Talk:William Dannemeyer

"Activities peculiar to homosexuality"

I think that the quote actually does describe "activities peculiar &c.", solely because his statement explicitly describes activities performed between men. But I couldn't think of a good way to convey that (extremely pedantic) point in the article text. 2620:15C:2C5:2:61DC:F76A:95FC:67EA (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I think Opinion needs to be left out. The quote if complete should stand by itself and the reader can decide what it means. 2620:15C:2C5:2:61DC:F76A:95FC:67EA (talk) 04:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C0:37F:6230:BCE1:4EBB:7B81:C2A9 (talk)

A Satanic cult killed Laci!

Yes, he really does believe this. Dannemeyer was on KFI talk radio this afternoon affirming this theory. The hosts said they will probably archive the segment (on [1] or [2]), and this can be sourced to that in due course. 4.232.132.219 03:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Religious persuasion

Dannemeyer shows up in both Lutheran and Catholic categories..is he a convert?

anti-illegal immigration activist

There's a tag that proof has to be provided that Dannemeyer is an anti-illegal immigration activist. The article just mentions that he was "supporting legislation to suppress illegal immigration" One of the sources says that "he supported building a fence at the Mexican border and opposed benefits of any sort to illegal immigrants. During his last two terms in Congress, he was Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims."

It would seem clear that this proves that he is anti-illegal immigration. The question seems to be whether he is also an activist. I have not found any evidence (using Google) that he made any special efforts in connection with this opinion, besides his work in the House.

Is this called an activist or no? Debresser (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If we added "activist" categories for each position that a politican votes on then a long-serving representative might need several dozen. If 230 people vote against a pro-immigration bill that doesn't mean that all of them are activists on that topic. If this article said that immigration was his main concerns, or that he'd written bills on the matter then it'd be different. FWIW, it was added by user:Hmains back in January, on the same day as he added it to many articles, all without explanation and in many cases with no justification whatsoever.[3] I'f gone through and removed many of his additions along with those of another editor, leaving those where the politicians has evidence of at least making it a major issue. However even that is a fairly low bar to pass and the criteria should probably be set a bit higher.   Will Beback  talk  00:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, including some historical Wikipedia perspective. Debresser (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Anti-gay stigma as applied is non NPOV

The opening statement is itself discriminatory and libelous:

William Edwin Dannemeyer (born September 22, 1929) is a conservative American politician, activist, and author, known for his anti-gay political position.

Dannemeyer should not be described as "anti-gay", cretainly not in the introductory paragraph and without significant qualification, and the references cited on this line do not support any anti-gay discrimination on his part. Bashing Dannemeyer as being anti-gay may be part and parcel to one organization's agenda but it is not an honest or neutral position to assume ina Wiki article.

Though one may not support a "gay marriage" legal status does not mean that same person discriminates against homosexuals in hiring, politics, or any other area and can only be viewed as bashing the person so described. without a reference to support such a slur. That one may not have supported the so-called "Equal Rights Amendment" does not make them anti-woman. The Wiki entry for "anti-gay" cites the qualities of discrimination and gay bashing or violence towards homosexuals. without further expansion and explanation this overly-judgemental term should not be used against moderate individuals. 99.2.69.235 (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The reasons are and were clear in the article. It's not even about gay marriage here, but to be clear: Your scare quotes and your argument make clear that you are the one who is POV-pushing.--93.203.229.69 (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

even Gerbilling?

June 1990: Last fall [?1989?] he brought a resolution before the state GOP that defined gay men's sexual activities in explicit detail, along the way claiming that gays insert such things as "interesting dildos" and gerbils up their rectums. After this came the Congress paper. --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 05:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on William E. Dannemeyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050408055332/http://www.concentric.net:80/~Dannemyr/bio.htm to http://www.concentric.net/~Dannemyr/bio.htm

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on William E. Dannemeyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060809065617/http://sodomylaws.org:80/usa/dc/dcdocuments09.htm to http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/dc/dcdocuments09.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)