Talk:William A. Donohue/archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Neutrality

Removed statements in violation of NPOV such as "He also fuels his self embellishing appetite with media appearances, all the while providing insight into his uneducated outlook in life and humanity.". While Donohue may be a media whore, a man with a Ph.D. in Sociology from NYU can hardly be called uneducated.

I seem to think that the entire structure of the article could be seen as biased. The "Donohue's Work" section seems to be a chronicling of Donohue's inflammatory statements rather then a description of his objections and actions in each case. The only work centered on are those that have caused the most controversy. His ample supply of outrageous sound bites should be separated out into a "Controversy" or similar section and the work section made more neutral.

Took out external links and made <refs>, some sections still lacking citations -- Pknicker 16:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC) pknicker

"He is known for injecting himself into social controversies regarding Christianity, Catholicism and conservatism." It's subtle, but the phrase "injecting himself into" implies that he doesn't belong there and is butting in. True or not, it's not neutral. Sir Lemming 03:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hollywood Section

I renamed the Hollywood section because I think most of the controversy there concerned the statements about Jews, not Hollywood. Although for TV shows and those in the entertainment industry the bizarre statements about Hollywood culture may have hurt more, I think the story was more newsworthy because of the "Secular Jews" element. A staunch Catholic or Protestant or Muslim saying Hollywood is all about perverse sex is not, I think, noteworthy in itself. I'm going to add a bit about him.--T. Anthony 03:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Added this part when Donohue appeared on CNN recently

"===Remarks Against Jews=== Recently, in a response to the discovery of a tomb possibly containning the remains of Jesus and his family, Donohue appeared on Larry King on remarked that the "secular Jews" controlled Holywood. " --Intranetusa 4 March 2007

I just read the transcript. The remark is not in the transcript. I have deleted the purported remark from the article, barring citation of a reliable source. Mamalujo 09:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I get the impression from pages such as Holocaust Denial (and others, but I cannot remember the others off hand) that it is okay to have POV links as long as they are labeled as such. Admittedly, there are _way_ more anti-Donohue links than pro-Donohue links. Instead of removing potentially valuable anti-Donohue sources, please add pro-Donohue links if you feel the need to keep the balance. But this isn't a "link war", so don't add links that are not notable only to even the balance. Eternalbeans 20:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but Anti-Semitism is already mentioned. That section seems like overkill on the issue. Most of what's in it can be merged into the rest. And although this is controversial to say the idea Jewish people pushed for Jesus's execution is a valid interpretation from the Gospels. Saying "the Presbyterians killed Michael Servetus", although misleading and confusing, is not Anti-Presbyterian itself. The Passion of the Christ ideally should've been required to be a double feature with the The Passion of Joan of Arc, but you can't always get the best of things. Anyway the anti-Semitic stuff came in with the idea that all the Jewish people hated Jesus, still hate Jesus, and are "stained" for all eternity by an act only a small minority of them were involved in even going by the Gospel of John. I'm tempted to remove that section or in least change it's arrangement. Enough so I'm just going to do that.--T. Anthony 04:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

External Links

I cleaned up that section just a little bit, because some of the pro-Donohue links were in with the links critical of him.
JesseG 05:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hate mongering?

I'm no fan of Donohue's, but describing him as having started "his hate-mongering career in the 1970s" is over-the-top, even considering the article's subject. Thus I've changed it to teaching, which was Donohue's career prior to being a mouthpiece. That the article paints him as a blowhard who often sticks his foot in his nouth is to be expected; some of his quotes could me moved to a Wikiquote article. Ianking 22:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

A lot of vandalism is going on with this page. Perhaps it should go into semi-protection.--MrFish 17:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Dogma

I didn't particularly like the film, but the line about how calling the film mediocre would be charitable seems inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. I'm taking it out. HandsomeSam57 18:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Opie and Anthony

In 2002, shock-jock hosts Gregg Hughes and Anthony Cumia urged a man and woman from Virginia to enter St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York around 4:00 p.m. on August 15, the Feast of the Assumption, and proceeded to have sex in front of men, women and children. A graphic description of the encounter was relayed by cell phone and broadcast on the "Opie and Anthony" radio show. The event was planned, coordinated and approved by those associated with the show.

The first sentence is clunky and inaccurate at best. The couple had sex in a vestibule (allegedly). A "graphic description" would be overstating the case, as I believe the words were something along the lines of "We're in St Patrick's Cathedral and my couple is in the vestibule... he's going for the x-point conversion!" (I forget how many points it was.) Audio of the actual incident is relatively easy to find on the Internet, so this really needs tweaking to be a bit less sensational. ("urged"? Come on. "a church" was a place on the list, they were not directly impelled by the hosts to pick THAT church.)

Opie and Anthony

The bulk of the last sentence in this section, "The three talked about current events, the Church and politics, surprising themselves, and their listeners, by how often they agreed rather than disagreed.", without a citation, is nothing more than one person's opinion. Nemodomi 03:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Source 9 does not support its corresponding statement or the link for the source is dysfunctional.

style

Senator Charles Schumer

Senator Charles Schumer opposed Judicial nominee William Pryor saying his beliefs "are so deeply held that it's very hard to believe that they're not going to influence" him. Donohue raised a red flag noting that Schumer's objection to Pryor's "deeply held beliefs," in this context, is a violation of the Constitution's prohibition on a religious test for public office.

I think this sentence sound out of context. I think, it would sound better if it began with "In ...." just as the following paragraph. Otherwise one supposes, that this is a fact directly on Donohue. Moreover I miss a word connecting the two sentences. I'd like to change it, but I don't know when this happened (didn't see it on Charles Schumer - btw. was this really important?) and I lack any background knowledge, so I don't dare to do it for now. -- Jan 84.44.131.67 07:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Donohue's work - deletion??

Hi there, actually I don't want to delete it. But I think it's worth cutting this section down to something like 3 paragraphs. Taking type-3-headlines seems overkill to me. How about just a list? If wikiquote allowed a little more background information, all this paragraph should be there. Anyways: One could at least put all the quotes to wikiquote. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_A._Donohue

I don't think this discussion has been made already. The proposed deletion of the article was due to Delete. The entire contents of this page are already contained in Catholic League (US), the only page which links to this page. If this is all that's notable about the fellow, he can be covered on the Catholic League page and not need a page of his own qitaana 22:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

The voting of 2005 ended 3 to 2 for deletion meaning there was no consensus. -- Jan 84.44.131.67 08:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Something should be added of his comments the other day saying it is impossible for a 15-year old to be molested. hehe. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2006/10/most_15yearold.html


There is a professor of communication at Michigan State University, who is also called William A. Donohue. Could somebody put a little note on the main page, since some people might be interested in looking up the researcher, and will end up here.76.20.132.253 16:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Move 1997 Ash Wendesday Incident Mention Out of this Article

I have no idea what this is. Recommend deletion:

"Employment Discrimination Against Catholics On Ash Wednesday, a young Catholic Hispanic woman went to work at Silvergate only to be told that she had to remove her ashes from her forehead. When she balked, her supervisor forcibly removed the ashes with a dirty dish towel. Once the Catholic League discovered what happened, they immediately went into action and the offender was disciplined, an apology was granted and workshops on bias against Catholics were instituted for all Silvergate employees." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.201.149.113 (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

because I'm such a nice person I researched it for you and will make it more specific- it happened in 1997 ! and "Silvergate" is apparently a retirement community. brain 22:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, you know what? This story is just one of the causes the CATHOLIC LEAGUE sponsored- see their 1997 press releases for more details. So it's not really related to William Donohue at all. If anything, it should be on the Catholic League page? Or just delete it. brain 22:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
It is related to Donohue. He issued statements which put pressure on the employer to terminate the supervisor. I've added Donohue's statements to indicate his work on the issue. Mamalujo 09:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Charges of Bigotry Fly in John Edwards Blogger Flap

WASHINGTON — In response to John Edwards' refusal to fire two staffers for "intolerant" Web postings, the president of the nation's largest Catholic civil rights group said he will launch a campaign next week to point out "the double-standard that [Edwards] is the kingmaker of." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251009,00.html Crocoite 21:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)