Talk:Rosie O'Donnell/Archive 4

message: I've removed the "Raspberry Awards" content from the infobox as I feel it gives them too much weight and the should be referenced anyway. Not sure how, where or even if it should be included so anyone have ideas or comments? Worst Supporting Actress - 1994 Car 54, Where Are You?, Exit to Eden, & The Flintstones. I'm thinking should g right near where the films are mentioned as critic commentary. Benjiboi 02:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we make a hate Rosie page for all the ANTI-GAY BIGOTS?  Anti-gay bigots are the ones editing this page and I'm really sick of it.  The controversies section is too large and NONE of the other people that were involved in the controversies has single thing mentioned on their page because they are straight.  STOP THE BIGOTRY!!!!!!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.147.134 (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In time they will all be trimmed, she was amongst the most highly visible and outspoken "leftists" and LGBT activists so she has been the target of much activity. At least the information is somewhat accurate but agree that it gives a bit too much undue weight compared to the rest of the article. Benjiboi 21:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golden Raspberry Awards 

message: The following is poorly sourced or completely made up:
Donald Trump threatened to take away her partner Kelli,
-- 
this is incorrect and fails WP:BLP for Trump. Nowhere in the article does that say that as a straight fact. It was sarcasm. Guroadrunner 13:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reference has been added to address this. Benjiboi 08:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect fact. 

message: On her appearance on Inside the Actors Studio, O'Donnell stated that the name on her birth certificate is simply "Roseann O'Donnell" (wasn't clear to me if "Roseanne" or "Roseann"). Is there any objection to my removing the middle name from the article, then? Her own statement is probably the most definitive source. Page 13 of the book biography, "Rosie: The Rosie O'Donnell Story" (Parish, James Robert (1998). Rosie: The Rosie O'Donnell Story. Carroll & Graf, pg. 13. ISBN-100786705426) also states that she has no middle name. To the question above, although O'Donnell is of fully Irish descent, she stated in that Actors Studio appearance that she loves Jewish culture and because of that "feels Jewish" (or something like that) and grew up with many Jewish friends in Queens, etc. In this interview she says something along the same lines. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did the Teresa come from? We should consider addressing that as it was added from somewhere. Benjiboi 08:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may have been a result of the fact that her mother's name was Roseann Theresa. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha, I saw the hidden text which should keep it from being introduced again. Benjiboi 12:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth name 

message: I've spun off R Family Vacations to it's own and will trim this section here with link to main. Benjiboi 09:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[R Family Vacations]] 

message: I've removed this section as it seems to have almost no notability except to show O'Donnell as wrongly assessing a current event; unless we are going to start listing every event all the hosts of the got wrong (which I don't recommend) this should go. Benjiboi 10:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Royal Navy personnel seized by Iran section removed 

message: With all respect to those who are more involved in the 9/11 and twin towers attacks, etc. this section is probably ripe for conversion as O'Donnell has no national forum with which to build much of a groundswell on the issue. Were she still doing daytime talk I have little doubt the subject would be brought up and we would indeed have much more to document but I think it's smarter to convert this to her New York City-centric POV which fostered her love of Broadway and, in part, prompted her to bring on 9/11 rescue workers and to bring up sensitive 9/11 subjects even if her point of view wasn't shared by all. Benjiboi 08:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTC 7 tower collapse section 

message: I am Catholic and at times concerned about the depiction of the faith or community here. However I think we have to be restrictive on these prejudice categories when it comes to living people. It's not entirely clear that she's associated enough with Anti-Catholicism to merit categorization. She is not a leader of an Anti-Catholic group or a historian of the subject. So I removed it in the past, and now, in order to make the category more valid. I mean it lost a deletion vote once and only survived due to a review.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Past remarks have also pointed out that this article may already be over-categorized (not my area of knowledge so I don't know) but the main reason i oppose that category, and others have as well, is that she's simply not known for this only "accused" of saying anti-Catholic things. The entire section still reeks of POV-pushing but if it must stay I'll see if I can source content to support the section. Benjiboi 20:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With regard to the anti-Catholicism section and tag, it is not necessary that she be "proven" to have engaged in anti-Catholicism for the tag to apply.  The tag is appropriate for notable topics relating to the subject of anti-Catholicism.  The repeated accusations of anti-Catholicism have been reported scores of times in reliable sources.  Including that someone has been notably accused of Antisemitism, for example, or anti-Catholicism, as reported in reliable sources, does not violate WP:BIO or WP:LIVING. In fact, policy states "views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources".  See for example the discussion of accusations of anti-Semitism in the Mel Gibson article and the tag attached to it. Mamalujo (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your interpretation and characterization of O'Donnell as anti-Catholic is far over-reaching but since you've now provided some sources we should let them speak for themselves. Also the category is for those notable for being anti-Catholic which still is inaccurate. She's simply not known for this. Benjiboi 23:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I take a different view than Benjiboi. I think the accusations are real and worth having in the article. However they don't rise to the point where she is notable to the topic or for her views on Catholicism. The category should be restrictive on living people otherwise we end up with just a mess of people who maybe said stuff once in awhile. If it makes you feel better I'll add Tony Auth.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Update. Per biographies, reliable sources we need to verify the sources in this section. For the record I think all the content is accurate however it's obviously controversial material and I'm unable to see a few of the sources to verify them although versions of them are online. Can anyone help so we don't have to remove them? Benjiboi 06:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Anti-Catholicism]] 

message: I tagged this article with  template, since its lead section is way too short compared to the size of the article. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree, I believe I've summarized sufficiently. Benjiboi 00:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:LEAD]] 

message: I do not mean disrespect to either side, but clearly neither sides seems capable of writing a neutral point of view.  Might I suggest that an impartial editor be brought in to handle this section.  No matter how cleverly nuanced the words are constructed, its editorialized to the hilt.  From content to formatting, this section is thinly veiled opinions.  Wikipedia is not a court of law, nor a court of public opinion, so editors should try a bit harder to avoid rendering verdicts (pro or con).  I don't doubt the sincerity of the editors, and that they actually think they are being neutral, but clearly this is far from neutral (nor were previous side's edits and tagging).  I hope both sides will take a time out and call in for outside help on this matter.  Again, I mean not to offend.  GptVestal (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm not offended and I appreciate you stating those concerns. I've made another pass to trim and tone it all down a bit. And going through the various research I keep coming back to either she had personal experience with molestation or abuse of some sort and/or she has maternal rage for children who are victimized and related indignation in relation to the abortion issues. My main concerns with prior content was that neither The Catholic League or the conservative talk show host making statements and calling for protest seemed very newsworthy (and they still don't) so hanging the section on those two means by extrapolation we'd have "controversy" sections popping up almost weekly on everyone they deemed anti-whatever which seems pretty unencyclopedic. Now that we have more sources to work with (even though some don't seem to be verifiable online) I feel the section at least has moved beyond the tabloid realm. If anyone can find online versions of references that would help a bit. This particular section has been a source of conflict for a while and I hoped it would die down now that she's not on the air but we'll see if the current version can be vetted and stabilized. Benjiboi 04:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti Catholicism 

message: Under R Family Vacations the date is listed as 6 April 6 2006  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.21.136 (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Stifle (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  correction 

message: I think the choice of photos for this article are very unflattering and are (even if unintentionally) biased against her. 
Better photos should be found. 
Her political opinions always bugged me, but that doesn't justify putting unflattering pictures up here, Wikipedia should strive for neutrality in it's articles.
69.171.160.37 (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can take better photos of her (or any other Wikipedia subject) and release them under a free license, you are encouraged and very welcome to do so. Infrogmation (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos Unflattering 

message: Possible source here. Benjiboi 05:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible source 

message: Rosie O'Donnell won the 2007 Blogger's Choice Award in the category "Best Celebrity Blogger".
Currently it only says she's a front runner.  
http://www.bloggerschoiceawards.com/categories/32  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.146.227 (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winner of 2007 Blogger's Choice Award needs updating 

message: O'Donnell added that because of threats, she and her family need protection, which she attributes, ironically, to her "tough gun-control rhetoric".
-7:35 New Yawk Time, october the first, 2000 and eiyght
:Ironically removed, and the rest trimmed.  -- Banjeboi 23:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This thing has weasel words 

message: I noticed on the main page that Rosie O'Donnells full list of acting work isnt listed on the television work or filmography section because for example on imdb.com it says that she appeared in an episode of Ally McBeal in 1999 and was also in an episode of judging amy in 2003 amongst others. I remember seeing rosie in both episodes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertuk2006 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other television work 

message: Maybe you could add that to her page, because i've noticed that it doesnt mention it!  It has been confirmed and there are tons of sources so please add it!  Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.189.64 (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variety show 

message: Why were my comments on the discussion about 911 removed?  Are you afraid that I exposed your fallacious argument?  At least have the courtesy to address my points and not just delete them.  So I will repeat:
It is ridiculous to say that 911 isn't relevant or warranted here when there are sections explaining things like the "Ching Chong", the catfight with Elisabeth Hasselbeck, the Donald Trump "incident", etc...  She has said that she believes the government is responsible for the 911 attacks.  The biggest attack on the US mainland in history.  This is relevant.  This is a serious issue.  This isn't about her picking on Donald Trump's hairpiece.  We are talking about premeditated mass murder by the US government.  This is a very extraordinary claim and the most controversial thing she has ever said.  It was also a continuing story in the national media.
"If O'Donnell were still on the View or even had another daytime talkfest where she was regularly talking about 9/11 conspiracies then maybe this would make sense."  said the user Benjiboi.
What kind of arbitrary nonsense is this?  When did you invent this standard?  It isn't applied to the rest of article.  I don't see you saying:
"If O'Donnell were still on the View or even had another daytime talkfest where she was regularly talking about gun control then maybe this would make sense."
"If O'Donnell were still on the View or even had another daytime talkfest where she was regularly talking about guns then maybe this would make sense."
"If O'Donnell were still on the View or even had another daytime talkfest where she was regularly talking about Catholics then maybe this would make sense."
etc.. etc...
You are going to need a better justification than that for why it is being deleted.  Jesse Ventura made similar comments and it is prominently displayed on his page.  Bill Maher has his criticism of 911 conspiracies on his page as well.  
Savagedjeff (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for refactoring your comments. The content on this is simply not that notable but previous discussion was how to resolve numerous less noatble incidents into something like - "O'Donnell has been the subject of various criticisms including her views on the 9/11 attacks, her supposed "mocking" of the Chinese language], and her promotion of conspiracy theories related to the 9/11 attacks. Or similar. In researching it I found at least a dozens incidents that were also reported on about the same or even more than these as noted in previous section. None of them actually seem to be that important to O'Donnell herself who (i) no longer has a daily gabfest to promote her views (ii) no longer seems to be blogging on these issues - which would still be just ... her blog; (iii) no longer has her POV reported on daily by other media likely because she's not on a daily gabfest show, (iv) has pretty much not talked about any of these things on her appearances since leaving the show; (v) is not known for being a political commentator as much as just being opinionated and finally (vi) has stated she was paid to be opinionated on The View and admits she said things she likely should not have. All this amounts to WP:Undue on a BLP. I suppose we could rank the top twenty of these issues and list the top five as being notable issues, frankly what we have there presently needs to be reworked into footnotes and otherwise trimmed back.  -- Banjeboi 04:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well to inject I just read about her first having spoken about the 911 truth beginning of March 07 and being fired from the show end of March 07. So for me this seems also important as all the other "incidents" couldn't touch her. But this one seems to have been too much for the (more or less conservative) ABC station so they pulled her and the wording dispute about Iraq being the final grave nail. But well this "coincidence" and making the connection is just my POV. But the chronological facts about her having spoken about it and being fired about a month later (even if it might not have been the so called "primary" reason) should be IMHO in the article and not just in the discussion. Ebricca (talk) 11:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We would have to have strong reliable sourcing to suggest she was fired for her views.  -- Banjeboi 23:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  911 again. 

message: In 1999 Rosie guest starred in an episode of Ally McBeal as a therapist. (s2 e19 Let's Dance)
mg43  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucky657 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Television Credit 

message: In the section about Selleck and O'Donnell's debate over the NRA, this sentence claims a need for citation:
"According to Selleck, the two had agreed not to discuss the topic prior to his appearance on the show.[citation needed]"
And yet, the very next sentence, defending O'Donnell's position,
"O'Donnell maintains that Selleck and his publicist had been informed that the topic would be discussed."
makes no such claim. In all fairness, shouldn't O'Donnell's alleged assertion that they talked about it previously also need citation?
The material in references 17 and 18 for the following sentence(s?) make no mention of a prior agreement between O'Donnell and Selleck or his publicist.
I hope this request will be considered fairly and honestly. Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolst (talk • contribs) 17:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for catching this, I've removed both sentences as simply unneeded.  -- Banjeboi 23:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Citation needed.... or not" 

message: The reason why I did the past tense is that once its added, you wouldn't have to change it.  Your way is fine by me, stating in November 2009, I don't care really.  I don't have any sources, just what I heard on the radio show. Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.236.240.138 (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Whom are you addressing? Intelligentsium 23:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

text: It should be fine now. FWIW I mess up in all manner grammar regularly. It's not a strength but mistakes are easy to correct. Also we've added two refs so I feel this is covered for now. Let's see is anything comes of her show there, since it's subscription-only I imagine it won't be terribly newsworthy.  -- Banjeboi 22:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: addition 

message: (Sometimes I think I read too much into the pictures chosen for articles here.)
Is there any way we could get a picture that doesn't make O'Donnell look as if she's snarling at the camera?
J.M. Archer (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographs 

message: TV personality
...
... Is this a joke? 99.236.221.124 (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: TV personality is not a Job description. Holy crap. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupation 

message: People magazine says Rosie's Rep has confirmed that she has a new girlfriend. Should this be added?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.134.103 (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split with Spouse 

message: There's like 5 different incidents listed under "The View" that should be grouped under a section called "controversy".  Quite disturbing that the majority of articles focused on individuals that happen to be white never contain a "controversy" section.....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.93.159 (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: No explanation for the title of this article - why not Rosie O'Donnell?  --Robinson weijman (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Rosie O'Donnell. Requesting deletion of redirect to allow moving page back to Rosie O'Donnell.  Page was moved today without explanation from Rosie O'Donnell to Joe Gogoj. — Becksguy (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I see there is already a request on WarioLoaf's page.  --Robinson weijman (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: This article is one of a  number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue   are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes"  would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pending changes 

message: 69.34.85.100 (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Judith--> Wikipedia isn't connected in any way with Rosie O'Donnell. If you're trying to contact her, you will have better luck at her official web site (http://www.rosie.com) as listed in our article....it's unlikely that she'll read this page, and even more unlikely she'd respond here (and if she did, you'd have no way of confirming it was really her...) - Nunh-huh 05:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 69.34.85.100, 20 February 2011 

message: This article reads like so much fluff that it might as well have been written by ODonnell's own press agents. How about eliminating all the palaver and fan-adoration that pervades this fluff-saturated article? Clearly it does not meet Wikipedia objective neutrality criteria.99.2.69.235 (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is Largely Fluff 

message: On Friday, March 18th, I watched Who Do You Think You are?  and found your family history extremely interesting.  Our family now lives in Albuquerque and Rio Rancho, New Mexico.  My mother was Margaret Alwill and she married my father, Clemente Valencia, after World War II.  Her father was Michael Alwill.  His mother was Margaret Murtha married to James Alwill of Old Castle, Ireland.  Old Castle is not too far from Dublin, Ireland  (West Meathe County)and pretty close to Kildare.  My mother's family currently lives mostly in England.  My aunt said Murtha is not a very common name.  She said Margaret Murtha had three sisters that immigrated from Ireland and Margaret stayed there to care for her parents.  She later married at age 36 to James Alwill who was 21.  They had four children:  Michael (my grandfather), Matt, Lilly, and James.  Lilly married an Irishman named Joe Grumble.  Michael, Matt and James married three Baker sisters: Mary (my grandmother), Norah and Alice.  They are all deceased.  Alice died about 2 years ago.  Their children are all my  mother's first cousins and live in England, and a few in Wales and Australia.  Their names are similar and resemble each other because they are all from the same gene pool.  I do not know for a fact that there is any relationship to your mother's family, but anything is possible.   I am very sorry for your loss of your mother at such an early age.  Our mother passed away in 1977, my brother, Brian in 1975, father in 1999 and brother, Joe in 2002.  My sister, Maureen and my brother, Michael and their families live here in New Mexico with me and my family.  Thank you for allowing me to share this information with you.  Sincerely,  Sheila Montano  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.164.68 (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murtha    Ireland 

message: I was not able to find support for this in the cited references.  Did I miss the relevant sections? Bagumba (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recirculated by other media outlets 

message: Need to cite a source for this, and likely will need to be attributed with "XYZ said ...." since it sounds like an opinion. Bagumba (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim about portrayal by conservative