Talk:William F. Buckley Jr./Archive 1

Archive 1

National Review neoconservative?

63.134.129.109 changed the description of National Review from "conservative" to "neoconservative". National Review is more usually considered a pure conservative publication, and many of its writers and editors (such as Jonah Goldberg) would vehemently deny being "neoconservative". Therefore I am reverting this change. — DLJessup 01:52, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

I marked the page as npov because there seems to be a dispute as to whether William Buckley and the National Review are conservative, or neoconservative. I suggest people have a discussion about it before the article is changed one way or another.Phil179 01:45, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

I have remarked this page as npov penis (GreatWhiteEric eliminated the npov), at least until the neoconservative epithet is thoroughly debunked. — DLJessup 04:03, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

NR is the wellspring and granddaddy of neoconservatism. However, I guess I'm not sure if it should classified as neoconservative itself, or as an antecedent. - Nat Krause 04:07, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To the contrary, Commentary magazine is widely considered to be the magazine that launched neo-conservatism. Chonak 06:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the magazine is neoconservative or merely conservative in nature, but I stand by my argument that the page needs to be npov, because there seems to be a conflict between users in editing that needs to be hashed out here in the talk page. I suggest the people who have reverted it each way talk about their views here instead of editing it the article right off the bat. Phil179 01:05, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

The following section is in need of further context - Buckley changed his views since this editorial:

"Also in 1957, Buckley came out strongly in support of the segregationist South, writing "The central question that emerges…is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.” in the August 24, 1957 edition of the National Review." Bsurette (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia entry, neoconservatives have a more aggressive foreign policy stance, with lessened stances on social policy and government-shrinking. National Review is very socially conservative, frequently including articles opposing gay marriage and stem cell research, and is devoted to smaller government, criticizing republicans for not following through on Ronald Reagan’s plan to eliminate the department of Education. Although they initially supported the Iraq War, the board of editors stated that they would not have supported it in its current form if it could have been absolutely concluded that Saddam Hussein had no WMD’s. Furthermore, this is not a neutrality issue. If someone altered the Adam Sandler article to indicate he was born in 1936, and I changed it back, and they tried to change it again, it would be the same situation. A simple factual discrepancy. Finally, the user that originally made the alteration to ‘neoconservative’ also changed several other articles about Republicans to indicate that they were neoconservative, and all of those were changed back, with no controversy. — GreatWhiteEric

"criticizing republicans for not following through on Ronald Reagan’s plan to eliminate the department of Education." They got rid of the Education part of it! Hurr Hurr. In any event, I'm interested why Buckley got a medal. Can anyone add a note in the article explaining what it was for?

Phil179, here's something to think about: it is pretty much undisputed that National Review is conservative. It is arguable whether NR is neoconservative, partially because neoconservative is a term that is both vague and politically charged. (For certain sections of the conservative movement, it is a perjorative phrase.) Therefore, referring to NR as neoconservative is inherently less neutral than referring to it as simply conservative. — DLJessup 14:34, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

National Review does not support smaller government. They support militarism (which entails very big government) and big goverment, in general, as long as it's done by Republicans. Here's a 1952 quote by Buckley which could have easily been spoken by a neoconservative today (just replace "Soviet power" with "Al Qaeda"):

"…we have to accept Big Government for the duration – for neither an offensive nor defensive war can be waged given our present government skills, except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores…

And if they deem Soviet power a menace to our freedom (as I happen to), they will have to support large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards, and the attendant of centralization of power in Washington – Even with Truman at the reins of it all."

Here we have neoconservatism in a nutshell: Militarism, centralization, big government. Various authors, Murray N. Rothbard and Justin Raimondo among them, have identified National Review's birth as the birth of neoconservatism, i.e., the death of the anti-interventionist Old Right. Buckley was most definitely a neoconservative, as his magazine. Josh (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Firing Line

Firing Line was on the air for over 33 years and is the primary reason anybody outside of New York ever heard of Buckley. Somebody ought to try to work it in somewhere. And why some debate about a TV movie has been singled out for mention in the article is not obvious. Squib 22:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Done. -- Pinktulip 16:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Buckley vs the far right

I think this article should mention WFB's struggle with the John Birch society and other far-right anti-semitic groups. Many commentators regard his effort to establish a conservative movement which was cleary separate from (and indeed hostile to) the far right as a crucial step in American politics. See, for example, [3], [4] and this E. J. Dionne column from Oct 2005. (See also William F. Buckley, Jr.: Pied Piper for the Establishment, ISBN 1881919064, in which a Bircher claims that WFB is/was secretly working to destroy American conservatism on behalf of the liberal establishment.)

BTW, Dionne's column should probably go in the external links.

Chris Chittleborough 08:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I personally do not like the usage of the term "far-right" because this can be interpreted to mean that the John Birch Society, et al, were somehow more conservative than Mr. Buckley. Perhaps using the term "radical" "extremist" or simply "anti-semitic" would be more accurate. --NebraskaDawg (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a fan of the JBS, personally, but do you have proof that they are "anti-Semitic?" Josh (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Nothing in the criticism section is referenced; it needs to be! Joey1898 23:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This bizarre section can only be based on a ridiculous caricature of Conservatives: "Buckley came late to the English language, not learning it until he was seven (his first language was Spanish, learned in Mexico and his second French, learned in Paris). This would hardly endear him to many conservatives and thus is not emphasized by his supporters." Joey1898 23:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This page is dripping with POV.-Jersey Devil 09:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

First language Spanish?

While I am sure that Mr. Buckley has spoken Spanish and French fluently from a young age, I find it hard to believe that his parents did not speak to him in English for the first seven years of his life. Can someone please clarify this for me?

This is indeed talked about in his book, The Right Word. It is not with me at the moment, so I cannot give a specific page or chapter, sorry. Nihixul 03:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe his accent is truly different from an American perspective. I'd believe many upon hearing his voice for the first time would think him to be British. 67.5.147.25 (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Firing Line 2

I'd like to see a citation for the statement that says his interviewing methods were "nonconfrontational." Granted I've only seen one clip of "Firing Line," but it was a clip in which he debated Noam Chomsky, and Buckley was certainly "confrontational," and definitely insulting.

The following are Michael Kinsley's and Noam Chomsky's reactions to Buckley on Firing Line (Leroy, Dan. (October 9, 2005). The Conservative Lion in Winter. Section 14CN Connecticut Weekly, New York Times):

"If you had seen William Buckley on a lot of 'Firing Lines,' (sic) kind and gentle are not the words that arrive," Mr. Kinsley said with a laugh. "But words do arrive like civil and friendly. It's not that he was easy on people. But he was polite."

"Even Noam Chomsky, who once provoked Mr. Buckley's ire as a Firing Line guest during the Vietnam War, said that while he had paid scant attention to Mr. Buckley's work since then, "From the little I know, I think he was quite different from the radical statist reactionaries who now defame the honorable term 'conservative,'" he said in an e-mail message."

I think the original editor was trying to say something like what Kinsley said. The show was confrontational but civil, friendly, and polite. Chomsky's quote makes no sense to me ("radical statist reactionaries"?) but he too does not seem to think Buckley rude. The divide is between Buckley's brand of on-air combat and those like Chris Matthews, Bill O'Reilly, and their ilk. Rkevins82 17:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Fwiw, by "statist", Chomsky is probably saying that some people now considered "conservative" trust the government too much in its claims and exercise of power. Chonak 03:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

...and "Reactionary" is often a term to mean those who oppose progress for it's own sake, and 'progressive' has lately come to mean anything liberal (i.e. reactionary = illiberal). 67.5.147.25 (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been searching for what Buckley says to Chomsky verbatim but cannot find it. Interesting you mention O'Reilly, who often threatens those he interviews with physical violence, because Buckley tells Chomsky (I quote loosely) "Good, because if you did I'd smash you in your face." And he certainly cut off Chomsky midsentence in order to form the debate, which I'd say isn't exactly polite. He's an early O'Reilly, not a more polite O'Reilly.

Another (non)confrontational Buckley quotation, aimed at Gore Vidal: "'Now, listen you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in the goddamn face.' This is according to several sources, including Esquire Magazine at the time" (from Wikipedia's entry on crypto-facism). Buckley's got the hatred and the threat of physical violence thing down pretty well, but he still gets a "nonconfrontational" label in the Wiki-text. I wish that could be deleted. But maybe it's correct; maybe hatred of gays and violence weren't frowned upon by the 1960s-era "Firing Line" audience. ...

That quote doesn't reflect on WFB's approach to interviewing, as it was not part of an interview by Buckley and not on the Firing Line show. According to his essay "On Experiencing Gore Vidal" (reference cited in the Vidal article), he said it in anger to Vidal during some of ABC's Dem-convention coverage after repeated provocations. In his essay, he apologized for the personal insult. Chonak 03:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Almost every professional description of "Firing Line" describes it not necessarily as "nonconfrontational," but definitely "Polite," which is exactly what it was. It's something that you don't see anymore in politically minded television programs, and so people who wish to edit wiki's who have never watched the show come to learn about it from a host of quotes, many of which aren't even part of the program (the comment to Vidal, which frankly, was well deserved [had you watched the actual interview] was not on Firing Line, it was an ABC Debate special between the two, and Vidal sneeringly referred to Buckley as a Nazi; It is only today's society that views the word "queer" as a more damaging insult than "Nazi."). However, in the 30+ years of the program being on television, and the hours of debate, exchange, and interviews, we really only have one lingering "insult," and it is one 10-second sentence in an hour long, friendly debate between Chomsky and Buckley. If you watch that debate, the overwhelming bulk of it is extremely polite and gentile. The major difference, today, is that people do not understand political talk shows unless they are screaming matches like "Hardball" or "The O'Reilly Factor," where almost every episode contains some sort of insult, ultimatum, or interuption-after-interuption. It's simply not what Firing Line was. Now, don't take my word for it -- view them yourself. The Hoover Institute Archived the series a decade ago and they are freely available to watch, or you can order them for a menial cost of the services endured. But, of course, when editing Wiki's let us rely on poorly referenced quotes, rather than, well, watching the actual shows and then making a judgement. Mike Murray 01:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggested quotation: 'everyone detected with AIDs should be tattooed in the upper forearm to protect common needle-users, and on the buttocks, to prevent the victimization of other homosexuals' - New York Times op-ed, 1985. Quoted in Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch's The Golem At Large, page 127

Movement Organizer

Should not some attention be paid to Buckley's pivotal role in the creation of the modern conservative movement, as documented in Rick Perlstein's Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus? Dvd Avins 21:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Quotations

Can someone find the source of Buckley's famous line about shunning governance by the Harvard faculty? Because this point of view can be easily caricatured, it would be useful to see it in the orginal context.

I don't have it at hand, but a likely place to look is in Quotations from Chairman Bill. Chonak 06:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

WFB?

I consider myself generally familiar with politics and with political opinionists and I have never before seen Buckley referred to as "WFB" in a public forum. I consider it very odd that this nickname appears right along with his name at this opening of the article. I believe it's just not well-known enough to be given such a prominent position. If "WFB" is used in some contexts, then it should be mentioned as trivia. Acsenray 20:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Buckley uses it in National Review and in personal correspondence. I have thus reverted. Rkevins82 20:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it really of any note that a person might use their initials at the end of articles? Even if it is, it's surely trivia rather than material for the leading text of an article. If he signed himself BFW, that would be of note because it would be unexpected and need explanation (if such could be found).

It is particularly trivial, which might suggest that it shouldn't be -- by definition -- in an encyclopedia, but those initials are almost entirely synonymous with his name in circles of political journalism / science. Mike Murray 03:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely, someone's writing their initials isn't their signing themselves. It's their writing their initials. If he'd written XYZ, that would be of encyclopedic interest, though, even then, it wouldn't be to do with his signature. I fear this comes from the what a wonderful world school of encyclopedia-writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldanon (talk • contribs) 21:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick Quote!/ Request of consensus

"It was rumored, in 1946, that the hangman in Nuremberg adjusted the nooses of some of the condemned to magnify the pain of suffocation. Such sadism was not called for then and is not called for now. But if fornication is wrong, there is no denying that it can bring pleasure. The death of Saddam Hussein at rope's end brings a pleasure that is undeniable, and absolutely chaste in its provenance."

This quote is brand new, from this morning's addition of National Review Online. Does everyone else think that this belongs with such notables as the Boston phone book? In my opinion, only time can make a quote especially noteworthy...V. Joe 04:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's notable for at least two reasons. (1) Buckley said it (presumably) and (2) it is brazenly politically incorrect. Wahkeenah 04:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know about politically correct, but he did say/write it. I remember thinking it quite a "gawd, I wish I'd said that" moment. I count myself as an admirer of WFB. V. Joe 07:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The politically correct view being to take the "high road" and talk about the close of a chapter, moving forward, blah-blah-blah, like Bush and other world leaders have to. Buckley is under no such constraints, and said what a lot of Americans are thinking: "Ding-dong, the Son-of-a-Witch is Dead!" Whether he had WMD's or not, he was the cause of a great deal of trouble for US. If he hadn't invaded Kuwait, maybe he'd still be an ally in the coming confrontation with Iran. But nooooo. Wahkeenah 08:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, not quite, it seems to me that the main "politically correct" thing to do is to say, "Saddam was a bad person, but we are opposed to the death penalty", which is the sort of thing which people like Tony Blair and Romani Prodi have said. Personally, I am pleased... although probably not as nearly pleased as a great number of Kuwaiti, Iraqi, Iranian and Kurdish widows. Of course, he isn't the only person I'd like to see the Rogue's March played for (or the dirge for the unmourned), but its a good start V. Joe 08:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        • You're talking specifically about left-wing political correctness. I'm talking about right-wing political correctness. Since the Ten Commandments tell us not to kill other people, most right-wingers, while supportive of the death penalty, don't publicly celebrate the taking of life, perhaps for fear of looking hypocritical. Also, what we've found in 3 1/2 years is that there is no shortage of younger blood willing to take up the banner when the older ones have been killed off. Killing Saddam may have been fun, but he was already history. It's a plus because this removes any chance of his coming back to power, but it's also a minus because he becomes yet another martyred hero for the Middle East warriors to rally around. So we have to ask whether the plus outweighs the minus, or vice versa. Wahkeenah 11:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
          • I wasn't aware that the right-wing really had political correctness (being a term inspired by left-wing activitists (like Dworkin), but also remember that the U.S. right and left wings are both comparitively mild... since Jacques Chirac (for example) is both shockingly right-wing and shocklingly left-wing by Ameircan standard... shockingly left-wing by U.S. standards on most social policy (i.e. the death penalty, but shockingly right-wing on others (banning displays of religon in French public schools) or on the treatment of immigrants... he also tends to be more left-wing with OTHER people's countries and issues, but shockingly jingoistic with the place of France in relation to Europe and the world.. I do wish GWB would be as aggressive, instead of asking the U.N. Security Council to weigh in first. Our foreign policy should be that of TR, "speak softly and carry a big stick a really big Navy... and to use it at the drop of a hat. V. Joe 19:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

London or New London?

There is a reference in the article to a day school in "London, Connecticut." Should this be New London?

65.116.31.254 14:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct. There is no London, Connecticut.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by DraperMan (talk • contribs) 18:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

School in England

Please could we be told what St John's Beaumont (sic) was or is?

It's a Catholic private school in England. --Ben 16:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Buckley is sometimes mentioned as a possible member of various conspiracies that are said to want to take over the world. I don't think it's true, myself. But could it be mentioned in the article? Steve Dufour 17:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• He's a member of Bohemian Grove and talked about it in one of his books, I think it was "Miles gone by" --Ben 16:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that it should be mentioned because, first, the suggestion that any groups want to take over the world is POV, difficult to support factually, and impossible to prove; and whether somebody is a member of one secret group or another is often highly disputed, and rarely supported by evidence worthy of an encyclopedia. I do not remember reading about the Bohemian Club in Miles Gone By, I could be wrong, though. Mike Murray 03:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography

Buckley's bibliography needs to be updated. He is the author of many more books than listed here.

• Man of Letters by Andrew Ferguson (Wall Street Journal) is a rather nice reminiscence of William F Buckley's Notes and Asides department (a "best of" collection of which was recently gathered between hard covers in "Cancel Your Own Goddam Subscription"). Asteriks (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Stamford or Sharon?

Is Buckley really based in New York and Stamford, CT? I thought it was Sharon, CT not Stamford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.127.180 (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Childhood home: Sharon; bought a home in Stamford in 1952 and said he considered that his home; maintained a home in Manhattan for much of the time he was in Stamford. Noroton (talk) 18:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Milesgoneby.jpg

Image:Milesgoneby.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Notablity for Wikipeda?

He has nothing to do with the holocaust, or the Israel-Palestine conflict, I don't see why hi article is included on wikipedia. Maybe you could put something in about the 10 Billion Jews that died in the holocaust, if you find the right context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.246.252 (talk) 00:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, you don't have to have been involved with Jews or the Holocaust to be on Wikipedia... Happyme22 (talk) 01:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

please don't feed the trolls. Noroton (talk) 18:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Photos

I have found a public domain photo of Buckley courtesy the US Military and inserted it in the infobox. I have also added three photos to the article, so I hope that the photo request was taken care of. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

sesquipedalian wiktionary:sesquipedalian William_Frank_Buckley Avram_Noam_Chomsky

This week various television shows & websites have indicated these connections.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 01:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversies with Conservatives section

I added a section on controversies with conservatives only to have it undone within about two seconds by some asshat moderator saying whether or not it was notable. Buckley firing his own editor in chief? PROBABLY NOTABLE. Prominent conservative intellectuals claiming that Buckley had lost his way, saying he had ruined the movement he claims to have started because his magazine sold out on the Iraq War, probably the most talked about political issue of the year? PROBABLY NOTABLE. having to defend the OBVIOUS from people who watch these pages and raise the opportunity cost to make serious contributions to wikipedia are a real hassle and completely ridiculous. 216.157.212.250 (talk) 05:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

First, do not attack me or any other users personally, or you will be blocked. I'm not kidding. I'm also not sort of "moderator"; I am simply another editor who removed the info because the bulk of it was largely uncited. Another issue would be the title of the section, which might not pass under WP:CRITICISM but I think another titled could be formed. I'd like to see what some other editors think before re-adding it, however; and please, lose the attitude. Happyme22 (talk) 05:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please everybody keep WP:COOL. Someone of Buckley's public stature as a controversialist and with his standing within the conservative movement will naturally be crticized and some coverage of the criticism will be necessary in order to treat the subject here fully and fairly. I don't see any way around that under WP:NPOV. Since he was the most prominent leader of the intellectual conservative movement in the 20th century, criticism from within the movement must be covered. I think there's room for 2-3 paragraphs of that here (the typical size of a section). I'm not at all sure the section IP 212 proposed is the right language, but it's a start. Here's the text I took from the edit history:

Controversies with Conservatives

Several prominent conservatives claimed that National Review and Buckley had lost its way since the late 90's. Especially over issues such as illegal immigration and the issue of American identity and culture, groups such as VDARE listed what they perceived as Buckley's arrogance towards debate and discussion of issues facing modern conservatives. Several pointed out that Buckley's magazine made significant about-faces on issues such as race, immigration, war and the rise of the state. Buckley himself became more vocal against the Iraq War towards the end of his life, even as National Review continued its support as a publication. Prominent conservative dissidents such as Peter Brimelow noted Buckley's penchant for maligning up and coming conservative thinkers such as Brimelow, Pat Buchanan, the late Murray Rothbard and John O'Sullivan whom Buckley fired from National Review in the late 90's.

I think this concentrates too much on the tail end of Buckley's career, and the part about National Review after his direct control of it passed is the closest to being tangential. On the other hand, as conservatism grew and became more influential, criticism from the right would be more important, so the more recent the criticism, the more important it is to include. Buckley was criticized from his right from the beginning, although I think some of that can be assumed from his fights with the Birchers, anti-semites and the like. I think I can find criticism of Buckley from the right and left in the John Judis biography.

I'm not sure how we should handle criticism from the center/liberals/leftwing. A lot of it can simply be assumed when it comes from outside the conservative movement (and it would be criticism more of conservatism than of Buckley in most cases, and therefore doesn't need to be covered in this article). I think some of it is already interweaved in other sections, and that seems to be right. Criticism from within the movement, it seems to me, is best in its own section. Noroton (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If anyone takes a look at the "Later career" section, the third and second paragraphs from the bottom discuss his relationship to the conservative movement in his later years, mentioning issues on which he disagreed with most conservatives. Possibly this might be combined with criticisms of him by other people on the right, especially in later years. There was also significant criticism from conservatives and from the right in the 1970s and 1980s that Judis covers. Noroton (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm perfectly cool; this was surely not the first argument I've had on Wikipedia. Anyway, I do not have a problem including where Buckley disagreed with conservatives, or where he was criticized by them. I do, however, feel that it needs to be written in a more NPOV tone, a better title for the section is needed, and is surely the above serves as an example of a paragraph that needs more citations to merit inclusion. Happyme22 (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've made some tentative changes to that part of the article, but it's only a start, and I wouldn't add any of this paragraph without changes and adequate cites.Noroton (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Vidal and Court Costs / Legal Fees

It appears - from the references already provided in this article - that this is not really a controversy, even though there have been several edits on the subject.

The original feud appears to have ended with Vidal paying WFB's COURT costs. This is not the same as "legal fees," which was pointed out in an editorial note which has since been removed. (I am not commenting on that edit, just noting it here. The point is, that "court costs" are not the same as "legal fees.")

However, it appears that, at a later date, Esquire published the original essay that had gotten them in the soup the first time, and WFB's attorneys contacted them AGAIN, and they agreed - the second time - to pay his LEGAL FEES associated with forcing them to stop doing what they'd already agreed not to do decades earlier.

So, from my read of the references, the first time, Vidal paid WFB's COURT COSTS, and the second time, Esquire magazine paid his LEGAL FEES.

Right?

Isaacsf (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Buckley and racism

The reference to Buckley renouncing racism comes pretty much verbatum from a blogpost. Does anyone know of a better citation for this?

66.179.113.135 (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Irish Catholic?

This article says his father's family was Irish and Catholic. I never heard him described as of Irish origin. I seem to remember reading his book on his Catholic faith in which Buckley discussed his family's long tradition among English Catholics. At the very least, it suggests his family were Scots and Catholic.--Parkwells (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

He attended English and French Catholic schools, which may have been what I remembered. One account said that his family's style of "high Catholicism" was influenced by his Swiss-German mother. Definitely an interesting journey from his father's family's immigration and start in Texas.--Parkwells (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Childhood residences

Does anyone have any firm citation(s) for childhood in South America / Texas / Europe / Mars? He's said to have learned English later in his childhood...where did he live that this was the case?  Frank  |  talk  21:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In the intro of his book "Nearer Thy God" he explains that he was born in Mexico City and lived there until the age of 4 (his first language was Spanish). He was then sent to live in Paris, (his second language was French). He didn't start using English as his primary languagae until the age of 6, when he was sent to live at a boarding school in England. I remember in a Q&A session someone asked him why he spoke with an accent --- he replied testily (basically explaining the chronology above) and then asking, "how else should I talk?"

Economic theory

Did Wm. Buckley invent an economic term or did he simply discuss it? The term I'm referring to describes the choices that consumers make when they pay $100 for a dog's haircut as opposed to giving $100 to charity.

Some would find fault with the former choice while others would say that that is what happens in a free market.

Eclecticeducation (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)eclecticeducation 08-02-2008

Suggestion for the article

I have heard that wikipedia discourages "trivia" sections in their articles, but I recently read an interesting fact about WFB that I thought might be appropriate for the article. In 1987, as detailed in a The New York Times Magazine article, WFB wrote about riding in a specialized submarine to view the wreckage of the Titanic. While this may be trivia, it is damn interesting trivia.

Lborchardt (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Debatable success of "surge" injected into this article?

I was reading this article (William F. Buckley Jr.) and it states that near the end of his life he supported the surge and the "[ensuing military success.']" I think that this phrase should be edited because by no means has the surge been given time to be evaluated, and there are many who argue that the surge was not the causal factor in the reduction of violence in Iraqi cities but rather ethnic cleansing (the information I have seen seems to suggest this). With that in mind I again suggest that this particular phrase in this article be amended until further notice. 141.211.221.137 (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I entered this edition into the article because the section did not fully communicate Mr. Buckley's position on the surge. The current status of the section seems to likewise fail. I am no military expert, but Mr. Buckley, based on certain manifest successes of the surge, thought it worthy of continuation. The section as it now stands does not reflect that reality. It was so reported in the WFB Memorial issue of National Review (3/24/08). With that in mind I suggest that some reflection to his later support of the surge be included to reflect biographical accuracy. --NebraskaDawg (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hook

The article states: "Academy Award winner Dustin Hoffman modeled the voice of his character after Buckley's when he played the title role in the Robin Williams feature, Hook."

The article linked to for this trivia is rather ambiguous about this point at best. It states: "As this New Age revision goes, the middle-aged Peter (renamed Peter Banning) goes up against a Captain Hook played by Mr. Hoffman with a kind of campy villainy that owes much to William F. Buckley Jr." In the article it seems that any similarity to WFB exists in the mind of the reviewer, not in Hoffman's acting approach. Lborchardt (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've switched the ref with a 1991 People magazine article which states the claim explicitly. Other google hits showed up in the first 10, but this one is obviously from before Wikipedia. NJGW (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Hi, I have a colleague who is planning to record a spoken version of this article, but doesn't know how to pronounce "Aldyen". Any pointers? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 03:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Buckley = laissez faire

"Buckley's primary intellectual achievement was to fuse traditional American political conservatism with laissez-faire and anti-communism, laying the groundwork for the modern American conservatism of U.S. presidential candidate Barry Goldwater and President Ronald Reagan."

Buckley called for a "totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores" (his exact words). Hardly a definition of "laissez faire" by any stretch of the imagination. Josh (talk) 10:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, why is he in the category "American Libertarians?" Josh (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Once the context of his quote regarding the totalitairan bureaucracy (fighting Communisism) and the entire body of work from his career is examined, his laissez faire and libertarian leanings become manifest. His brand of conservatism was heavily influenced by libertarianism; partly producing the fusionism referenced in the article.--NebraskaDawg (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Context is irrelevant. No one can both call for a "totalitarian bureaucracy" and be a libertarian at the same time. The context doesn't matter. No libertarian of any variety would call for centralization of all power in the nation's capital, totalitarian bureaucracy, etc. Also, Buckley's extreme hawkishness kind of contradicts the non-aggression principle, which most libertarians subscribe to. Just because he calls himself a libertarian doesn't make him one. After all, Hitler called himself an "arch-democrat," but no one in his right mind would call Hitler a democrat, let alone an "arch-" one. Josh (talk) 09:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Context absolutely matters. He viewed Communism to be the greatest foreign threat to our security at the time (especially at the time the quote you referenced was made). As I said earlier, when the context of his career is juxtaposed to this one quote you are noting, his political philosophy is obvious. He, along with Meyer, fused traditional conservative principles with libertarian principles to produce Modern American Conservatism; which unfortunately was abandoned by the Republican Party during the Bush Administration. Using one quote of WFB is not sufficient ground to bring Hitler's "democrat" values in the conversation.--NebraskaDawg (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that calling yourself something doesn't make it so. Josh (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That is indeed true, but likewise, taking one quote over the course of someone's career does not constitute evidence of the individual's worldview, particularly when context is not considered or acknowledged. Regardless of our respective points of view on this question, we cannot forget that life in the United States in the 1950s was a far cry from what it is today. No one knew with certainty that the Sovite Union would when it did. Consequently, any modern American Conservative (traditionalism + libertarianism + anti-communism) would fear that their laissez-faire perspective would be worthless if the freedom enjoyed in the United States fell to the tyranny of communism. WFB also recanted his support for the Vietnam Conflict, with the benefit of retrospection. --NebraskaDawg (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Buckley on Torture

Suggested in his essay "Algeria Warned Us" published in National Review that Alisdair Horne's book A Savage War of Peace, which advocated the use of torture against the Arabs, was right and that the insurrectionists in Iraq cannot be defeated by any means that we would consent to use. http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200410261311.asp

If there are doubts about Buckleys advocacy of torture, the interested reader should consult Horne's book which contains a section entitled "How Effective Was Torture?" Horne cites Edward Behr as saying that without torture the FLN Terrorist Network would never have been defeated and the Battle of Algiers could not have been won. rumjal 01:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs)

And who knows, without torture Algiers might have even gained independence from France. (Well, could not resist...) GregorB (talk) 11:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Buckley's View on Modern-Day Conservatism

I have edited this section to ensure clarification on WFB's opinions. While Christopher Buckley has advocated a more libertarian philosophy, as was demonstrated in his Chris Matthews' interview, he did not always agree with his father, particularly on the abortion issue. This disagreement was observable during a joint appearance at the Goldwater Institute in 2004; the video is available on YouTube. Buckley did, however, advocate drug legalization or decriminalization. So I have edited the section to read "socially Conservative/Libertarian or libertarian-leaning." I also clarified his position on the Iraq Surge and provided a National Review reference link.--NebraskaDawg (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarity About His Early Life

Could someone knowledgeable about his biography please edit the section on his early life? Perhaps in the interest of brevity, it omits essential details that make it difficult to follow.

1. We see he is born in "New York City" but his next location is moving "from Mexico". Presumably he moved "to Mexico" at some point, but when? Was his family living in Mexico when he was born, and just in New York traveling?

2. We see he moves with his family from Mexico to Sharon, Connecticut, and then he starts school in Paris. Did his family move to Paris? Or was he only there to go to school? The he "received his first formal training in English at a day school in London" at "age seven." Also, this seems to (possibly) say that his family lived in New York, Mexico, Connecticut, France, and London all before the age of 7 or so. Doesn't that amount of moving seem unusual enough to warrant a note of explanation?

3. It's not clear what he and his family are doing before and during the early years of World War 2, or where they are. Shortly before the war he is at day school in England (presumably day school means that he is with his family, although he could be living with another family). Then his family takes in Alistair Horne as a "war evacuee" - but this could be a domestic evacuee (from London to the English countryside), or presumably an evacuee from England to the USA. Then he graduates from high school in New York, but again it's not mentioned that his family ever moved to New York, so it's not clear whether he is with them or not.

4. His early language learning is also not clear. Late in the article, it explains that his first language was Spanish, learned in Mexico, and his second French, learned in Paris. In the section on his early life, we learn, "by age seven, he received his first formal training in English at a day school in London." But was this his first significant exposure to English? Or just his first schooling? What did the family speak at home, considering that both parents were American, and neither is obviously a native Spanish or French speaker? In general this topic doesn't make much sense: a couple years as a toddler in Mexico, presumably with a Mexican nanny, followed by (at most) a couple years as a preschooler in Paris, presumably with a French nanny, with parents speaking English at home, does not result in a native speaker of Spanish or French. Children who learn a language at that age, with no opportunity to build upon it, normally remember a few words of preschooler vocabulary, and have an easier time if they try to learn that language in adolescence or adulthood, but they're hardly fluent just from that brief exposure. This is especially true when the entire rest of his childhood and adolescence he is living in English-speaking countries. So what's going on here?

Darkstar8799 (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Intro, primary achievement, and came on the scene

The introduction here seems impressive in its compactness and organization. Two questions. (1) Is it considered permissible to make the statement "Buckley's primary intellectual achievement" without attribution to a source? I don't question its relevance, but wonder about sourcing, and my question is genuine since I didn't study that guideline. (2) I wonder about the meaning of "Buckley came on the public scene" particularly 'public scene'. I can't suggest alternative words because I wonder what to aim for in this instance, but it seems ambiguous. See Words to Avoid. --207.172.94.79 (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

I tagged this section as POV since it clearly means to show some kind of conspiracy view of the universe.

William F. Buckley Jr. had nine siblings, including sister Maureen Buckley-O'Reilly (b. 1933 d. 1964) who married Gerald A. O'Reilly, the CEO of Richardson-Vicks (makers of Vicks Vapo-Rub) which sponsored the H. Smith Richardson Foundation and their projects related to the CIA's MK/ULTRA Mind Control programs, sister Priscilla L. Buckley, author of Living It Up With National Review: A Memoir for which William wrote the foreword; sister Patricia Lee Buckley Bozell, who was Patricia Taylor's roommate at Vassar before each married; brother Fergus Reid Buckley, an author, debate-master, and founder of the Buckley School of Public Speaking; and brother James L. Buckley, a former senior judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and a former U.S. Senator from New York. William and James appeared together on Firing Line. Buckley co-authored a book, McCarthy and His Enemies, with his brother-in-law attorney L. Brent Bozell Jr. (Patricia's husband) who worked with Buckley at The American Mercury in the early 1950s when it was owned by Clendenin Ryan, Jr. The American Mercury took an editorial turn to the hard right during the Buckley and Bozell tenure there when eventual American Nazi Party leader George Lincoln Rockwell also worked there. Ryan had sponsored both Col. Ulius Amoss and Maj. Carleton Coon, a recipient of Pioneer Fund financing from Wickliffe Draper in their successful efforts to develop MK/ULTRA trained, mind controlled programmed assassins like Robert Emmett Johnson, and to convince a Polish MIG pilot to defect to France while flying his MIG jet. Ryan later sold The American Mercury to Rev. Gerald B. Winrod, known as the "Jayhawk Nazi", from Wichita, KS who was indicted during World War II for violations of the Alien and Sedition Act. Winrod was an associate of Rev. Gerald L. K. Smith who helped to form the isolationist America First Committee with the owners of Buckley's publishing house, Regnery Press, spearheaded the Hollywood Blacklist campaigns and formed the McCarthy-inspired America First Party with H. L. Hunt, a lifelong friend of William F. Buckley, Sr.

Seriously. Trying to connect the subject with the American Nazi party without documentation is a dead ringer for some kind of craziness. Could someone please edit this section? 04:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I might as well throw out this huge, unsourced rant section. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks V. Joe (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"...a recipient of Pioneer Fund financing from Wickliffe Draper in their successful efforts to develop MK/ULTRA trained, mind controlled programmed assassins..."

Oy vey. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

To imply that these citations are either conspiratorial or Jewish-sponsored is pretty lame in fact and quite reprehensible. If you do not know your facts, try not to pose as some sort of expert.

Here are some citations from the Wikipedia "American Mercury" section.

These 2 URLs will contain page screen shots from American Fuhrer about Rockwell supporting The American Mercury citations:

http://www.wordhyperlinks.com/GLR1.rtf http://www.wordhyperlinks.com/GLR2.rtf

One of these URLs cites letters exchanged between GLR and William F. Buckley, Jr. as well. Read them and weep.

From Wikipedia:

Huie's experiment

William Bradford Huie — whose work had appeared in the magazine before — had gleaned the beginning of a new, post-World War II American conservative intellectual movement. He sensed correctly that Ryan had begun to guide The American Mercury toward that direction. He also opened the magazine's pages to more mass-appeal writing, by the like of the Reverend Billy Graham and FBI director J. Edgar Hoover. With boldness if anything, Huie seemed en route to producing what one of his staffers would have an easier time producing a few years later — the young William F. Buckley, Jr., whose God and Man at Yale was a best seller, worked for Huie's Mercury, invaluable experience for his 1955 creation of the longer-living, more deeply respected National Review. Buckley would succeed at what Huie was unable to realise: a periodical that united the nascent but already differing strands of this new conservative movement.

Huie found himself facing financial difficulties sustaining the Mercury as he pursued the new direction, and was forced to sell to a sometime financial contributor, J. Russell Maguire, in August 1952. George Lincoln Rockwell, later head of the American Nazi Party worked for Russell Maguire at The American Mercury for during that period. It was at this point that the new owners of The American Mercury took that periodical on a journey into the nether world of national socialism. That sale spelled the end of The American Mercury as a respectable mainstream magazine, though it would survive, steadily declining, for nearly 30 more years.

Within a very short time, Maguire steered the magazine “toward the fever swamps of anti-Semitism”, as National Review publisher William A. Rusher would describe it. Various interest groups which began only with the Anti-Defamation League accused Maguire's Mercury of ongoing and increasing Jew-baiting, particularly when it drew a number of purportedly anti-Jewish comments from the writings of Mencken himself back for reprint. The influences of both George Lincoln Rockwell and later the Rev. Gerald B. Winrod and General Edwin A. Walker, on the editorial policy of The Mercury resulted in anti-semitic, white supremacist, and pro-Fascist articles becoming commonplace in the magazine. Control of the American Mercury had passed from the respectable journalistic anti-establishment into the domain of extremist factions, and the editorial policy never attempted to regain credibility within mainstream intellectual circles.

Maguire did not remain long as the magazine's owner/publisher, but what he started other owners continued for the rest of the magazine's life. Maguire sold the Mercury to the Gerald B. Winrod-owned Defenders of the Christian Faith, Inc. located in Wichita, KS in 1961; Reverend Gerald B. Winrod, was known as "The Jayhawk Nazi" during World War II and was once tried and convicted for violations of the Sedition Act of 1917. The DCF sold it to the Legion for the Survival of Freedom of Jason Matthews in 1963, and the LSF cut a deal in June 1966 with the Washington Observer that telegraphed a merger with Western Destiny which was a Liberty Lobby publication owned by Willis Carto and Roger Pearson a well known neo-Nazi who headed up the World Anti-Communist League during its most blatantly pro-Fascist periods. At that time, Gen. Edwin A. Walker who led the American insurrection called: "The Battle of Oxford, Mississippi" also wrote for The American Mercury when it merged with Western Destiny. By then The American Mercury was a quarterly with a circulation of barely 7,000, and its editorial content was composed almost entirely of attacks upon Jews, African Americans, and other minorities.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DraperMan (talk • contribs) 18:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So William F. Buckley worked as a staffer for what was then a respectable magazine before it was sold to a bunch of neo-Nazi loons. Big deal. How the mind-controlled assassins fit into this I really don't know. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Socially Conservative/Libertarian?

These are diametrically opposed ideas. Why are they put together with a slash mark as if they are neighbors or identical? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.152.253 (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Social Conservatism and Social Libertarianism are only "diametrically" opposed in certain contexts. It is dependent upon which "conservatives" and "libertarians" are being examined. Mr. Buckley, and other Conservatives (capital "C" Conservatives), hold differing social positions on certain issues than the Libertarianism of the Libertarian Party, for example, but they come to those differing views as a result of their inherently shared philosophy, that is, the innate desire for individual liberty and freedom. The most graphic example of this is the position on abortion. The Libertarian Party would say that the true libertarian position would be that abortion restriction infringes upon the individual liberty of the mother, whereas Conservatives would say that abortion infringes upon the individual liberty of the unborn (the Creator-endowed, unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). So inspite of differing conclusions, they result from shared philosophy. And honestly, the issues separting Conservatives from the Libertarian Party are minimal at best, and again, stem from shared philosophy and worldview.NebraskaDawg (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Removing POV tag from mayoral candidacy section

I'm going to remove the POV tag from the Mayoral candidacy section. There's been no discussion here since it was added in June. Looking at the history I see attempts by IP editors to add conspiracy theories about Buckley's campaign manager (related, I think, to the contemporaneous attempts to add bizarre, half-gibberish claims elsewhere in the article about Gerald L. K. Smith et al.). None of this remains in the section now, which to me is currently a pretty straightforward recitation of the facts with a couple of sources. (Disclaimer: I have made edits to this section in the past.) YLee (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

1st language

This passage is simply wrong. It misinterprets the sources [84] - which say he spoke "funny" because of British influence, and it misrepresents reality. Buckley's first language was English, spoken exclusively in his family BEFORE he moved to Mexico, as well as during his stay in Mexico. Learning other languages at an early age certainly had an effect on his verbal development, but he was an English speaker first and foremost, from the earliest age.

"Buckley was well known for his command of language.[83] Buckley came late to formal instruction in the English language, not learning it until he was seven years old (his first language was Spanish, learned in Mexico, and his second French, learned in Paris).[10] As a consequence, he spoke English with an idiosyncratic accent: something between an old-fashioned, upper class Mid-Atlantic accent and British Received Pronunciation.[84]"

82.224.103.123 (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

To me his accent seems more Boston Brahmin accent which he would have picked up, if not at home, then in the prep schools and colleges he attended. If I had a reference I would add it, but I don't. Student7 (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Rand reference

Although the focus is on Buckley in this article, the previous text had stated that 'National Review' had "written out" of the conservative movement philosopher Ayn Rand with Chambers's negative review. This is belied by the fact that no less a figure than Reagan, after its publication, called himself a Rand "admirer" and by the fact that Rand never considered herself a conservative. Both are factually false implications of the previous text requiring either correction or a removal of all mention of Rand. Also, previous text had not even stated that the review was a negative one.-Pelagius2 (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

To "write someone out" means to reject them as outside the proper domain of conservatism and that is what Buckley did. What Reagan did belongs in another article. To argue that a) she's not outside (because Reagan said something) and b) she is outside because she never called herself a conservative, is contradictory and irrelevent. Rjensen (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

As stated, this implies that Buckley could speak for "conservatism" as such. If the article had merely said that Buckley had rejected Rand as not being ~ his ~ kind of "conservative" then you would be right. However, Reagan's stated admiration for Rand implies that Buckley was not speaking for the entire movement. (One could also cite Goldwater,etc.) Also, the previous wording did, in fact, imply that Rand was at some point "in" or purported to be "in" such a classification. This is the neutral POV implication of "writing out" in plain English. Moreover, the claim did not come from Buckley, at all, but from historian George Nash, who did not merely suggest Rand was not a conservative as such, but that the review had the ~ effect ~ of "writing her out." This has simply been shown to be false in the years to follow. Limbaugh, Beck, etc., continue to cite Rand, and this contradicts Nash's argument. The material you would suppress is relevant in showing the extent -- and limits -- of Buckley's power to "write someone out" of the movement.-Pelagius2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC).

I would further observe that the claim of "writing her out" is not supported by a citation to Nash, the one who made the claim, although Nash is cited elsewhere in the article. The only citation provided here is to the review by Chambers itself which does not itself make any such claim.-Pelagius2 (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The better cite is Burns' recent book. There was bad blood there (and I gave a Buckley quote for that). The National Review published an attack by Chambers designed to write Rand out of the conservative movement--that is not a controversial statement. Whether it succeeded or not is another issue (and belongs in the Rand article). What Reagan thought of her in the 1950s is not very relevant (Reagan was not known as a conservative at the time in question). Rjensen (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No, Reagan wrote that in 1964, the same year he gave the Goldwater keynote. His t.v. material had, even before then, made it clear why he might admire Rand. The fact that Reagan wrote this well after 1957 is what makes the point about Rand still being read by important conservatives. Also, as it now stands, it still implies that Rand was an attempted or purported or self-professed "conservative." This is just a matter of plain English and false. Finally, Burns, unlike Nash, does not use the phrase "write out," but says that Buckley and Chambers believed "Rand would have to be cast out of the respectable right." p.176. Their failure to do so is shown not merely by the Reagan quote, but by many possible quotes from the Goldwater people of 1964, from Reagan appointing Rand friend and student Martin Anderson as his chief domestic policy adviser in 1981 (he had served as an adviser under Nixon, too), and by the continued use of Rand's work by Limbaugh and Beck in recent years, just to cite a few examples.-Pelagius2 (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The quotation from Buckley about his "disliking," etc., Rand is not to be found on the page cited from Burns. It was removed until a better citation is provided.-Pelagius2 (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have also corrected the citation to Burns and replaced this with the language "attempt to" which makes this now factually correct without detouring too far into Rand.-Pelagius2 (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Buckley's magazine attacked Rand and Reagan had nothing to do with that. The quote is in Burns p 162 and numerous other place see for the Buckley quote. Rjensen (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If you both agree on the details, you can safely ignore this!

The US, unlike Britain, never really had a "Libertarian" party, per se. Rand was a libertarian, easy to say now. But did everyone understand that in the 1950s? Early 1960s? Democrats dominated politics most everyplace and everyone in opposition was assumed to be "Republican/conservative" by default. In Rand's case, they were wrong, but who knew? Buckley may have laid the criteria for American Libertarian vs American Conservatism by his examination/analysis of Rand. Is this possible? Student7 (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The citation from Burns's book does not support the material cited. Please provide citation for the actual quote before replacing it. Also, there are all sorts of POV assertions in previous text that are not neutral. Please remain neutral. This is not about label "libertarian" or "conservative." Today's conservatives use Rand routinely, e.g., Limbaugh, Beck, Tea Party folks, etc. Even current National Rev. contributors like Jonah Goldberg regret Buckley's stance on Rand. Attempt to "read out" Rand is of at least arguable validity. The review was merely an attempt.-Pelagius2 (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The Burns citation is online at for the Buckley quote-- and at other places including Buckley's books. Burns wrote on p 162: "As Buckley phrased it several years later, aside from her "desiccated philosophy," there was the "incongruity of tone, that hard, schematic, implacable, unyielding dogmatism that is in itself intrinsically objectionable. Rand's style, as well as her message, clashed with the conservative ethos." Rjensen (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that's different from the hardcover that I am holding in my hand -- but at least it is a citation. This still does not neutralize the fiery and controversial language or indicate that Buckley was merely attempting to do read her out of the movement. Also, "recalls" does not capture the controversial nature Buckley's report on their first meeting. It must read, "according to Buckley..." Also, it cannot have been a "retort" if this was the first thing said. Nat. Review's "way" suggests it simply happened in this manner. This is not clear. It is also unnecessarily repetitive. Finally, you have now added to the problem. Rand was not "excluded" from the "conservative community" either by Buckley or by this review. One must correct Buckley or, far more simply, simply remove the quotation. Rand's former friends in that community remained her friends, e.g., Henry Hazlitt, John Chamberlain (who positively reviewed it), Ludwig von Mises (who wrote to Rand in praise of the novel), etc., and there were Nat. Rev. contributors who objected to the review and published their own positive ones. Years after this review, Reagan called himself an "admirer" of Rand and appointed Rand student and friend Martin Andersdon his chief domestic policy adviser. Now, we can add all of this material -- or we can simply remove the factually false, misleading or at least highly distorted material from Buckley and his "attempt" to read Rand out of a movement of which he was only one voice. But the quote should stay and allow readers to determining who the book-burning Savonarola might have been.Pelagius2 (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

the current version of the article is fine. The article states what Buckley did/tried to do. Whether he was right or wrong, or successful or not, in reading Rand out of the conservative movement is not the point. The point is that Buckley tried to do so. Pelagius2 obviously admires Rand and thinks Buckley was wrong-headed in trying to exclude her from the conservative movement--and therefore Wikipedia should not mention it. If every Buckley move that someone believes is wrongheaded is excluded, we are left with a very short article indeed. Whether Rand is in or out of the conservative movement is fodder for her article and the article on the conservative movement. Rjensen (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I do think that Wikipedia should mention this effort on Buckley's part and have not said otherwise. Absolutely. Buckley's attempt to read Rand out spanned his whole career, N.R. articles through the 1960s, the "RIP" at her death, and straight up to his book Getting It Right. It's not only important to Buckley's own history but to the history of the American Intellectual Right. Rand's friends and students influenced important people on the Goldwater campaign, in the Reagan Administration, and in the media, such as Limbaugh, Beck, Stossel, Napolitano, Neal Boortz, etc., who have all cited her repeatedly, recently and favorably, recommending the very book that the Buckley/Chambers's review was all about. No, Rand was not a "conservative" and my admiration of Rand, though contextual, includes respect for the fact that she never called herself a "conservative" and never would have wanted to be part of such a movement. She doesn't get to decide these things any more than Buckley does, however, and it is Rand's actual, important and on-going influence among self-described conservatives that determines this. Limbaugh, for example, has extensively quoted from Atlas Shrugged on his air -- without qualification -- and more than once. Even Sean Hannity on his Fox program has favorably mentioned the new Atlas Shrugged movie. Tea Party activists cite Rand much more than they do Buckley, and carry photos of Rand at their demonstrations. Times have changed since Buckley's attempt. The current language is acceptable.-Pelagius2 (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Marijuana use

It is my understanding that WJB Jr. acknowledged that he experimented with marijuana once in international waters in order to satisfy his curiosity. If I'm correct that this was the extent of his use, then I question whether characterizing him as a "user" is an accurate portrayal. (MTP) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.116.36.205 (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

His repeated use, whether regular or irregular, is documented. The "international waters" bit is maybe apocryphal, but I'm familiar with the assertion that he would only consume it there to avoid breaking US law. Nevertheless, he referred to himself as a "user" of marijuana, not in the sense that he tried it once out of curiosity, and advocated for its legalization. Sources agree. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This article lies about one of Buckley's editorials to support the claim that he advocated White Supremacy in 1957

The following paragraph is factually incorrect:

In 1957, Buckley editorialized in favor of white supremacy in the South, arguing that "the central question that emerges... is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race." In 2004, he backtracked, saying, "the point I made about white cultural supremacy was sociological" and linking his usage of the word "Advancement" to its usage in the name NAACP, continued, "The call for the 'advancement' of colored people presupposes they are behind. Which they were, in 1958, by any standards of measurement." Buckley changed his views and by the mid-1960s renounced racism. This change was caused in part because of his reaction to the tactics used by white supremacists against the civil rights movement, and in part because of the influence of friends like Garry Wills, who confronted Buckley on the morality of his politics.

The editorial in question, which is not cited or named, is called "Why the South must Prevail" and was published in his National Review magazine on August 24, 1957. In it, Buckley (for the record the editorial was unsigned, but there appears to be little disputing that Buckley was largely responsible for it) makes the claim that the cultural mores held by the white population of the south was superior to that held by the black population. He goes on to argue that this situation must be rectified by freeing the black population from the cultural decay which enslaves them.

Wikipedia's own page on White Supremacy describes it thus (The wikipedia quote above bizarrely doesn't even link wikipedia's White Supremacy page; it instead links to wikipedia's page on racial segregation in the US):

White supremacy is the belief, and promotion of the belief, that white people are superior to people of other racial backgrounds. The term is sometimes used specifically to describe a political ideology that advocates the social and political dominance by whites.

A full and honest reading of Buckley's editorial will show he supported no such thing.

It therefore follows that this article's characterization of Buckley's backtracking and renouncing of racism is politically motivated hackery, as he needed to do no such thing. --Frochi (talk) 07:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the offending paragraph, however a section I added documenting this egregious editorial and academic failure on the part of Wikipedia and other media sources was also removed. The editor who removed my section advised that I use the talk page for discussion, so I will include my proposed section here for review. I envision that this should be added under the "Politics" heading:

Several media sources , including previous versions of this very article, have used their platforms to lie about Buckley's position on race in the United States. Particularly in the case of this Wikipedia article, the claim has been made that Buckley was a white supremacist. This claim is fraudulent. The basis for this and other similar misrepresentations is usually an unsigned editorial commonly attributed to him which was published in his National Review magazine on August 24, 1957. The following quote is an example of that which is usually used to support the claim:

The central question that emerges... is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race

The following quotes are rarely, if ever included alongside:

The problem in the South is not how to get the vote for the Negro, but how to equip the Negro-and a great many Whites-to cast an enlightened and responsible vote.

...

The South confronts one grave moral challenge . It must not exploit the fact of Negro backwardness to preserve the Negro as a servile class . It is tempting and convenient to block the progress of a minority whose services, as menials, are economically useful. Let the South never permit itself to do this. So long as it is merely asserting the right to impose superior mores for whatever period it takes to effect a genuine cultural equality between the races, and so long as it does so by humane and charitable means, the South is in step with civilization, as is the Congress that permits it to function.

Here it is easy to determine that the white supremacy charge is blatantly false given Buckley's vision of "genuine cultural equality between the races". Credibly recognized proponents of white supremacy such as the KKK and other WWII-era nazism movements would also find this passage objectionable because the basis for their claim of race inferiority arises from a supposed faulty physiological composition. This condition is therefore not subject to rectification via adoption of a different set of mores or cultural norms. This view, known as Materialism, the culture is explicitly informed by race, as opposed to Buckley's view that there is little if any causal relationship. This materialist view is exemplified by the following excerpts from a translation of Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf":

Such a dispensation of Nature is quite logical. Every crossing between two breeds which are not quite equal results in a product which holds an intermediate place between the levels of the two parents. This means that the offspring will indeed be superior to the parent which stands in the biologically lower order of being, but not so high as the higher parent. For this reason it must eventually succumb in any struggle against the higher species. Such mating contradicts the will of Nature towards the selective improvements of life in general. The favourable preliminary to this improvement is not to mate individuals of higher and lower orders of being but rather to allow the complete triumph of the higher order. The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all.

…

History furnishes us with innumerable instances that prove this law. It shows, with a startling clarity, that whenever Aryans have mingled their blood with that of an inferior race the result has been the downfall of the people who were the standard-bearers of a higher culture. In North America, where the population is prevalently Teutonic, and where those elements intermingled with the inferior race only to a very small degree, we have a quality of mankind and a civilization which are different from those of Central and South America. In these latter countries the immigrants – who mainly belonged to the Latin races – mated with the aborigines, sometimes to a very large extent indeed. In this case we have a clear and decisive example of the effect produced by the mixture of races. But in North America the Teutonic element, which has kept its racial stock pure and did not mix it with any other racial stock, has come to dominate the American Continent and will remain master of it as long as that element does not fall a victim to the habit of adulterating its blood.

...

All the great civilizations of the past became decadent because the originally creative race died out, as a result of contamination of the blood.

The most profound cause of such a decline is to be found in the fact that the people ignored the principle that all culture depends on men, and not the reverse. In other words, in order to preserve a certain culture, the type of manhood that creates such a culture must be preserved. But such a preservation goes hand-in-hand with the inexorable law that it is the strongest and the best who must triumph and that they have the right to endure.

Thus, a complete evaluation of Buckley's position shows this widely held view of him and by extension, many of his supporters to be dishonest at best, and academic fraud at worst.
--End of proposed section
I'd like to address the concerns brought up by the editor who removed my change.
1. Use the talk page for discussion - Done. This section has been up for over a week now, without comment.
2. Do not use Circular references - This section does not represent the use of circular reference. That is to say, it does not use a Wikipedia article as a source to support a claim. This is an example of using Wikipedia as a source of information on itself, as referenced in the Wikipedia section on the subject.
3. Do not give "undue weight" - what is meant by this is unclear. Can someone please expand on this point?
--Frochi (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

the quotes provided by Frochi prove that Buckley was advocating white supremacy now (1957) and for the forseeable future ("the right to impose superior mores for whatever period it takes to effect a genuine cultural equality between the races") -- that is until the blacks achieve "genuine cultural equality." That is pure white supremacy. Rjensen (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's see a source to support that definition of White Supremacy, Rjensen. See my definition and supporting evidence above.

--Frochi (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Buckley was openly segregationist. He also recanted in the sixties. Buckley was arguing (and believe me, that editorial would never have been published without his dissent) for whites to be in charge--that is, white supremacy. So yes, it's an entirely accurate statement. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

TallNapolean, you are also incorrect as to Buckley's support of White Supremacy. Refer to my definition as stated above. The issue of his recanting is an entirely separate one, as it is perfectly reasonable to debate whether or not his support of a particular policy was appropriate. Characterizing his position as that of advocating White Supremacy is simply fraudulent.

--Frochi (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Frochi is making up definitions and is not relying on ANY reliable sources. That is not allowed in Wikipedia. He repeatedly erases sourced material which violates Wiki rules. He will be banned if he continues to violate the rules. Rjensen (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Frochi is at it again. He does not understand that all Wiki articles are based on Reliable Secondary Sources (not primary sources), and it violated Wiki rules to erase sourced statements. Rjensen (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's page on Secondary sources clearly states a preference for using *Primary Source* material when discussing historical events, and I think this qualifies. I am also aware of the language on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, however the language on Secondary sources would seem to take precedent. Given that, it would appear to me that it is Rjensen and others who have breached Wikipedia guidelines regarding the sourcing of material when primary sources are readily available.

One would be correct in assuming that I am somewhat new to the Wikipedia editing process, and I am appreciative of whatever guidance the community can provide. However, I think Rjensen should take more care in making threats to other users when Wikipedia policy does not necessarily support his position.

My principle sources thus far have been Buckley himself, and one Adolf Hitler. While Hitler's "reliability" may certainly be in question, his unquestionable impact on world history makes his opinion relevant. Meanwhile it is other users on this page who have routinely used non-primary sources which have been used to blatantly misrepresent Buckley's position in United States history, as a full reading of Buckley's editorial will show.

--Frochi (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

the rules are clear: avoid primary sources, use reliable secondary sources. Hitler is not a reliable source on Buckley or on white supremacy. A key rule is Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. the rule also state: "In general, the most reliable sources are: peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." WP:PRIMARY Rjensen (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is important to note that the page secondary source is an article about the concept of secondary sources, and does not represent Wikipedia policy at all. You are much better off using WP:PRIMARY as the policy of record in this matter. Regardless of what preference might exist elsewhere, to use primary sources in this case is really not within policy.  Frank  |  talk  21:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

While the North was genuinely furious about occasional lynchings which still occured, there was considerable doubt about forcing whites in the South to integrate private facilities. Brown was already law, but that covered public facilities. Buckleys comments, which may sound quaint today, verbalized the nation's thoughts on the topic. They were hardly unique.

"Segregation" is what the South had practiced in schools and the North had opposed that. But not allowing blacks to enter private facilities seemed, at the time, careless of the power of ownership, and the right of free association with whom they pleased. Retroactively naming this position "Segregationist" seems judgmental.

It is unlikely that Buckley would not have known of and approved of black students and occasional black professionals in the North, for example. Not the actions of a "hardened segregationist."

As far as voting, there were poll taxes in southern and other states then which prevented many people from voting (more whites than blacks as it turned out). The attitude of poll-tax paying citizens was, understandably, why should anyone vote who wasn't "interested enough" to pay the poll tax? There was not a lot of enthusiasm for allowing uneducated and under-educated people to vote. Student7 (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Gore Vidal

While I find no fault with the section on Vidal, it does seems a bit overweighted when compared to (say) "Firing Line" which occupied a bit more of his time. Student7 (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The description of his verbal altercation at the 1968 convention describes Buckley as rising several inches from his seat as he launches into his "queer" diatribe. From the video you can clearly see he doesn't rise from his seat until after he finishes his threat. A very minor point, but clearly he gets far more worked up and threatening after he threatens to sock him. Brprivate (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Further Reading resource, from The New York Times Book Review

• http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/books/review/buckley-william-f-buckley-jr-and-the-rise-of-american-conservatism-by-carl-t-bogus-book-review.html ‘Buckley: William F. Buckley Jr. and the Rise of American Conservatism’ by CARL T. BOGUS, Reviewed by GEOFFREY KABASERVICE. "Carl T. Bogus traces the making of the man who remade conservatism."

97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we change the photo of Mr. Buckley for this page?

The photo used makes him seem scary and pale and sickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:EA00:104:1800:8025:9445:8D25:E939 (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Sesquipedalisn "writing"

While his on-air persona was noted for "ten dollar words" (NYT) his writing (such as his spy novels, was not so noted by the NYT or reviews thereof. Thus his WRITING had a "wide vocabulary" and not a "sesquipedalian vocabulary" even per the NYT. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

good point, so I fixed it per your suggestion. Rjensen (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I met him a few times at a local Radio Shack and he was far more interested in normal talk about an upcoming yacht race than anything else. On TV, he was admittedly giving a performance, to be sure. Collect (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Chambers review of Ayn Rand

I have untangled as notes 42/43 two parts of the former three-part note 42. This makes clear that the note(s) actually provide nothing but links to two recent online reprints of the 1957 review by Whittaker Chambers, both without even a one-line preface.

The third part of note 42 was a link to http://whittakerchambers.org/ without comment, simple misuse of the authorlink field of {{cite web}}. That Whittaker Chambers website may provide some comment on the incident but a link to the homepage is not sufficient. (A homepage glance shows that the site does reprint articles by Whittaker with short prefaces by David Chambers.) --P64 (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Buckely's military record

On the occassion of Gore Vidal's death today ( 31 July 2012), myself and others will recall the Vidal/Buckley exchange of 'crypto fascist' / 'I served in the infantry in the last war' / 'no you didn't' etc

The narrative of Buckely's military service is unreferenced. The timeline would seem to be: graduation from Millbrook School ca June 1943, aged 17 / attendance at UNAM from 1943-1944 / "The following year upon his graduation from the U.S. Army Officer Candidate School, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the U.S." / "after the War" returned to Yale, ca. Sept 1945

OCS was at the time a brand-new 12 week training program at Ft Benning, Georgia. Buckley is apparently listed in the OCS Hall of Fame.

There's a lot of rapid jumping with no connecting narrative, and some of this does not make intuitive sense. Can someone with greater knowledge of the biography clarify dates and circumstances of OCS attendance and date of commission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smcewincarr (talk • contribs) 15:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Mexico??

Apparently there was a significant period of time that Buckley spent in Mexico, but this article doesn't even go into it. The first sentence in the section "Early Life" states, "Buckley was born...in New York City...", and then in the next sentence it says he "moved as a boy with his family from Mexico to Sharon, Connecticut." There's a gap of a couple thousand miles here. How, when and why did he go from New York to Mexico? Later in the article it is stated that he went to school in Mexico, and it is implied that Spanish was his first language, not learning English till he was seven years old. If Mexico was that significant a part of his story, can someone please elaborate? Eastcote (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

US Libertarian Party comments

Buckley favored Ronald Reagan in the United States presidential election, 1980 over the Libertarian Party (United States) who nominated Ed Clark for President and David H. Koch for Vice President.

When, in 1980, David Koch ran for vice president on the Libertarian Party ticket—a race he also funded—his platform called for the abolition of Social Security, minimum-wage laws, gun control, all personal and corporate income taxes and much else. A worried William F. Buckley Jr. called it "Anarcho-Totalitarianism."

99.181.134.121 (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

actually it was Ed Clark who was the presidential candidate not Koch, and Buckley's one-liner putdown of Clark was one of several thousand he is credited with, so this does not figure in the Buckley article. It seems to be a coat-rack device to attack Koch in 2013 rather than explain Buckley. Rjensen (talk) 10:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You nailed it. This Block evading IP sockpuppet has been external link spamming in favor of their POV for 2+ years. See User:Arthur Rubin/IP list NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Non-neutral main pic?

The main picture for this person is hardly one that conveys a neutral impression ... they caught his really, really bad side, in the middle of something. Could we use another one that doesn't make him look like quite as much of a psycho? 74.141.69.51 (talk) 03:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:William F. Buckley Jr./Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs general filling-in. WFB played an important role in the Cold War, modern conservatism, and has published writings that fill hundreds of archival boxes at Yale's library. Some more could be written. Rkevins82 20:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 16:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Influences/influenced

User:Collect today deleted Henry George from the list of influences with summary "rm unsourced and not in biography" (diffs).

{{Infobox writer}} no longer supports the fields influences and influenced. Its template documentation now instructs (twice): "No longer supported. Please move cited/citable instances into prose."

Here are the parameter values (cut and paste, modified to display the one deletion and the one reference):

• |influences=Edmund Burke, Milton Friedman, Henry George, Russell Kirk, Frank Meyer, Albert Jay Nock, José Ortega y Gasset, Richard Weaver, Eric Voegelin
• |influenced=Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Barry Goldwater, Rush Limbaugh, P. J. O'Rourke, Ronald Reagan, George Will, Jonathan Krohn

The scope of the reference is clear only in covering Weaver and excluding Voegelin.

--P64 (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Only referenced influences belong. We ought to remove the others which do not get a mention in the body of the article, IMO. Collect (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

{{Infobox writer}} no longer supports the fields influences and influenced. So the parameters that I have quoted are technically superfluous code --which I will momentarily replace with a hidden reference to this Talk (else another editor will delete without comment).

Anyone interested in the general points may see Talk: Ray Bradbury#Influences/influenced for some more explanation, and follow its cross-references to much more.

--P64 (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on William F. Buckley, Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070806182534/http://www.villagevoice.com:80/blogs/pressclipsextra/archives/2004/12/buckley_and_vid.php to http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/pressclipsextra/archives/2004/12/buckley_and_vid.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051230025519/http://www.lewrockwell.com:80/rothbard/rothbard6.html to http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard6.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on William F. Buckley, Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090112173159/http://www.encyclopedia.com:80/doc/1P2-1151505.html to http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1151505.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070702035617/http://www.nationalreview.com:80/buckley/buckley200602241451.asp to http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200602241451.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on William F. Buckley, Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100525170517/http://cumulus.hillsdale.edu:80/buckley/Standard/index.html to http://cumulus.hillsdale.edu/buckley/Standard/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080605201516/http://www.cnn.com:80/2008/POLITICS/02/27/buckley.obit/index.html? to http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/27/buckley.obit/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090109203640/http://www.nationalreview.com:80/flashback/flashback200511170846.asp to http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200511170846.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110112234003/http://www.jfredmacdonald.com:80/macfilms/Press%20Release%202.htm to http://www.jfredmacdonald.com/macfilms/Press%20Release%202.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090826230758/http://www.nationalreview.com:80/document/document200412140834.asp to http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document200412140834.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090109170548/http://article.nationalreview.com:80/?q=YzhhYmYzNjQzM2ViYmMzZmUwNjRiZTQ4YTVmY2I1OTY= to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzhhYmYzNjQzM2ViYmMzZmUwNjRiZTQ4YTVmY2I1OTY=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120106215734/http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6724737060193073610&q=william+buckley to http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6724737060193073610&q=william+buckley
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090109212724/http://article.nationalreview.com:80/?q=NGEwNmYxYjRhZmRkZjA4MmM1YzE5MDIzMzJlYjExNmU= to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGEwNmYxYjRhZmRkZjA4MmM1YzE5MDIzMzJlYjExNmU=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110717033709/http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YzllM2IwOGRmODM5YzFhZDEyYjk5MDEwNzBmMTk3MmE= to http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YzllM2IwOGRmODM5YzFhZDEyYjk5MDEwNzBmMTk3MmE=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Pushing Sagan POV when discussing Day After debate

Why is it that, in an article about William F. Buckley, we see a whole section dedicated to one quote made by Carl Sagan? It's irrelevant to Buckley being a part of the debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.205.30.34 (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Search for William F. Buckley Jr.

A "Search Wikipedia" for Buckley did not produce William F. Buckley. However, a search for William F... did. I have never been unable to find any other famous person by their last name and been forced to search by their first name. I don't have any idea how to edit the search capabilities of wikipedia so if this is going to be corrected, someone else is going to have to do it. Thanks, 209.12.141.34 (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)David Curbo

Reid Buckley

His Wikipedia article says he was Bill Buckley's younger brother. If true, he should be listed in this article's info box along with James L. Buckley.

HowardMorland (talk) 03:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed and added. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

buckley and evolution

hey there ! here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=aGBFqcPzgT4&feature=related you can see, that Buckley was an 'creationist' or at least 'evolution sceptic' I think that may derserve to be mentioned.

pa_an

Video is down, but you are referring to Resolved: Evolution should acknowledge Creation, "Firing Line", Dec 19, 1997. Which is available (MP3) & (PDF, transcript & slides) via Biblical Catholic - Apologetics. ((C) Hoover Institution Archives at Stanford University; program FLS #203 / PBS #203 12/4/1997). WurmWoode^T 22:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

—Spoiler, Buckley at the end refers to an alleged Disraeli quip, whether man is descended Ape or Angel, Disraeli preferred Angel. (emphasis added)

Buckley's Place of Birth

His birthplace is given as NY, NY, but the source cited has nothing by way of documentation. I tried to track down every lead or source from which that source appeared to derive its information and found nothing. JohndanR (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on William F. Buckley Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080303043521/http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YmZkMTRmN2MyZjcwYWVhYWI4YjhkNjE5YTA5NmY3ODg to http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YmZkMTRmN2MyZjcwYWVhYWI4YjhkNjE5YTA5NmY3ODg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120706181429/http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/news.php?id=10676 to http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/news.php?id=10676
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110302123501/http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/02/28/seymour_hersh_whowhatwhy/index.html to http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/02/28/seymour_hersh_whowhatwhy/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzhhYmYzNjQzM2ViYmMzZmUwNjRiZTQ4YTVmY2I1OTY%3D
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104063943/http://hoohila.stanford.edu/firingline/programView2.php?programID=843 to http://hoohila.stanford.edu/firingline/programView2.php?programID=843
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGEwNmYxYjRhZmRkZjA4MmM1YzE5MDIzMzJlYjExNmU%3D
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YzllM2IwOGRmODM5YzFhZDEyYjk5MDEwNzBmMTk3MmE%3D
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100808091214/http://old.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200406291207.asp to http://old.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200406291207.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101212011402/http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/videodir/asx2/2299.asx to http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/videodir/asx2/2299.asx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

re civil rights statement in second paragraph

I have removed the claim that opposition to the civil rights movement was a core part of WFB's fusionism. It was not. If anyone feels otherwise and wants to have a discussion, please advance your argument here.

--24.188.35.161 (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on William F. Buckley Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141216202858/http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2006/03/24/1/an-hour-with-editor-william-f-buckleyjr to http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2006/03/24/1/an-hour-with-editor-william-f-buckleyjr
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150423135750/http://hoohila.stanford.edu/firingline/ to http://hoohila.stanford.edu/firingline

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Buckley family?

I note that there are fifteen names listed in 'Category: Buckley family'. It might be appropriate to have a page on the family as such, to overview where the individuals fit in. Valetude (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

The final sentence of the third paragraph contains both an unsourced fact (Buckley's "primary" contribution) and an unsourced opinion that is based on a false premise (that a "rightward shift" occurred in the Republican party). This is indicative of a subtle, yet still nuanced bias that the Republican and Democrat parties shifted positions on the political spectrum. Although this might currently be taught by some academic circles, the very definitions of politically "left" and "right" from their inception have never supported such a premise. To maintain a neutral point of view on this subject, I suggest that the sentence either be removed completely, or at least rephrased in a way that does not imply that the parties shifted their positions. If the connection to Reagan and Goldwater really needs to be emphasized, change the wording to say something similar to "Buckley is known to have influenced some of the more prominent politically-right people, such as Goldwater and Reagan," and then complete it with a proper citation. Otherwise, it's mere speculation that he influenced them at all. If there's no allegation of influence by Buckley on either of those men but that he, instead, influenced the base of the Republican party by explaining and defining its rightward principles, then this needs to be explained in more detail (with multiple sources cited) and removed from the introduction section — by either moving it to its own section or including it in the "Death and Legacy" section. But at the very least, the wording needs to be changed to maintain a neutral point of view. JimSchuuz (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)