Jump to content

Talk:Pat Buchanan: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
College Education
No edit summary
Line 41: Line 41:
== College Education ==
== College Education ==


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

Revision as of 02:29, 1 July 2007

Template:WikiProject Columbia University

WikiProject iconBiography A‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
AThis article has been rated as A-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

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

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)[reply]

I agree. That has been taken out of context to make him look misogynistic. Actually it seems to me to invoke Anne Morrow Lindbergh's Gift from the Sea. Shield2 09:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"Senator Buchanan"? When was he elected to office? Anyway, dozens of reliable sources have called him "paleoconservative". The Economist called him "Paleocon Pat".[1]. -Will Beback · · 21:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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?