Talk:Bill Donohue/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: 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)
thread_title: Hollywood Section

message: "===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)
thread_title: Added this part when Donohue appeared on CNN recently

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: 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)
thread_title: External Links

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hate mongering? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Dogma

message: 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)
thread_title:  Opie and Anthony 

message: 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)
thread_title:  style 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Donohue's work - deletion?? 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Move 1997 Ash Wendesday Incident Mention Out of this Article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Charges of Bigotry Fly in John Edwards Blogger Flap 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Link to the description of the episode (March 4). Toad of Steel (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colbert Show 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: The above states the case very clearly and persuasively, IMO.  MM is an organization that collects and highlights statements made in the media, but acts as an aggregator and generally speaking not a source in and of itself. --23.240.224.245 (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Media Matters

message: As it stands now, there is virtually no mention of the rampant homophobia expressed by Donohue.  The only quote contained in the article remotely bearing on this issue refers to the priest sex scandals being "a homosexual scandal, not a pedophilia scandal".  This is clearly one of the mildest things Mr. Donohue has said about gay people, since it is only a tangential mention. In fact it could even be argued that it is neutral. To do a bio of this person and not even mention that he is famously homophobic is like doing a bio of David Duke and not mentioning his racism.  And yes, there ARE objective standards for racism and homophobia:  when someone openly pronounces that they do not believe that gay people (or black people) are inherently equal to others, there is a problem.  So declaring that Mr. Donohue is homophobic (or at least giving some of his quotes on the matter and letting people decide for themselves) does not raise POV problems, it is simply declaring a fact.  If you want sources, just put the subject's name and the word 'gay' in any search engine and let the subject speak for himself.   -William Malmstrom, Clearwater, FL  24.160.81.4 (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think it needs doing and you have the sources, WP:Be Bold and do it. That is the thing to do when an article omits something important. Your suggested procedure may be followed by somebody, but why don't you go ahead and do it? DavidOaks (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homophobic views have been whitewashed out 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I added  &  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Controversial comments 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Scarborough Country appearances and allegations of anti-Semitism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chocolate Jesus statue section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  John Edwards campaign staffers 

message: The, Quote that says he said, "I have hated the church way before anyone else", on May 7 2002. I think is a fake because I checked the footnote and it's not there also there was no edisode on May 7 2002, So I removed the quote, but if you can provide evidence I'll put it back up.--Fire 55 (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Maher 

message: Is the Webster Cook affair and Donohue's reaction a noteworthy enough event to be mentioned on this page? --Bytor (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Webster Cook Affair 

message: The items i removed are primary sourced material and it is not appropriate use in this article, even if "sourced" to the TV itself. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "we dont {fact} BLP issues" Well, in a sense, that's right. That is, if there's a factual assertion about a living person that's controversial (either intrinsically, according to common sense, or by the fact that it's contested), we delete until it's got a source. However, the passage in question asserts that Donahue is referenced in a publication which is available for inspection. That is, the assertion is not really about Donahue, but about south Park. Hence it's both sourced, and within WP:BLP. Having said that, I don't care much -- this is a notable pop-culture treatment of a public figure, and should get a mention, but only a mention (not a summary) in the boildown. DavidOaks (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, "are primary sourced material" and [primary sourced material] is not appropriate use in this article" -- I don't understand either statement. Can you explain in other terms please? DavidOaks (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Parody" South Park and Kathy Griffin sections make Wikipedia look ridiculous. If jokes about BD were ubiquitous or genuinely notable, I could see the inclusion of such a section. As it is, however, South Park is barely notable--that is, as a source for _broadly held_ social opinion--and I'd never even heard of Griffin before reading this article (in other words, she is hardly notable, and her opinions about BD are irrelevant--and if we are to include opinions from barely notable celebrities, I move we also include the opinion of my Grandma). These sections come across as a weak attempt at character assassination: "See, BD is so ridiculous that cartoons make fun of him." To those who posted them I would say, they don't hurt BD, they hurt Wikipedia by again reminding the reader of the frequent irrelevance of Wikipedia articles and immaturity of Wikipedia contributors.206.190.72.205 (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  South park 

message: I added a reference to the press release listing Donohues' reaction (which appalls me). Citing that should fit within WP:RS as it's citing a source about a view that they hold - however, WP:RS seems to rule out blogs as it says Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. It also refers to WP:BLP#Sources and WP:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source which also address this topic. Autarch (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern about the source in question isn't because it's an atheist site - it's because it describes itself as "ATHEIST MEDIA BLOG" - blogs would be allowable for their authors opinions, but WP:RS says that in the case of a biography of a living person: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs (see: WP:BLP#Sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source). Granted, there is an audio clip being used - I wonder if it's possible to link to it at the site of the original broadcaster? If so, that might be acceptable under WP:RS. Autarch (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

text: "Donohue's proactive defense of ___ Catholic" . .  "countered with his robust demonizing of those who have" 'attacked' the Catholic church....  How is that any different than any of Donohue's actions? You can replace the particulars of the sex abuse scandal with just about any of the other items. Pulling out the Irish Sex Scandal as being somehow different/more important and deserving of its own section is an improper reading of Donohue, hence giving it WP:UNDUE weight. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ryan Report 

message: About the time of Sinead O'Connors controversial tearing up of the Popes image, Donohue made comments that "it's not pedophilia if the person is twelve or thirteen..." This was reported in the news and is a shocking indictment of his attitudes.Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: you should finish that quote from the ... on. I believe the remainder of it (and i am NOT condoning it) was that his arguement is by strict definition a pedophilia is prepubescent, so a post pubescent would be rape/molestation. granted its still repulsive, but i think he trying to draw the conversation towards discussing the older molestation cases some of which were above the age of consent and so he deemed it homosexual (implying consent, rather then forcable rape). Which is also a shocking sentiment. I'd need to look for the quote but i think he said in that interview something along the lines of it being a "homosexuality scandal" more then a "paedophilia scandal" or something like that. Smitty1337 (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  turns out i should check the article before suggesting things lol this is already in the article. "On March 30, 2010, Donohue appeared on CNN's Larry King Live as part of a panel discussing sexual abuse of children by priests. Donohue blamed the decades-old problem on gay priests, claiming they could not be considered pedophiles because most of the offenses involved "postpubescent" boys (defined in the interview as boys 12-years-old or older) and were thus "homosexual" Smitty1337 (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedophilia comments ?=

message: I read wp:coatrack and am not 100% convinced that this edit is removing coatrack material. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parody as coatrack? 

message: I've removed 2 links that did not prove the statement made in the article that they are attributed to. one was a dead link and i can find no verification of that to replace it with, the other was a link the an article that literally has nothing to do with the sentence in question, it only mentioned Donahue in passing, and even then on a subject unrelated to the purpose for which it was cited. I Deleted it again after it was reinstated for some reason. I'm not removing the line from the article I just want a cite needed tag there instead of a ref number to useless references which creates the impression the statement is verified. Smitty1337 (talk) 06:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In general we do not remove a reference even if it contains a deadlink -- it may be restored later, or it may provide the basis for someone to rebuild the ref. But if we delete it, the claim simply becomes unsourced, and therefore subject to perhaps inappropriate deletion. Of course a link which fails verification should be tagged as such. DavidOaks (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: the currently listed ref is arguably better anyways, as the other was a blog from glaad which could be accused of bias, its just a quotation reference so a single source is adaquate to prove he said it, the one listed works fine i suppose. Smitty1337 (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Removed 4/4/10 

message: The only thing Donohue is notable for is his work with the Catholic League, and this article seems to mostly be listing the CL's activities. Why have a separate article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.203.26 (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We have the article because he is notable - for the same reason that the encyclopedia has an article on both Abraham Foxman and the ADL. Mamalujo (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You could argue that Foxman has received international recognition through awards for his work. What awards has Donohue had? 81.216.166.32 (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there really a reason for this article? 

message: "Why should the working class pay for the leisure of the elite when in fact one of the things the working class likes to do for leisure is to go to professional wrestling? And if I suggested we should have federal funds for professional wrestling to lower the cost of the ticket, people would think I'm insane. I don't go to museums any more than any Americans do."
I mean, really?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.69.15 (talk) 06:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is he kidding? 

message: Two short sentences buried in the "Activities" section is all that is warranted"?
Donohue has been widely criticized for a partisan bias in his accusations of anti-Catholicism. He has also been accused of lacking sensitivity toward victims of priest sexual abuse, or "blaming the victim" in cases of gay bullying". That's it?
I am a life-long practicing Catholic and most people I know consider Donahue the "Howard Stern of Catholicism". A rogue shock-jock with no offical ties to the Church. There is widespread criticism for his tactics, his statements, and his obvious conservative political agenda, from many sources.  I find this article slanted to portray Donahue in a more favorable light than is justified. 71.31.218.92 (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no Criticisms section?