Talk:National Review

Vague nonsense on climate change

An editor is edit-warring in vague text from an Economist blog about articles by one guy at the NR as a rebuttal to text on NR's promotion of climate change denial. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Please explain the advantage in not putting the three paragraphs in this section in chronological order? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's weird. FWIW, I'm the editor in question; the Economist language seemed relevant (an NR writer on the magazine's masthead had been described by RS as "changing the debate" on climate change, and his views are firmly within the scientific consensus). Other writers for NR have been within that consensus, too, and the Bump quote is sourced simply to a search term on NR's homepage. I think the section as it is now is inaccurate, let alone a violation of UNDUE. 67.245.37.188 (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The section should start with a general summary of how NR covers climate science, not with an in-the-weeds legal dispute about NR's attacks on one climate scientist. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Is that a rule? It's a "controversies" section, i.e. a list of controversial events, not a "Political views" section, which would be inapposite anyway. 67.245.37.188 (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Donald Trump section seems written in a non-neutral way

"However, contributors to National Review and National Review Online take a variety of positions on Trump. Liberal commentator Peter Beinart criticized Lowry and Hanson for "breez[ing] by Trump’s blatant assaults on long-held conservative values in their rush to find something, anything, to congratulate him for,"[33] while National Review contributors such as Ramesh Ponnuru and Jonah Goldberg have remained critical of Trump.[34] In a Washington Post feature on conservative magazines, T.A. Frank noted: "From the perspective of a reader, these tensions make National Review as lively as it has been in a long time."[35] " See what I'm talking about? It seems to me that Beinart's comment is out of place here. Every Trump supporter receives criticism from Trump detractors, and every Trump detractor receives criticism from Trump supporters. It's not even in a Controversy section. Lowry and Hanson's views are only mentioned in this paragraph within the context of their views being criticized, while Ponnuru and Goldberg's views are mentioned straightforwardly. And Beinart's criticism seems rather broad, too. I'm not saying it's a bad thing for Beinart to have said, but it seems clear to me that it doesn't belong in this paragraph. I hope you will agree that this is highly irregular for Wikipedia. I could say more, but I have my fingers crossed that you guys will see what I'm saying and agree that my point is reasonable. Or at least, most of you will. If no one responds in a few days I'll change it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benevolent Prawn (talk • contribs) 19:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Contradictiory claims in Background

The Background section has contradicting claims regarding whether or not there was a significant conservative media presence. It is either one or the other. As it stands now it reads like the victim of an edit war. Having somehow, for my sins, read some of the Tribune from that era and prior I doubt the credibility of someone claiming that it is a conservative newspaper. Can we get a review of the credibility of this source?

Finally perhaps the word conservative ought not to be there. Or one might say relative to today prior to conservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.17.241 (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Update thumbnail photo?

It's already more than 10 years old, and while visually striking, it makes NR seem more objectivist/Randian than it actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.95.209.130 (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)