Talk:Pat Buchanan/Archive 2

message: Let me explain why I cut the Jesse Jackson reference.  I tried to find a source for it and all I could find was a 1996 -Esquire- interview by Mailer.  Not GQ.  Anyway, here's the Jackson material:
NM: I've been suggesting that unless you make some major move to double your constituency, there's no Buchanan presidency on the horizon. Suppose you had won the Republican nomination; could you have made such a move to Jesse Jackson?
PB: There was no doubt we were looking at some people outside the Republican party. We looked outside. You mentioned Jackson--if someone could bring you 20 percent of the black vote without losing you something, you'd win the election.
But I think if you went outside the Republican party, you probably would have exacerbated your basic problem, which is to put the party together.
NM: I vow on my nine children, I'm not here as an emissary--but what, for instance, if you and Jesse Jackson could do something together within the Democratic party?
PB: That would be exciting within the Republican party, too, Norman.
NM: Certainly would.
PB: No, I'm saying that the differences between me and Jesse are so great on so many other issues that if you move into an alliance like that, you forfeit a significant part of our constituency.
NM: He'd forfeit a significant part of his constituency.
PB laughs : Let me say this: Jesse, I think, is on the right side of NAFTA for the right reasons. He sees these deals as putting working-class black folks in America into direct competition with people who have considerable skills and work for lo percent of the wages that a black American gets paid in a factory.
Now, we could come together as we did on NAFTA and GATTA noninterventionist foreign policy. But a considerable part of my base is with social and cultural conservatives and traditionalists. And Jesse has gone south on right to life.
Nothing here says Pat & Jesse are friends.  Maybe they are, but we need another source for it. Yakuman 08:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pat + Jesse

message: Under the "Assimilation and security" subheading, I don't see why Steve Sailer's argument should be included.  (The American Conservative’s Steve Sailer argues that while neoconservatives want to "invade the world and invite the world,” Buchanan is right for advocating the exact opposite policy regarding Muslims and people from third world countries in general.) Sailer's opinion might be relevant in the article on Steve Sailer, but there is no reason to include every instance in which someone (even someone notable) supports/agrees with one of Buchanan's views. Schi 22:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Steve Sailer

message: The quote about Booker T. Washington and immigration needs no citation, it is from State of Emergency.  That is pretty clear from reading that section.  In fact I don't see why anyone would claim it needs a citation unless they were absolutely convinced or wanted people to be convinced that Buchanan dislikes blacks.  Or maybe that person just can't readShield2 09:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe that person would like a page number. Schi 16:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Booker T. Washington

message: Whoever edited the section to make it appear as if Foxman got the year of the speech right is guilty of dishonest editing.  In fact, before the section at least spared Foxman's dignity by correcting him itself.  Thanks to that one dishonest Foxman supporter, the section will now point out that Buchanan corrected him.  If anyone has a problem with that, too bad because it's the truth.  09:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abe Foxman and Charles Lindbergh

message: In this edit, Yakuman reverted some edits I made that I think are somewhat important but I don't want to get into an edit war.  The text now reads Buchanan denies that homosexuality is a civil right, calls it unhealthy and described gay male sex practices as "not only immoral, but filthy."
For starters, the tense is mixed.  But more importantly, I had changed it to: Buchanan has said that "[h]omosexuality is not a civil right" and described gay male sex practices as "not only immoral, but filthy".  I think this is preferable because the other version ("denies that homosexuality is a civil right") implies that sexual orientation is a civil right, i.e. "the protections and privileges of personal liberty given to all citizens by law."  I don't that anyone contends that sexual orientation, which is innate, is a civil right.  I think people may contend that activities/behavior related to their sexual orientation may be civil rights.  In any case, that's not what Buchanan said in the quote.  He said "homosexuality is not a civil right", which is a statement that could be interpreted in a number of ways (as I just tried to illustrate), and as such I think we should stick to the strict quote.
Also, I changed the references to "gays" to "gay people"; I don't think there is a Wikipedia guideline on this (that I know of) but I just think it's generally better, when possible, to refer to people as (adjective) people (like "white people" vs. "whites"). I guess that's just a stylistic preference.
Finally, this sentence He has written of "“sodomites," the “pederast proletariat” and the “butch brigade.” is almost too vague to be meaningful.  "Written of"?  What was wrong with "He has referred to gay people as..."? Schi 03:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gay rights and AIDS

message: I just replaced some info regarding Larry Pratt in the 1996 campaign section.  The previous wording essentially had a gap in that didn't explain why there was any controversy.  130.113.16.134 20:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing info regarding Larry Pratt 

message: A lot of work, its like one of the longest articles i have seen on wikipedia.
Reply:
It's a good article, I'm an Australian so I really only had a vague idea about who this guy was and the article was helpful. It has over 160 citations which has given me more faith in it's objectivity and credibility than pretty much anything else on Wikipedia. Length however is not a virtue in and of itself, as the website www.somethingawful.com pointed out. 
: I agree. This is one of the finest and least biased articles on Wikipedia. This article should not be shortened at all. Robertsussell 01:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good job, whoever wrote this 

message: Why do we need to read things said about him?  I have defended this page from people who keep wanting to delete things said by him, because they are relevant to this page.  But hundreds of people have said things about him.  Why are the few that are included here relevant unless Buchanan has responded to them?  For example I can see why Norman Podhoretz is important because Buchanan's response sheds more light on his views on anti-Semitism, and I can see why Abe Foxman is important because Buchanan's responses shed more light on his views on Charles Lindbergh and the Gulf War.  But the parts where other people's commentaries are included just to be included should probably go, as should the "stockholm syndrome love-fest" joke because he didn't make it.  Also, could somebody who agrees with me that deleting the quotes would wreck the article (at least, deleting most of them would) help me come up with other ways to shorten it, before these people get their way and completely mutilate this high-quality page. 08:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quotations from 3rd parties are no more necessary than quotations from the subject. But 3rd party viewpoints are very important to a biography. We aren't just interested in the opinions of Buchanan;  we're also interested in the opinions that others have about him. Unfortunately, nobody has perspective on themselves. WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant viewpoints. We can't simply delete all the critical views of Buchanan. -Will Beback 09:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One thing that could be deleted 

message: Could someone please explain why they put a claim that this article is not neutral?  I have shortened it somewhat, but I have not altered the content and message of an article that was already unbiased (if initially a bit overlong).  If no one explains why, I will take the warning off.  That is a serious charge.  By the way, I didn't write the whole thing and I wasn't the one who put up most of those blockquotes.  From the looks of it, there were just as many anti-Buchanan writers as pro-Buchanan. 02:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What Now?

message: One part of this entry reflected a POV (i.e., comment about Buchanan's "stature" being "low" in the USA), so I edited it brief summary of the reaction Canadians had to both remarks. With the Arar deportion affair, I added a link of the recent Canadian court conclusion that the RCMP passed incorrect intelligence to US authorities, thus making the deportion possible. Then corrected one grammar error. FResearcher 04:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just made this section much more concise.  Half of the discussion, about Soviet Canuckistan, is more appropriately discussed at the article on Anti-Canadianism, not here.  If anyone can dig up the actual transcript of the 10/31/02 show in question, that would be a good ref to include as well. Schi 20:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada Entry 

message: I tried to just delete the NPOV tag which someone put up for no apparent reason (at least not one he or she felt was worth explaining) and I end up deleting half the page.  That's the second time this has happened.  How do I get it back, and why does this keep happening? 06:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted and removed the NPOV tag.  Perhaps you're using a browser that crops the page to 32K?  See Wikipedia:Article size? schi talk 06:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does this keep happening 

message: I cut out the references to the 2008 speculation/draft Buchanan movement.  I'm pasting it here:
Buchanan spokeswoman Linda Muller said on September 7, 2006 that "PJB is not running" in the 2008 presidential race.http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=89 A Connecticut-based "Draft Buchanan" campaign, however, wants him on the Republican primary ballot.  Chairman Paul Streitz claims Buchanan can win in New Hampshire by 30,000 votes.Pat Buchanan Effort Launched In New Jersey, The Hotline, September 18, 2006.
The Draft Buchanan campaign was called a "scam" by Buchanan's official website.  Seems to be non-notable, I haven't seen any mainstream media talking about this possibility; one mention in the Hotline might make it (barely) pass as notable (can someone find the link?), but I'd prefer to keep this section out of the article.  Relative to the other 122K of article here, it seems relatively trivial.    schi talk 23:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2008

message: For reference, I'm just going to drop some cites and links to articles/etc. that I come across but don't have time to incorporate into/check against other things in the article.  Feel free to add other resources too. schi talk 23:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Research resources

message: How would we feel about summarizing the section on Israel here, and making the whole its own article, which can then be linked from here?  It's long enough, and seems enough of an aside to be warranted. Kc8ukw 22:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on Israel