Talk:William A. Donohue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the William A. Donohue article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Votes for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2005 June 15. The result of the discussion was keep, no consensus.
Archive
Archives
  1. 2005-present

Contents


[edit] Show?

What show was hereitcal... could someone state which show on ABC, Donahue find herecitcal? --Saint-Paddy 22:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The show was called Nothing Sacred. It kind of caused a mixture of reactions and discussions among Catholics for a time. It was one of a only a handful of shows where the main character was a priest, generally portrayed as a good guy by secular standards(which leads to some of the controversy), and the storyline revolved around a parish. However he was essentially liberal as is common for modern Jesuits.(He was not a Jesuit, but the show essentially was Jesuit) The "Our Father" was changed to the "Our Father or Mother", transsexuals were at his charity, and he was uncertain on how to counsel a girl desiring an abortion. Defenders cited that it dealt with real issues real priests face in a way you could never find elsewhere. Liberal Catholics I think found it refreshing.(I presume I never hung out with liberal Catholics back then) If you want more on Donohue's dealing with the whole deal it is mentioned in The Daily Catholic, San Francisco Faith, and briefly alluded to at Catholic League itself.(I cached it so the relevant parts are highlighted). Although "seriously offensive" is maybe less loaded then "heretical."(That being said I think the show was heretical as we're dealing with a Catholic priest I think the term is still valid whereas I would never use it in other contexts)--T. Anthony 17:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] South Park Fans Respond

TMC1982

[edit] Colbert Show

Corrected the quote based on a recording of the show, but is it relevant? (Newbie)

See below http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_A._Donohue#Donohue.27s_work_-_deletion.3F.3F , Jan 84.44.131.67 08:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That just links back to this article. As it stands, his appearance on The Colbert Report (where he "vented rage on behalf" of Stephen Colbert should probably be mentioned (as of now it isn't), but that's just me Toad of Steel (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Link to the description of the episode (March 4). Toad of Steel (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Media Matters

Mamalujo writes "media matters is not a reliable and unbiased source". How is this so?

Media matters is an advocacy group so it is expected to come with a POV. And unlike a peer reviewed journal or a mainstream newspaper, it does not have a regular process or reputation for fact checking. See WP:RS. Mamalujo (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Media Matters is a watchdog group, not an advocacy group. It monitors various news sources for inaccuracies and lack of credibility and reports them. And they extensively cite sources and provide referenced quotations. I dispute the statement by Mamalujo that they do not have a process or reputation for fact checking. Please provide neutral and reliable sources for that, otherwise it's just your opinion. — Becksguy (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The burden is not on those who question a source but on those who would use the source. Proponents of the source have the burdent to show that the source has regular and reliable fact checking. Even that would not be enough. Media matters is not merely a watchdog group. They are a very liberal advocacy group which primarily attacks moderate and conservatives in the media. They are not reliable nor are they neutral. Mamalujo (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
FYI, the media matters sources are listed on the pages indicated. I will assume good faith that Mamalujo is, of course, applying the exact same standards for content they wish to introduce into articles. It's not bad that we improve the references by going to the original source material but i do think removing all the information wasn't called for but regardless it will be sourced and added back in. Benjiboi 20:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess I didn't express myself clearly. Media Matters (MM) is not the source, as they are a watchdog organization that monitors news sources and then acts, in effect, as a news agency, passing along sourced references to "conservative misinformation" they find. All their sources, such as NBC's Today show, The New York Times, CBS News, and so on, are the actual sources for the information. Part of the fact checking that MM does is, as I said above, to accurately and "... extensively cite sources and provide referenced quotations." Anyone with an internet connections, a decent research library, or a Lexis-Nexis account (or equivalent) can verify those sources. I never claimed that MM was neutral—they may, or may not be. But their sources are reliable sources and can be used as citations. And using MM as sources in the deleted sections was effectively using their sources indirectly, but verifiably, so the sections should not have been deleted. Rather than get into an content dispute, the reasonable solution, as Benjiboi says, is to use the same sources MM uses, as well as others, and reintroduce the deleted content to the article. And I disagree that MM is an advocacy group. However, MoveOn.org is an advocacy group, for example. There is a difference between advocacy and monitoring (watchdogging?), although like much else in life, the definitions are not always fully clear across the board in all cases. — Becksguy (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial comments

An editor has has just deleted the "Controversial comments" section, with the following edit summary: Deleted Controversial Comments Section. Short, unsourced, POV. The Diff is here. I fully agree with User:Millionsandbillions that it's overly short to be a separate section, and that it has zero sources, reliable or otherwise. But I totally disagree that it's WP:POV. The current state of the article is POV and unbalanced, and is more so with that section's deletion. The article has been sanitized of his viewpoints and comments about various minority groups, including Blacks, Asians, and gays. There are no current mentions of his comments on Blacks or Asians, except mentioning Asians in the deleted section, and it has only one remaining anti-gay comment (about homosexuals causing the Catholic priest sex scandals). It does do a good job in expressing his negative comments about Jews, especially Jews in Hollywood. I'm not going to restore the deleted section as it is, rather I will look for sources and integrate it into the beginning of the section on his work. I'm not very familiar with Donohue, so if anyone can jump in with further background, details, sources, suggestions, or comments, please do so. Although I've already found a lot. Donohue apparently relishes making public controversial comments which makes him newsworthy. Overall, the article needs rewriting to make it NPOV and balanced. I might add that there is Anti-Catholic bigotry also, although I think he goes way over the top on that. Ultimately, bigotry is bigotry regardless of the target. — Becksguy (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That section was actually the short intro of three larger sections addressing his comments against gay, Asian and Jewish people which was referenced. Everything has now been deleted and I haven't had time to research it all and restore. I Intend to but I have other articles to address at the moment. Benjiboi 06:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I added {{Unbalanced}} & {{POV}} tags, same as the article on the Catholic League, until reliability referenced, but deleted material on public comments made by Donohue against various minority groups can be checked and reinstated for balance. — Becksguy (talk) 08:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Well the comments regarding Asians were not "against" Asians and should not be included for that reason. To do so puts Donohue in a false light, potentially bordering on what could be called a type of defamation. It also violates WP:BIO. Other criticisms should also be drafted with consideration of Wikipedia's policy regarding biographies of living persons.Mamalujo (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
All Donohue's comments will be vetted and we can't assume why he said "gook" eight times to a young Asian man so we'll have to let the references speak for themselves and trust the reader to draw their own conclusions. Benjiboi 04:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scarborough Country appearances and allegations of anti-Semitism

This section is too long and should be renamed. First off it gives lengthy quotes f Donohue's which seems to be giving him yet another platform, this is supposed to be a bio not his personal soapbox. It should simply be renamed to something like Allegations of anti-Semitism or something more accurate. We're not going to have a section on Scarborough Country appearances as he's made comments on a variety of topics and nothing indicates this is separate from all the other shows he makes the rounds to. Benjiboi 02:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right that the section is too long. It's also given undue weight. But as far as deleting his comments, that can't be done. He was accused of anti-semitism. Balance, WP:BIO and NPOV require that his explanation be included.Mamalujo (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, yes, we can delete his comments if they don't add to a better encyclopedic article. And removing other content conveniently leaving just his quotes would not, in my opinion, be any sport of improvement. I'm working on other matters but wanted to mention the issue so other editors could potentially address them. Benjiboi 17:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chocolate Jesus statue section

This section also needs clean-up. Donohue characterized the statue and intended display as something different then what was actually planned. A description critical of Donohue's take and some information on the gallery is here. Benjiboi 17:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Edwards campaign staffers

Presently it describes Donohue's accusations, but does not include the responses nor verify whether the accusations were fair according to other sources. —Whig (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)