Jump to content

Talk:National Review

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 200.50.10.174 (talk) at 00:04, 23 April 2014 (→How racist is the NR?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Biweekly means every two weeks. Bimonthly means every two months. Semimonthly means every half a month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.183.10 (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How racist is the NR?

The following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK4IKzToq5A&feature=g-user-u collects the account of former racist NR writers, and exposes the institutionalized racism (hiring all white staff, and putting one black guy in the mail room for laughs).

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.152.158 (talk) 03:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The video completely focused on select comments by one former writer, John Derbyshire, not the magazine as a whole. And I wouldn't consider TheYoungTurks, a liberal YouTube channel, to be a neutral source of encyclopedia-worthy information to begin with. They clearly have an agenda, as likely does the IP above who posted the link. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that the National Review was racist when it was founded, William F. Buckley, Jr. said so. In those days, many respected people were openly racist. Today, racism has become so unacceptable that racists usually adopt code words: "those people" or "politically incorrect", though occasionally they slip up and say what they really think, e.g. one candidate for the Republican nomination for preseident suggesting that black high-school students should be required to clean the restrooms. So, it may be that the National Review is still racist, but we would need the testimony of more than one person to include that in the article. On the other hand, if there is credible testimony, then the fact that the people giving that testimony have an anti-racist "agenda" should not disqualify them. William F. Buckley, Jr.'s son recently resigned from National Review. What reasons did he give? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer User talk:Rick Norwood's question, William F. Buckley, Jr.'s son (Christopher Buckley) resigned after he published an article in The Daily Beast entitled "Sorry Dad, I'm Voting for Obama." In the article, he gave then-Senator Obama his endorsement for the presidency. Apparently, after many readers and contributors to the National Review voiced their displeasure, Christopher Buckley offered to resign from the NR--an offer which was accepted. This is according to sources from the Christopher Buckley wiki page.

Endorsing Romney

I was unable to find a citation for the NR endorsing romney during the primary (as this article states). I was able to find the NR's endorsement for him in November of 2012 but not earlier: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/332484/mitt-romney-president-editors/page/0/1

DouglasCalvert (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the 2012 endorsement of Mitt Romney. I am a National Review subscriber, and the magazine did not officially endorse anyone during the primaries. It did, however, make an "anti-endorsement" of Newt Gingrich by recommending that Republicans not nominate him. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Review&oldid=605373767"