Talk:William F. Buckley, Jr.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the William F. Buckley, Jr. article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] The Buckley School of Public Speaking

The Buckley in question is Reid Buckley, not Bill Buckley. It's a big family, and while Reid and Bill do share a similarity in looks and probably a common ancestor, they are in reality two different people.

Source: The link at the bottom of the Wikipedia page. Reid Buckley is identified on the first page.

-- davidtwery _at_ comcast _dot_ net (not a Buckley)

[edit] 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, [1], [2] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] New Yorker reference

In The New Yorker's Issue of 2006-07-31 article Know It All: Can Wikipedia conquer expertise? by Stacy Schiff, this artile is referred to with:

What can be said for an encyclopedia that is sometimes right, sometimes wrong, and sometimes illiterate? When I showed the Harvard philosopher Hilary Putnam his entry, he was surprised to find it as good as the one in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. He was flabbergasted when he learned how Wikipedia worked. “Obviously, this was the work of experts,” he said. In the nineteen-sixties, William F. Buckley, Jr., said that he would sooner “live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.” On Wikipedia, he might finally have his wish. How was his page? Essentially on target, he said. All the same, Buckley added, he would prefer that those anonymous two thousand souls govern, and leave the encyclopedia writing to the experts.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Final Public Appearance at Yale University, November 2, 2006

There was a change tonight (11/2) which was just deleted and should be restored:

+ On November 1st, 2006 at the Yale Political Union Buckley delivered his final public speech on matters of policy. The topic of his speech was "Resolved: The Democratic Candidates for November 7th should Withdraw".

Link at the Yale Political Union website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.87.217 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 2 November 2006

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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[1] and John O'Sullivan whom Buckley fired from National Review in the late 90's.[2]
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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