Talk:Bill Donohue

message: More like an anti-civil rights activist. 75.76.213.161 (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead actually describes him as a "civil activist," not a "civil rights activist."  Be that as it may, civil rights include protection from discrimination on religious grounds, which is what he and his supporters understand him to be doing.  I personally have no affection for the man, but I disagree with your edit. -Hugetim (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil rights activist? 

message: I found this article in a sorry state, close to being an attack piece. I have made several edits to bring it in line with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policies, but I'm still concerned about the "Activities" section. I have stopped short of tag-bombing it, but it reads like a litany of totally unconnected criticisms with no real treatment of his continual work at the Catholic League between 1993 and the present. Surely not 100% of the press he has drummed up is negativity. I will attempt to restore some balance here and I will welcome constructive criticism and collaboration in this regard. Elizium23 (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a bit more. A lot of the verbs needed to be toned down. It's also wildly over-documented at points, where one or at most two good sources would serve there are many more. That just makes it hard to read. There are also critiques unmentioned that question whom he represents, that is, what's the membership of his organization. I don't see any way around a catalog of his objections, but there are some themes, notably his assertion that Catholics receive treatment other groups do not. I may be back. This needs a lot of work, but it's a chore. And I only came to see how well the St. Patrick's Day parade scrap was covered! Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits for tone 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Bill Donohue. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081228083854/http://www.catholicleague.org/annualreport.php?year=2003&id=80 to http://www.catholicleague.org/annualreport.php?year=2003&id=80
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080115125643/http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1372 to http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1372
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006123919/http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1491 to http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1491
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101117155612/http://booknotes.org/Watch/51559-1/Christopher%2BHitchens.aspx to http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/51559-1/Christopher+Hitchens.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is, and has long been, a far-right current in Roman-Catholicism. While it has rarely, if ever, been the domininant current, it is nevertheless an important one, and Bill Donohue fits in perfectly with this. There should be a discussion of Donohue and his organization's operating as intellectual heirs to this current in this article for it to be well-balanced and putting him in proper context. That this is distasteful to his followers is of no importance at all. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A subject missing from this article