Talk:Ward Connerly

'Married to a white woman' - this statement has racism written all over it, should be removed.

The "uncle tom" remark is a rude comment and is presented too matter-of-factly —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.195.129.10 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

Also, the "downplaying African heritage" remarks appear to be a specific editor's bias toward the one-drop rule. I've known Connerly for years. He does not downplay his African heritage, he simply embraces ALL of his heritage. There is a big difference between the two concepts. Let's not be promoting the racist one-drop rule here. It is not appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jlandrith (talk • contribs) 23:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC).

The article doesn't respect the NPOV policy

Biographies of living persons must adhere strictly to the following policies:

• Verifiability
• Neutral point of view
• No original research

The current article, is written in a clearly biased tone, and doesn't provide any reliable and neutral source to back up some claims. I partly edited the text, but due to lack of time, I didn't finish it. I'll try to edit the rest of the article later. Any suggestion or remark, please write it here. Thx --vincent shooter 15:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks both informative and fair to my eye. Indeed, I can't guess which bias you think it has! The attempt to suggest that Mr. Connerly might personally support segregation would be put in better context by mentioning that his wife is a Euro-American. --JediGeek 16:40, 17 November 2006 (Houston Time)

Euro-American?? Now, that sounds racist and non-NPOV. I think the article as it now stands is fairly neutral. I'd remove words such as "purports" and "controversial" in the first paragraph: That sounds like it was written by someone with an axe to grind. —Quicksilver^{T @} 16:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Euro(pean)-American and you bust a gasket? It sounds like you have some axe to grind with that strange outburst.

European American reflects nationality, while the issue here is race.72.67.175.145 00:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Much of the article seems to be pro-Connerly and is intended to prove his detractors wrong.72.67.175.145 00:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Moderate Conservative Political Activist

The first sentence uses this term to describe Connerly--what does it even mean? In addition to be unclear, it strikes me as an attempt to change perceptions of the fact that Connerly is indeed conservative. Here in Michigan, he just helped pass a constitutional amendment opposed by both the Democratic and Republican candidates for governor. That sounds pretty conservative for me. It's not a value judgement, just a statement of fact. I'd suggest removing the "moderate." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.88.100.58 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 21 November 2006.

I disagree. Since when has support or opposition to affirmative action been the sole defining factor in determining whether one is a conservative or not? Connerly has many moderate views, such as his support for homosexual rights, which clearly runs counter to modern conservatism. Jlandrith (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC).

When you refer to "modern conservatism," what strain of conservatism do you mean? Religious conservatism, or free-market conservatism? Or foreign policy neoconservativism? many would argue that there is no unified modern conservatism, and fights following the '06 election seem to reflect that.

The entry says that he supports domestic partner benefits; I agree that that is not a conservative view, but generally, domestic partner benefits refer to something more limited than civil unions, which are in turn more limited than same-sex marriage. So while it's important to note that he is not anti-gay, his position there is relatively conservative if compared to the law of the land in various other states. I'm curious, though--what kinds of domestic partnerships has he supported? The meaning of the term has changed significantly in California since it was enacted in 2000. See the Wikipedia article on "Domestic Partnership in California" for more on this.

In general, I would still argue that "moderate conservative" is unclear, and it borders on what Wikipedia defines as weasel words. If you mean that he is a libertarian conservative, which might be the case if his opposition to affirmative action and his support for domestic partnerships reflect a desire to limit government's role in regulating people's lives, then say so. If you mean that he is conservative on some issues but not others, then enumerate them (and I'd use more than just affirmative action and domestic partnerships). And if he's mainly just focused on affirmative action, then perhaps call him an anti-affirmative action activist. But please be more clear.

Be more clear? Please start signing your contributions so we know who we are talking to and when the contribution was made. Let's examine your argument. Your objection above muddles conservatism as a philosophy vs. your personal definition of conservative laws on same-sex relationships, leaving me confused as to your actual point. What laws have been passed in other states have no bearing on the matter of a person's political philosophy, which is the point we are hashing here. We are not defining same-sex marriage laws, we are discussing your perception that someone is automatically labeled a "conservative" if they oppose affirmative action. As you must surely be aware, few conservatives in public office or media circles support any kind of benefits for homosexual couples.

If I follow your logic, opposition to affirmative action, something many conservatives publicly disagree with Connnerly on, automatically makes him a conservative. However, his support for benefits for same-sex partners, something few conservatives support publicly, doesn't make a difference that lends itself to an additional descriptor? So, we are supposed to use your affirmative action litmus test as a general indicator of one's "conservative" identification, while ignoring Connerly's public support for homosexual partner benefits which runs counter to the beliefs of most conservatives? Weasel words indeed.

For instance, Colin Powell does not favor anti-affirmative action campaigns and has publicly stated such, yet he is considered a conservative. As you are the one requesting a change and attempting to define conservatism solely on the basis of support for or opposition to affirmative action, it would appear that you are the one required to provide clarity as to why this is the defining factor. As you raised the objection, the definition is yours to provide. Define "conservative" and why you believe that opposition to affirmative action automatically makes you a conservative and solely a conservative.

The use of moderate is fine in my opinion, but I do personally prefer libertarian conservative, which you mentioned above as an alternative. However, the use of the word libertarian is even more prone to ideological warfare over the proper use of that debated term. Given I did not write or edit the paragraph in question, I'll wait to see what other feedback is offered by additional editors of this page. Jlandrith (talk • contribs) 10:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC).

Spearheaded?

The "Political Views" section says that Connerly "spearheaded efforts to grant domestic partner benefits to gay and lesbian couples in all state universities." Is there a source for this? If he was a leader in this campaign, are there any articles fromt he LGBT press, if not from the mainstream media, describing his leadership? If not, I'd strongly suggest that it be removed, or at least that "spearheaded" be changed to something like "supported." This whole paragraph is problematic due to its lack of sources, even though it describes what Connerly "says."