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."

Mr. Connerly

My name is Chris Michael, I was up late last night and I had happened to see your show and you were discussing the topic of racism among the community of Americans. I was studying what you had to say and you are right, there is a problem in the community with stereotypes and classifications. I believe classifications are a gateway toward stereotypes and I also believe that they will not go away due to how we are raised as children. As a child we are taught the fundamentals and building blocks to set up our own classification for the future. For example being taught that a banana is a banana, we would not call it a pear. The child then learns that the banana is in fact a banana and it's classifications that follow it can be recognized, so therefore that child wouldn't relate the banana toward anything else. Children also learn about different types of people, some are light skin, some darker, some are old, some are of youth, and that nearly every hair color and face is distinctive. The child starts recognizing certain traits and attributes toward different types of people, animals, and objects. Thats how children indicate the truth and facts around them. Children, the base of our society, observe us and take mental notes about everything. So, when children are raised in different scenarios and when they have to adapt to a different scenario they aren't familiar with everything they thought was truth. So if two different children meet, they'll be taking mental notes about one another. They don't understand that everyone is nearly the same and that different scenarios affect the way a person reacts and thinks. But ignorance and stupidity (also classifications) mold us to think that stereotypes are real. And once we think the stereotype is real we'll start trying to point them out more often. Repetition is the best way to learn. So when people hear that they are something their not over and over again they'll start to believe it. If you tell a beautiful person they are ugly they'll try to find every attribute upon their body that is ugly. So in order to destroy racism you have to destroy classifications such as beautiful, ugly, tall, short, skinny, fat, and everything else used to describe someone and the situation. If we keep saying racism exists that will open up the fact that it's okay. If we keep swearing how is someone supposed to have a clean mouth? The whole topic is simple yet so confusing because it is already out of control. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.193.16.221 (talk) 18:21, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

This is a talk page to discuss the Wikipedia article about Mr. Connerly and not a method to communicate directly with him. While there is a chance he may read your request and attempt to communicate with you, that is not the purpose of this web page. Please conduct your personal communication through Mr. Connerly's personal e-mail, or through his agent or the television program on which he appeared.144.15.115.165 20:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Cite and NPOV

This article is now written from neutral point of view. I have made numerous citation repairs and removed biased language.--Redandready 18:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Importance

Because of his contributions to the national debate on civil rights, a biographical article on Mr. Connerly is important. He is notable, and the subject to which he is connected is of universal concern. Importance is not related to whether or not said contributions were desirable.--Redandready (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)