Talk:Gary Bauer

Untitled

Oh come on, somebody has to have more info on Gary Bauer. He's a very important voice these days. I wish I could help. --Zakharov 22:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Allegations of infidelity

I cut back the section on allegations of marital infidelity, and I deleted the associated link to a Slate article by William Saletan. Reasons: (1) The Saletan article CRITICIZES the allegations as poorly-sourced. Using that article as a reference is exactly the kind of cheap trick Saletan is complaining about. (2) The Christianity Today reference appears to be legit, but the relevant paragraph of the article (only accessible to subscribers but confirmable through quotes elsewhere on the web) was pulled essentially word-for-word from CT (not just the quoted portion) and thus was a copyright violation.

== Dogged by charges of Homesexuality

Got rid of that silly crap.

Bauer's academic affiliation?

Did Gary Bauer attend Georgetown College, a private liberal arts college in his native Kentucky, or did he attend Georgetown College of Arts and Sciences (frequently know as Georgetown College), which is an undergraduate school within Georgetown University, where he later received his law degree? The link in the wiki page links to a disambig. page, so I am uncertain. 134.88.184.225 (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

He attended the Kentucky school. --rogerd (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

More Biography Needed

There is a lack of personal information. I actually run into Bauer at IAD; I was sitting down in rather informal wear for a very long flight ahead, Bauer passed by and threw the most condemnatory and sneering look at me. I do not think that he fits within the normal parameters of a mentally healthy person. Some of the information on Bauer's site may be good to add to this. While I do not find many of his positions particularly alarming, I think that his personality is extremely warped. This piece can be improved with a more detailed disucssion about his character, nature etc. 193.194.63.129 10:47, 25 June 2008‎ (UTC)

I added the signature and time stamp above from the archive. Any such information would have to come from a reliable source, and published elsewhere to comply with No original research. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Photo

A promotional photo of him is on his "About Gary Bauer" page on his "American Values" website, at [1]. I'd upload it but it looks like promotional photos of living humans is currently not allowed. Tempshill (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Why "neoconservative"?

Does Gary Bauer fit the definition of a neoconservative? If so, why? Pirate Dan (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I wondered the same thing when I saw this diff. At the time I almost reverted it myself, but didn't because I wasn't able to find a decent definition of "neoconservative" to support my decision (I also found that the term "neoconservative" is almost always used in an informal, negative manner, which makes me want to avoid using it altogether). I would vote to change that term back to "conservative" unless someone comes along with a good explanation of what it means and why it should be kept (esp. since the person who made the change didn't provide a source or give any justification for it). SheepNotGoats (Talk) 17:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to political affiliations it's better to rely on sources than to make the decision on our own. I've removed the "neo-" part until we find a source for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Neoconservative is a proper term, not informal and Gary Bauer is a Neoconservative, being part of neoconserbative groups such as PNAC. 84.68.2.55 (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, is everyone who signed the Statement of Principles for PNAC a neoconservative? Francis Fukuyama, for instance? Pirate Dan (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Manhattan Declaration, "pro-family" and "anti-gay"

While it's fair to say that Bauer supported "anti-gay" candidates, it's not fair to simply replace "pro-family" with "anti-gay." Opposing gays isn't the sum total of pro-family politics; it also includes trying to reduce divorce, preserving traditional parental prerogatives, and opposing other forms of marriage like polygamy. I think it is therefore appropriate to retain both "pro-family" and "anti-gay" descriptors (especially since there are many pundits, like Jonathan Rauch and Andrew Sullivan, who are pro-family without being anti-gay).

Also, the edit regarding the Manhattan Declaration was inaccurate. The Declaration says, verbatim, "we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family." It is, of course, dubious whether any such edicts exist in America, or are likely ever to exist, but there is no mention of refusing to comply with laws permitting abortion or same-sex marriage. 22:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest the phrasing "which they claim would force." This makes it clear which parts of the sentence are paraphrasing the document and which parts are describing it.

As for "pro-family," what you say is absolutely true in a general sense - however, if you look at the "Key Votes" subpage of "Congressional Scorecard" at the CWF website (ie. the votes on issues that they feel are important), there's a great deal of anti-gay action (not only opposition to same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships, but also to ENDA, allowing gay people to serve openly in the military, and to hate crime laws) and precious little of anything that actually strengthens the family (such as the reduction of divorce or subsidies to families with children) rather than just going after the families of gay people. So, in this specific case, referencing CWF, I feel it is appropriate to use "anti-gay" without the accompanying "pro-family." 217.36.47.1 (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that was me. Roscelese (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"Anti-gay" is a loaded term and implies animus toward gays. To be opposed to the dominant political views of gays does not make one anti-gay. I believe someone like Fred Phelps could be fairly characterized as anti-gay, but not Gary Bauer or CWF. In addition, the current practice in WP is to use an organization's self-described labels (which I incidentally disagree with). Their self-descriptors are "pro-family, pro-life, and pro-free enterprise." I've changed the article to reflect their self-description, putting the terms in quotes to demonstrate that they are their terms. Drrll (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that wanting to legally protect the decision to fire someone based on their sexual orientation (when you don't feel the same about, say, religion, so it's not just a pro-employer thing) is indisputably anti-gay no matter which way you spin it. In any case, thank you for using the quotes - this is a way to ensure NPOV. (I'm also editing the bit on the Manhattan Declaration as per above.) Roscelese (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Critic of Islam

I believe this sources it properly. MilesMoney (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Patent nonsense. Right Wing Watch is not a reliable source, and even if it were the basis for the addition is very thin, at best. RWW merely quotes a third party, Don Feder, who was speaking in an interview with Mike Huckabee on Fox News. Thus, the statement could only be made in the article if it also included attribution as the opinion of Don Feder, which in turn would raise clear problems with the UNDUE portion of WP:NPOV. This chain of hearsay utterly fails all standards of WP:V. Reverting. Roccodrift (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no shortage of reliable sources. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/09/anti-islamic-sentiment-cheered-at-values-voter-summit/63197/ MilesMoney (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That's much better. Suggest you also include this (or something similar): http://books.google.com/books?id=wokdS7hQAMMC&pg=PA46&dq=%22Gary+Bauer%22+islam&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VEyuUtT1AtXroATR3IKgAQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Gary%20Bauer%22%20islam&f=false

Roccodrift (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

BUT, be advised this is probably not suitable for inclusion in the lead. Roccodrift (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Now that you've conceded your error, you should be the one to restore what you removed. MilesMoney (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)