Talk:Bull Connor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Connor or Conner?[edit]

I have seen both Connor and Conner from various sources - in this article both are used, so that didn't clarify things for me at all. Googling yields more hits for "bull connor" than for "bull conner" (~86500 to ~12000) , and I've never encountered Conner as a name before, so I lean towards Connor. It would be nice if someone could figure out definitively which spelling is correct and change all instances of the name in the article accordingly. 68.56.255.109 04:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's "Connor". I corrected the inconsistencies. --Dystopos 16:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Unarmed or peaceful[edit]

"I changed the top part because ALOT of the protest marchers were not unarmed or peaceful." - quoted from edit summary by User:Greentime.

Without checking the Nunnelly book referenced, or any of the sources I have at home on the 1963 confrontation, I can tell you that the protesters that were engaged by Connor's forces on national television were, in fact, unarmed and nonviolent. The only violence I remember being reported near the park involved a thrown brick and some hand-to-hand tussling that occurred after the fire hoses and dogs were brought into the fray. If anyone has reputable sources claiming otherwise, please speak up and change the wording of this article accordingly. I will continue reverting uncited changes. --Dystopos 16:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unaccountable quotes[edit]

I deleted this passage, because various Google searches turned up empty.

Connor railed, "the nigger loving Kennedys, want to change our way of life, down here". [citation needed] He wanted Birmingham to ignore John F. Kennedy's death. Connor stated, "Lee Harvey Oswald, a :southern hero like John Wilkes Booth".[citation needed]

Greg Kuperberg (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Not every fact can be found in a Google search, especially if you don't know how to do one.
https://books.google.com/books?id=upWdDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=Lee+Harvey+Oswald,+a+southern+hero+like+John+Wilkes+Booth&source=bl&ots=sT2cASUh6s&sig=ACfU3U34M8tLCmX_L9OnTNxQf8HIOhEpkw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjonLT-3cvpAhUKr54KHVBwCu8Q6AEwCXoECA0QAQ#v=onepage&q=Lee%20Harvey%20Oswald%2C%20a%20southern%20hero%20like%20John%20Wilkes%20Booth&f=false -- Jibal (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Klan connection[edit]

According to http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-1091 Bull Connor was NOT a member of the Ku Klux Klan.65.170.33.100 (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article says he was apparently not a member of the Ku Klux Klan, not definitively that he wasn't. — QuicksilverT @ 16:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean?[edit]

The issues between the two men truly on December 26 when Connor was arrested, five days after having been found in a hotel room with his 34-year-old secretary, Christina Brown, following a Christmas party.

Apart from the missing words "truly came to a head" maybe?. I do not see any connection between the anomosity between the two and the arrest. was it instigated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonW11 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed -- the sentence is garbled, and seems unrelated to the paragraph. And even if that sentence were deleted, the rest of the paragraph is unclear: if Connor was arrested, what was he charged with? what was he convicted for? We can't just say he was "convicted" without saying what the crime was. So I have deleted the entire paragraph, since as it stood it made no sense, and there were no sources in it. — Lawrence King (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative[edit]

@NationalInterest16: Wikipedia goes by reliable source, and Bull Connor was, according to many reliable sources, an iconic member of the conservative faction of the Southern Democrats. As there is a large amount of confusion (apparently) over the shift in Southern Democrat position on race (Southern strategy, etc.), this is important to mention. To avoid further edit warring, please do not remove the word again until this issue has been discussed. Wikipedia works by consensus. Grayfell (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reference to Bull Connor as a "Conservative" other than by Wikipedia. In all other instances, he is mentioned as a staunch member of the DNC for the entirety of his life. Simply suggesting that Bull Connor was a "member of the conservative faction of the Southern Democrats" doesn't suggest that the word "Conservative" should be used. Again, I would be interested in reading these "reliable sources" since I was unable to find any. NationalInterest16 (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're putting "conservative" in scare quotes. Segregation was, by definition, a socially conservative position. Not all conservatives were Republicans, that came later. The article Southern Democrats explains that there was a strong strain of conservatism in the group from the beginning. Conservative Democrat also explains this, as does Dixiecrat, of which Connor was an influential member. "Dixiecrat" is often used as shorthand for any conservative Democrat. Conservatism in the United States#South and segregation also explains this, as does Solid South and conservative coalition (which was closely linked to Connor).[1] Nixon's Southern strategy was a deliberate effort to get these conservatives to switch to the Republican party, and it mostly worked, but they never stopped being conservative. Connor was originally a New Deal Democrat, but as Roosevelt and later Truman softened on desegregation, he rejected that aspect of the party. In other words, he was temporarily an economic liberal, but he was always a social conservative, and that's how sources define him:[2][3][4]
Grayfell (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure why you're questioning my punctuation usage on a wiki talk page. Segregation, most certainly, is not socially Conservative by definition. Your link to "Social Conservatism in the United States" mentions nothing about social conservatives being for segregation by definition. Additionally, your other links that deal with Southern Democrats; not only, don't provide any additional information as to whether Connor was Conservative, but also do not suggest a link between Conservatism and segregation. A quote from the page you provided on the Conservative Coalition, says the following: "The conservative coalition did not operate on civil rights bills." Perhaps you are confused about the definition of Conservatism in the United States. NationalInterest16 (talk) 06:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


The conservative coalition was conservative, and Connor was aligned with it as supported by sources (later, at least, initially maybe not). Isn't that the point? That he was a conservative? If you don't agree that segregation was and is overwhelmingly seen as socially conservative, many, many reliable sources support the connection: In addition to the ones already linked above, here are some more: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] There are many more where that came from. The underlying point is that conservatism seeks to 'conserve' the old social order, which has sometimes included hierarchies such as segregation. Connor was a Southern Democrat, and he was a conservative. There's no contradiction there. Grayfell (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the issue here is in the different interpretations of the word "conservative," which in some cases can mean an unwillingness to give up the past, and in other cases can refer to a political party. For example: Hillary Clinton might wish to keep in place an old law about immigration, rather than enacting a new law, which would make her conservative (traditional.) However, she is not a Conservative in the political usage of the word. Because of this double meaning, I would recommend changing the article to read, "A traditional Southern Democrat." This would clarify things. On another note, I still do not see any sources showing that Connor was aligned with the Conservative Coalition. Additionally, only two of your sources actually suggest a link between social conservatism and segregation, and one of them does so only in passing. The others simply mention "Conservative" and "segregation" on the same page, which does not mean that by definition, those who are Conservative, support segregation. NationalInterest16 (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative is not really the name of a U.S. political party, at least not one which is relevant to this discussion. Historically, the name "Conservative party" was applied to both southern racists who later joined the Democrats (Conservative Party of South Carolina), and sometimes to a movement of northern anti-racists who joined the Republicans (Conservative Party of Virginia, which confusingly, was aligned with the Liberal Republican Party (United States)) but that all happened before Connor. "Conservative" in this context refers to a set of overlapping political philosophies, instead of a single party. Conservative vs. liberal isn't so much concerned with specific laws as the social and economic effects and intentions of those laws, so Clinton would only be "conservative" if that immigration law sought to maintain a strong social hierarchy.

"Traditional" would be better than nothing, but it's still euphemistic. The sources I linked all support the connection between 'conservative' and segregation. If you don't agree, I don't know what to tell you, but as I said, there are many more where that came from. Here's one that mentions Bull Connor as an example:[11] (...hostility to civil rights and to liberal government were mutually reinforcing.) Another one:[12] (During the civil rights struggles, the only place white conservatives could be found was implicitly or explicitly besides Bull Connor, Strom Thurmond, Lester Maddox, and George Wallace.). Here's one talking about the conservative faction breaking away from LBJ after the Civil Rights Act:[13] That book is not about Connor, but the entire book takes it for granted that liberals would oppose segregation, while conservatives would resist desegregation. Many other books also do this, and it's not particularly controversial to say that segregation was, at that time, considered a conservative cause. Grayfell (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, segregationism was a conservative position. This is documented in numerous reliable secondary sources presented by User:Grayfell and, in addition, is clearly described in the article Southern strategy. Accordingly, I have reverted User:NationalInterest16's edit. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Segregation only has to do with conservatism if you are using the definition of the word that means traditional, or an attempt to cling to the past. However, it has nothing to do with Conservative ideology in the political sense. Therefore, the word should be changed to avoid future confusion. Traditional works just as well, unless you are trying to prove that Bull Connor was Conservative in the political sense of the word, in which case, none of the sources thus far, have provided evidence that show Bull Connor was a Conservative. NationalInterest16 (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please start formatting your talk page posts correctly. As I said, lower-c conservative refers to a collection of political philosophies which has included segregation. I've pointed to many sources supporting this. What information is "traditional" going to convey to the reader? Since it's not clear what the tradition is, this seems like a WP:EUPHEMISM. Since the South was, until Nixon, basically entirely Democrat, there were multiple factions in the party, and there were a few Southern Democrats (such as Sid McMath and arguably LBJ himself) who opposed segregation, and more still who were at least resigned to its inevitability. Connor was part of the conservative faction. Grayfell (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please learn a little American political history. See Conservative Democrat. This is already an established concept, and there is no need to invent a new term for it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The wiki page on Conservative Democrat, and the Wiki page on Conservatism in the United States, say absolutely nothing, not one thing, about Conservatism being related to segregation. Both of you may provide all the sources in the world, but they actually have to backup your point if they are to be of any use to this discussion. Actually if you read the Wiki pages Conservative Democrat, and Conservatism in the United States, they both completely contradict your points about Conservatism. NationalInterest16 (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can prove that all Conservative Democrats were segregationists, or if you can find more than just one extremely biased source, proving that Connor was definitely named as a Conservative Democrat, then the article should be changed. NationalInterest16 (talk) 06:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely don't know what you are talking about. Conservative Democrat#1948–1968: Segregationist backlash is clear that the issue is connected. Why would this section even be in the article if not in relation to conservative Democrats? Likewise, Conservatism in the United States#South and segregation is crystal clear. These may be useful for explanation, but the important thing is sources, and as I've said multiple times, there are plenty. There hasn't been "just one" source, there are many. Describing a source as "biased" doesn't make it so, and even it is biased, so what? Biased sources can still be used if they are otherwise accurate. Labeling a source biased is not sufficient to discredit it. Grayfell (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think discussion is clearly over. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing that there is such a thing as Conservative Democrats, and I am not arguing that some Conservative Democrats were segregationist. What I am arguing is that not all segregationists were Conservative Democrats, and that there is no evidence stating Bull Connor is a Conservative Democrat. Your sources do not state that Bull Connor was a Conservative, and your sources do not prove that all segregationists were Conservative, so you cannot say in the article that Bull Connor was a Conservative Democrat. There has to be evidence that shows he was a Conservative Democrat, or evidence that shows all segregationists were Conservative. NationalInterest16 (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But race was the wedge issue of the American South in the 1950s and 1960s. Immediately after the war, it had been opposition to the New Deal. Alabama, as it happens, was actually very pro New Deal. But as one source puts it, "And race's inviolable connection to the other pillars of conservative southern orthodoxy - class, gender, ethnicity, religion, militaristic patriotism - made talking about Alabama as the most liberal place around, except on matters of race, the logical equivalent of asking Mrs. Lincoln how she liked the play, aside from the shooting."[1] The same source goes on to describe how Connor "converted with gusto" to the segregationist conservative coalition. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ Southern Disillusionment with the Democratic Party: Cultural Conformity and "The Great Melding" of Racial and Economic Conservatism in Alabama during World War II Author(s): Glenn Feldman Source: Journal of American Studies, Vol. 43, No. 2 (Aug., 2009), pp. 199-230
  • Calling Connor conservative puts him incongruously in company with, for instance, Eisenhower. Such a usage makes "conservative" synonymous with reactionary or extremist. Connor is identified not only with segregationism but more specifically with the extreme violent enforcement of segregation. Don G Taylor (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, the word "conservative" does not appear in the article, and apparently hasn't since 2016. --Dystopos (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bull Connor. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 16:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing for chronology[edit]

There was considerable repetition between sections and circular narrative. Have edited to put organization of the early 1960s period of Connor against activism, in more chronological order. It jumped back and forth too much before. Have put the events of the Freedom Riders before change in city government and Connor being voted out of office.Parkwells (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bull Connor. 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:

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) 11:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bull_Connor&oldid=1199421736"