the subject of the article is someone you like or dislike, try to stick to the facts. Putting "alleged racist" into the introductry sentence is not appropriate if there is no context why this is an important aspect to Buchanan in the article. If he is a racist, post evidence that this is so. If he is an "alleged racist", sight who is making the allegation and why. -- Infrogmation 21:47, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I removed the quotes,supplied largely by StoptheBus18, because it seems they furnish a rather narrow and biased or incomplete view of Mr. Buchanan. The selected topics may represent Mr. Buchanan to some degree but they seem to flavor the article politically. Also there are just too many of them. Maybe an effort to add quotes to return them to NPOVishness would be good, or it would just make the collection more ungainly. A transfer to Wikiquote may be an answer.-JD--65.172.205.49 18:35, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- If that's how you feel then whatever. But it is not ok to just delete them. Until you can find a more appropriate decision rather than deleting them, they stay up. StoptheBus18 17:46, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
People, I think there needs to be some explaining.
Pat Buchanan is a racist, and this claim is supported with hard evidence, some of which are published on Wikiquotes.
For example, Pat Buchanan has urged Former President Richard Nixon to not visit MLK's widow on the first anniversary of his death, saying that he was one of the most divisive man in modern history.
He also thinks that the US is conspiring with the world to ruin the Apartheid South African government with sanctions. The sanctions were there for a purpose, and he thinks it is a plot to ruin an "innocent" regime.
Pat Buchanan also claims that the Western culture is superior to other cultures and also claimed that Multiculturalism is an attack on this US's national heritage. He has also urged all Americans to purge America of foreign influences.
The facts prove that he is a racist. Please let me add a section about him being an alleged racist and leave it there. I do not want it to be taken off once more.
- Agreed. Now that said, the first sentence of his encyclopedia article is not the place for this. My complaint is stylistic. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 01:58, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)
I moved these quotes from the article:
On Adolf Hitler:
- "...an individual of great courage...Hitler's success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path." - From a 1977 syndicated column as reported by The Guardian [1/14/92]
On the SS:
- "victims just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps." - From New Republic [1/22/96]
On running for president in 1996:
- "You just wait until 1996, then you'll see a real right-wing tyrant." - From The Nation [6/26/95]
I think the balance of these and the other quotes reflects an anti-Buchanan POV, and does not give a neutral view of his views or their detractors. For example, Buchanan denies the second quotation, which appears to be out of context, at [1] (http://www.buchanan.org/pma-99-1105-wallstjl.html).
Wmahan. 21:48, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)
First off, I want to state I worked in the Reform Party and am someone personally upset at Buchanan for trying to take over the party and inject his social views and anathematic rhetoric into the platform. So I have no intention to apologize for him.
But I'm uncomfortable with this article, because though its fair include allegations, it appears like more of an anti-Buchanan editorial piece. A lot of the comments in the article are things Buchanan would rebut or claim is out of context--he himself adamantly denies being a racist or anti-semite. (He is intent on showing this to the point that he picked a black vice-presidential candidate, which, to enforce my point, isn't mentioned) If Buchanan is clearly a racist, it should be able to be show up in what he agrees he believes, and not insinuations that he would contest.
Write the positions to just show what he himself would agree with, and then add comments where appropriate to note others reacion to that and whether Buchanan rebuts those.
One example is that I rewrote the vague and explictly condemning "Finally, his views of Hitler and Nazi Germany's threat ... considered to be, at best, Nazi Revisionism or Anti-Semitic at worst" to elaborate what his views were, and why he brushes off criticism (in the same book he called the Holocaust 'horrific').
The only other change I made was a deletion of the quote on Francisco Franco, which was just "Catholic savior". Why? Because there is absolutely no context. Maybe Buchanan did intend on praising him, I don't know, but how is the reader of this article to know?
Its simply not necessary to cram the article with insinuations, just write an account of his beliefs. If things can be out of context don't present them otherwise. The article is also completely centered around the allegations of being a bigot, to the point where all of the quotes are designed for that, leaving out quotes major issues associated with his politics such as anti-globalization and anti-interventionism (each of which he devoted entire books to). Its not even a good historical account of his role in politics.
If Wikipedia doesn't try to be fair, it won't be taken seriously. It would be nice if the article were redone, but I'm doing other things, so I'll limit my changes at this point to what I've done.
- How are we supposed to write an article on Pat Buchanan that doesn't talk about racism? If it wasn't for his "politically incorrect" cries for attention, he wouldn't be famous in the first place. You say "he himself adamantly denies being a racist or anti-semite". Honestly, how stupid are you? -- Chaz
- I never said the article shouldn't mention that he's believed a racist. Though, Buchanan isn't famous only because he's made controversial statements on race.. a lot of his support when he ran was because of his views on foreign policy and trade and other issues. He became known because he was an important insider in republican administrations, and later a commentator on CNN, where relatively few of his comments were on race. I don't understand why you think I'm stupid--because I know he denies being racist or anti-semite, which he does--or because I think its relevant when writing an encyclopedia article about him. brianshapiro
- I can't see why someone as offensive as Pat Buchanan should be let off the hook so easily. Bill Clinton denied having sex with Monica Lewinsky but it didn't stop there, did it? -- Chaz
- Chaz, please, do not insult other editors. Try to discuss improving the article with the others here who wish to improve it in a civil manner. You might wish to take a look at some guideline articles, like Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Wikiquette, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 09:48, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This article is still biased and not painting the whole picture. The logic behind the allegations of Buchanan being a racist are poor. None of his actions reflect racism, and a bunch of out of context quotes don't cover it. For example:
"The first example stretches back to the Nixon administration, when Pat Buchanan urged President Richard Nixon not to visit the widow of civil rights leader Martin Luther King."
This line comes from when Buchanan was an Advisor and speechwriter to Nixon. He wasn't Urging Nixon not to visit MLK's widow because he hated blacks, it was because he was worried about how the south would react the next time they had to vote for Nixon or the Republicans. He was doing his job as a political advisor to inform President Nixon that many American people didn't view MLK is a positive light back then. His quote "Dr. King is one of the most divisive men in contemporary history" does not paint him a racist, this is true. MLK was divisive back then, but divisive isn't a dirty word. You could say George W. Bush is one of the most divisive men in the past four years. Being divisive is not an insult.
"Pat Buchanan has also criticized multiculturalism frequently, calling it a "threat" and an "all-out assault" on American heritage. He has also called on his supporters to wage a "Cultural Warfare" to purge America of "foreign values"." "
This isn't a direct quote, and I don't recall ever reading anything of Buchanan that called for a "purge" of foreign values. Buchanan does campaign for traditional conservative (judeo-christian) values, that does not make him a racist it may make him old fashioned.
"Finally, Buchanan has in a book argued controversial views of Hitler and Nazi Germany's threat during the Second World War, suggesting that the United States did not need to enter a war because Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union would have destroyed each other."
Buchanan wasn't talking about this from a ethics point of view, but rather a strategic one. Had the US not entered the war, the Russians and the Germans might have taken a huge toll on each other, thus preventing the cold war. His arguement wasn't "Well, the Germans were killing Jews and we shouldn't have stopped them". His arguement was that looking back on it, it might not have been in America's best interests to enter WW2.
Calling a man a racist is a serious charge. You can't just back it up with out of context quotes or assumptions about his intentions. Why not let his quotes stand on their own merit?
Also, why not a brief summary of his books? I noticed the out of context Germany vs Russia scenario from his 1999 book "A Republic not an Empire" but why isn't his prediction of an Osama Bin Laden Terrorist attack on US soil, and a second Iraqi war mentioned?
- If you think things should be changed or added to the article, go for it. You might wish to choose a user name and log in, but that's optional. -- Infrogmation 19:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Quotes
The list of quotes has gotten quite long. The bulk should be moved to a Wikiquote article and linked. -- Infrogmation 16:26, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I'm going to do so. -- Infrogmation 19:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My edits
I reintroduced the race / antisemite isue. Any objections / comments / etc..? Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new)] 17:00, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Removed from the article
This text was removed from the "Immigration policy, charges of racism" subsection.
"This section is very skewed and biased, and really doesn't do anything to advance the Wikipedia concept. Editors of this page continue to reintroduce charges of racism no matter how many times the issue is flushed out in discussion. Reader beware."
The criticism may be valid but does not belong to the article User: Dimadick
This article should remain the same!
Let me start by saying I am a conservative Republican. I however, feel that the views of Pat Buchanan do not reflect upon the Republican party. I have heard many instances where he made racial, homophobic, sexist, anti-semetic comments. Truth is, Pat Buchanan is an extremely bias man who has used conservatism as a means to promote his agenda of hatred. This is no opinion, this is fact. Christianity is an amazing religion that has taken too many hits because of people like Buchanan. The comments he made at the 1992 RNC were most definately racist and homophobic. The comments posted in this report are very accurate indeed and nobody can deny the fact that he made those comments. I feel it is essential to leave them in there. If we remove the comments from the article than we would be holding back crucial information about Pat Buchanan's character and thus we would be truly bias. I find it completely necessary that people know EVERYTHING there is to know about someone and especially when it is somebody who has had a career filled with ethic slurs. Buchanan says he is a champion of moral values, yet he forgot to mention that moral values also include respect for other religions, respect for sexual identities, respect for other cultures and ethnicities and respect for people who do not believe every view that he does. Pat Buchanan has based his entire career on his views. To not mention the controversy over them would be tantamount to mentioning Strom Thurmond and not mentioning how he ran for President under the Southern Segregationalist Ticket.
Here is a link to the 1992 RNC speech of Pat Buchanan. If you don't believe me read it yourself. The speech is on his OWN website.
http://www.buchanan.org/pa-92-0817-rnc.html
This speech is considered the iceberg of Pat's career at it marked the entire 1992 RNC. It is believed that because of this speech, people found the Republicans to be insensitive and it is believed that this speech cost Bush 41 the second term.
- Well the article when you saw it had already been changed and was a lot more fair than how it was when the previous comments were written. It needs much less changes now, though still would be nicer if it were better written. I'm sure you don't think the article should be an editorial on how he's spreading hatred. His 'culture war' speech was a major mark in his political career, and I doubt anyone who supports Buchanan would not want it mentioned. The article can mention the beliefs he argued in the speech, and the controversy over it. But he and his supporters don't view them as racist and say they don't condone racism, and there's value to understanding that, since usually racists want to promote racism. The point being, discussing the controversy is fine, but using the article to drive home the idea he's a racist wouldn't be a good job by Wikipedia, that itself is controversial and POV. It should just present his beliefs in a way Buchanan himself would agree was accurate (though without spin), and talk about controversy over them. brianshapiro
- Please, provide links to when Buchanan has used any racial, homophobic, sexist, anti-semetic comments. You claim Pat's 1992 RNC culture war speech was "most definately racist and homophobic". Point to anything in that speech that is "Racist". You claim you are a conservative republican, tell me where that speech differs from modern republican views on homosexuals? Pat Buchanan predicted a 'culture war' was going on in America in 1992, but as he is with many things he was ahead of the curve. The true culture war election was in 2004.
Some Republicans blaimed Buchanan's speech with hurting Bush 41 in the 1992 election, but the truth is a strong third party showing and a poor economy did him in. Buchanan was simply a scapegoat, and Perot offered Republicans a true fiscal conservative. The 1992 speech didn't cause Pat to fall out of favor with the Republican party, his paleoconservative views and the negative media around his book 'A Republic not an Empire' are what caused him to defect from the Republican party to run with the Reform party in 2000. Comparing Buchanan to someone who ran as a Segregationalist is horribly biased.
You people should be criticized for justifying Buchanan's racist views. It is like saying what Hitler did is right.
--Arbiteroftruth 22:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This article uses a quote by William F. Buckley to damn Buchanan on charges of anti-semitism. But Buckley has also said publically that he doesn't think anything proves or shows Buchanan to be an anti-semite. If I find the quote I'll modify the article. Brianshapiro
I think it should be pointed out that Buchanan only fits the definition of "conservative" from, say 1939 or so. Few conservatives these days actually agree with anything Buchanan stands for. I consider myself conservative and I can never agree with his conclusions. TMorrow
- Buchanan opposes abortion, gun control, gay rights, and illegal immigration. He supports smaller goverment, lower taxes, and strict constructionist judges. These are all conservative views, although there are certainly people who apply the label "conservative" to themselves (because the label has generally positive connotations, especially amoung Republican voters), but hold opposite views. On a few issues, such as free trade, he breaks with most other conservatives. But if one _never_ agrees with Buchanan, one is probably a much much closer idealogically to Ruth Bader Ginsburg than to the typical Republican primary voter. Rast 07:04, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
POV issues
This article has numerious POV issues. For example, it is not explained what is "controversial" about wanting to reduce immigration. This is a mainstream position held by a majority of Americans. Mirror Vax 17:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
i don't think its perfect but it doesn't deserve the tag, what is inaccurate or in dispute?Scranton
- User:Klonimus seems determined to inject his opinions. Mirror Vax 16:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
i think you should cite the passages of concern, else, remove the tag 17:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
also where is the information about his recent work? he has been very critical of the Right lately and is also vocal in his opposition to the Iraq war...
new trivia section
Most of the trivia seemed to be of the "unsourced dirt from 50 years ago" sort, so I removed it. I'm not convinced the dirt is relevant even if it was factual.
- I am re-adding it because it's trivia that most people would consider interesting. Two of the items I think most people would consider negative, two neutral, all four interesting. I'm not trying "smear" him, just to include facts that surprised me when I heard of them. I think a trivia section is a relevant place to put this information. As to "unsourced", I added sources. Regarding the duplicate link, I missed that, thanks.
- Unless you dug up and read those articles from 1996, your source for the two pieces of dirt is realchange.org (the "Pat Buchanan's Skeleton Closet" site), which is highly POV ("Buchanan is a big hypocrite."). This is not a difficult concept: If John tells you "I read in the New York Times that Bush is gay", your source for the triva item "Bush is gay" is John, not the New York Times.
- "Trivia that most people would consider interesting" seems in this case to be a synonym for "dirt", and pretty pathetic dirt at that. If realchange.org is to be believed, nearly 50 years ago Buchana assaulted a cop and may or may not have contracted chlamydia. I suppose one is meant to conclude that Buchanan is therefore hypocritical to express conservative ideas about crime or sex.
- The realchange article claims that he admitted these facts. The cop-assault was claimed to be from his autobiography and the Reiter's syndrome was also claimed to be admitted. I found these claims widely cited when I checked via search engines, and could not find any refutations on the web, as I would expect with an urban legend, but I do not own his autobiography or the original sources, so I'll refrain from getting in a revision war and won't reinstate your deletions. I think it's very likely that these facts are true and hopefully someone who owns the original sources (which are only available in print) can reinstate them. Posting of these facts was honestly not politically motivated, but I guess they have a "gossipy" slant in the sense that they deal with his personal life, rather then restricting the scope of this entry entirely to Mr. Buchanan's political and professional life. I would have posted the same items if I found them about John Kerry, George Bush, or Ralph Nader. I was merely sharing facts I found interesting and assumed others would (as they are contrary to his image). If you want to know my slant, I do not agree with Buchanan's political positions, but I find him more palatable then W, and he comes across in the documentary "Feed" as a (very rare) sincere politician, and I would not post slanderous "dirt" about him. I'm not sure why the Hunter S. Thompson friendship/obituary entry was removed, as there's nothing controversial, disputed, or slanderous about it, and it speaks to his humanity that he would contribute an article to a counter-culture magazine about a deceased friend on the opposite side of the political spectrum.