Talk:National Review

NOTE: This is not a page for discussing National Review; it's about Wikipedia's NPOV article on it, so debate about politics or whether National Review is good or bad are off-topic. Please remember WP:A, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF when editing.

Criticism

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

Whitewashing

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

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

Missing citations? Original research?

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

Those are the two complaints in the template.

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

If there is original research or unverifiable claims at the present time, particular statements in the article should be mentioned here on the talk page. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

One of the statements marked "citation needed" was already sourced. I removed the inline tag, and also support removing the original-research issue page header (the primary source issue tag should probably stay for now) FellGleaming (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. While there are primary sources among the inline citations, there are also good secondary sources, too. What would be needed in secondary sources to remove that tag, too? (WP:NPOV) --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, looking at it again I withdraw my objection. The source's aren't ideal, but I don't believe its enough to throw up a red flag over. FellGleaming (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation

I have removed a section of text copied from [1]. The paragraph remaining in the National Review Institute section is rather a close paraphrase of this. I leave it up to the regular editors here to decide if this should also be removed. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Biweekly or Bimonthly?

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