Talk:National Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Links 2 Shares 3 Derbyshire 4 Neo 5 van den Haag 6 Lack of facts 7 Re alleged POV 8 Not a libertarian pub 9 Boosterish? 10 From Encyclopedic to Current issues 11 support of administration and iraq war 12 Criticism & Opposing views 13 Protected

[edit] 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 Also, the list claims currency but is always liable to be superceded: can't we just link to a contributors' page there? 64.229.38.70 19:53, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)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 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shatadal (talk • contribs) 00:56, 15 January 2005 (UTC).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Neo

National Review isn't conservative, it's neoconservative. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.44.175.212 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC).

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. — 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. — 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. — 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 — 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)

[edit] 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... — 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 • 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. — 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 • 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 • 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 • talk 20:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)