Talk:Rosie O'Donnell/Archive 1

message: Anyone care to better legend the photo ? I've no idea who is who between Mrs. O'Donnell and her wife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.23.239.242 (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. -- Kasei-jin 12:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo legend 

message: Why is Kelly Carpenter redirected to Rosie O'Donnell? I realize they're married but I think Kelly deserves her own page. Rosie's bio is complicated with her works and whatnot since she is an actress. Just a thought. Batman6 06:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just created a stub article for her instead of the redirect.  Feel free to expand it. WikiGnome 16:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited because I felt previous edition was extremely biased and not NPOV. It seemed very slanted against her, it's still not perfect NPOV, but is significantly better now. ArthurDent 04:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the line "However, as O'Donnell only supports of control of private ownership of guns," because it didn't seem necesary and additionally, it's not supported in either of the source citations for that paragraph, and no additional sources were added. Bigj 01:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kelli 

message: This page has a serious amount of discussion that is not related to improving the article. - Matthew238 04:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: non-article related talk

message: This should be a reference on the Roise O' Donnell page but I don't get why we need a entire page diciated to the Rosie/Trump feud.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bear199 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference

message: When two people become married, is it not customary to refer to them as such?  The phrase "legal union" redirects to the Wikipedia article for "Same-Sex Marriage".  Why the apprehension about calling a spade a spade? Flakeloaf 03:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a good edit as it is compatible with the Wikipedia article on marriage.  "In western societies, marriage has traditionally been understood as social contract between a man (husband) and a woman (wife) ... "  It's more accurate to refer to it as a "civil partnership," as it's considered illegal in most states.  If the majority society view changes, then it would be appropriate to change "civil union" to "marriage," but as it stands now, "civil union" is more accurate.  Her "marriage" was nullified anyway.  I guess the article needs a bit of updating. Bigj 05:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense.  I just happen to live in  a country where the culture makes no distinction between a civil union between any two sexes, and a marriage.  The marriage article goes on to explain how some Western societies are beginning to recognise same-sex marriages.  In the passage you quoted, by "western societies", does the article mean "The United States"?  I agree it's a moot point, just something to think about. Flakeloaf 07:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I didn't mean to appear to push a US-centric view.  When I was writing my response I was even thinking "gee this sounds U.S.-centric," but it seemed appropriate, because she is a U.S. citizen, living in the U.S., so shouldn't she be subjected to majority society view of the U.S.?  It seems like it would also be appropriate to refer to her as "married" if she were in Canada. Bigj 09:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's for me to apologise; I didn't mean to make it sound as though I was biting you.  You're absolutely right - unless you're the Dalai Lama or something, the only society that's relevant to how people describe you is the one that dominates the country where you live.Flakeloaf 20:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I sympathize, as far as I know their marriage was nullified by the California Supreme Court. To refer to her life-partner as her "wife" would therefore be factually incorrect. I'll wait for someone to challenge the facts in this case, otherwise I intend to change it in a day or two. Wahkeenah 11:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The line saying she entered into a "union" should be changed to "marriage."  She got married at the time; it was annulled, but it was a marriage and it was called a marriage.  People didn't view it as a union, but as a marriage -- and that's why it was annulled.  So it should there be changed to marriage.  (The life-partner / wife debate is a separate issue.)
Although their original marriage isn't legal, didn't they get married in Canada afterwards?  Exploding Boy 19:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage vs. Union 

message: I don't agree with stating "lesbian" as part of her very first sentence in her article. I view at as aggressive labelling. I'd prefer it to be brought up as a fundamental element in her "personal life" section. Does anyone else agree? -- Matt0401 21:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know...At the same time, when she said she was a lesbian, that was a very large thing to the American public, and she's been an activist in seeking equality for homosexuals since that time.  Michael 00:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Mike 7. It is highly relevant. The rational by Matt0401, seems to be little more than personal preference.
I'm in agreement with Matt. The lesbian label, while appropriate to her personal life section, is rather irrelevant when discussing the forefront of her career. It's rather secondary overall. --AWF
I think it is refreshing to have a woman announce that she is sexually aroused by another woman like Rosie does on THE VIEW.  Men get away with saying that about woman ALL THE TIME!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotbikerguy (talk • contribs) 
*Yep, us heteros get away with a lot o' things. Wahkeenah 01:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lesbianism 

message: Doesn't anyone care that there's not an article for the Rosie O'Donnell Show? Right now it redirects to this article, but this article links to it. I added it to the requested articles page but someone removed it. Can anyone help me get some attention to it? Thanks. Imerson 15:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rosie O'Donnell Show 

message: I'm not even a Christian, but Rosie is a moron.  We don't actually have seperation of church and state by law, just by tradition.  The 1st amendment says there cannot be a state established religion which means people can't be forced to practice a religion by the government.  This doesn't mean that government slogans cannot have the word "God" in them, it doesn't mean politicians cannot talk about God, it doesn't mean that religion can't be taught in school,ect.  The FIRST ACT OF CONGRESS after the ratification of the constitution was to APPOINT CHAPLAINS.  Yes, THE FOUNDING FATHERS APPOINTED RELIGIOUS FIGURES!  So go fuck yourselves, religion-hating socialists, I hope the government stops giving you handouts.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.151.167.250 (talk • contribs) .
:Number one, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, two founding fathers, were Deists and not Christian. Number two, I'd say the First Amendment to the Constitution is American law. Number three, it's spelled "separation." Number four, this page is meant for discussing issues with the article at hand and not your personal, biased opinion. Keep this up and a banning will probably be in order. --AWF
::Actually, the First Amendment does not explicitly mention a separation of church and state.  I think that was the point that guy was trying to make, he just made it very poorly. Pablothegreat85 08:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first amendment prohibits the government from establishing a state religion, hence we have seperation, and also separation, of church and state, whether it explicitly calls it that or not. The first amendment does not prevent lawmakers from personally or collectively embracing religion, It prohibits compelling people to adhere to religion, which means that forced prayer in schools is forbidden. The teachers are in position of authority, so there is no such thing as "voluntary" school prayer. Wahkeenah 15:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Christio-fascists (to borrow a Bush-like expression ONCE USED BY A CONSERVATIVE ON THE McLAUGHLIN GROUP) get their way, their forced "voluntary" school prayer push could have unintended consequences. In communities with a large Islamic population, those schools might decide to establish "voluntary" calls-to-prayer several times a day. Then the Christian minority in the classroom can either stand there looking like fools (remember, it's "voluntary") or they can submit to authority and peer pressure, and join in. It will be interesting, then, to see what tune the Christio-fascists sing. Wahkeenah 16:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't hate conservatives, I just hate the stuff they do. "Hate the sin, love the sinner." Wahkeenah 11:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I don't agree with her gun control viewpoint, nor with the tactic she used with Tom Selleck, the "ambush". So there. Wahkeenah 11:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation of Church and State 

message: Hey there - I've rewritten the section about The View after the Amish school shooting again .  I'm not too keen on the word 'argue', because it was more civilised than that, but I'll agree that 'debate' makes it sound too planned.  I'm not at all comfortable with the line that "Rosie used the Amish school shootings", because the word "used" makes it sound as if she went out of her way to exploit something for her own personal agenda - that's a POV interpretation of what happened.  And I figured this was too long for a comment insertion, plus discussion about it would be better than just reverting each others changes.  --Mnemeson 16:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Juniper - the addition of 'slavery' was vandalism, which has since been reverted.  Thanks for raising it though, sometimes vandalism can get missed :) --Mnemeson 23:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Gun control Stance 

message: I have defended this page against vandalism, and will continue to do so, but this Chinese joke, coming on the heels of the Kelly Ripa / Clay Aiken incident (which many editors tried to downplay) is really offensive and casts O'Donnell in a very bad light. I also tried to clean up and reduce the repitition that another editor had introduced, but this needs to be written better, with more about the Ripa incident for some balance, since O'Donnell really made a thing out of it, and it's now more her story than Ripa's. To paraphrase Rodney Dangerfield, if you look in the dictionary under "Political Correctness Hypocrite", you'll find Rosie O'Donnell's picture." Wahkeenah 13:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tidied up this section a bit as she has since apologized on her blog.  Also, the section made it appear that the Chinese speakers were the intended targets of her joke, which she also says on her blog is not true.  Should I cite on the main page the place on her blog where she explains what she was trying to do with the joke? She does explain she that imitates accents of every type (she mentions that she has done Irish, Australian, and Southern accents in her act and this particular was not meant to be seen as degrogatory.  She says she was making fun of the enormity pf the DeVito coverage, not the Chinese. KrewBay 02:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In short, "they shouldn't be offended." Sorry, that doesn't hold politically correct water. Wahkeenah 02:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Does this situation still merit a section on a personal biography?  She has now apologized for her actions/words.  Is this still relevant?  If so, it could at least do with quite a bit more editing. KrewBay 18:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like one of those non-apology apologies: "I'm sorry if I offended you, but you had no right to be offended." Wahkeenah 18:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of the quality of her apology or how politically correct her joke was, the question is - does this now belong on her biography?  I don't think it does, but I would like to hear yours (and others) opinions as to why you might feel it should stay KrewBay 18:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see what stupid thing she does next before rubbing out the whole thing. Wahkeenah 00:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Would you support at least editing this section down considerably?  I'm thinking it should look more like the section in Adam Carolla's bio regarding his almost identical statements? KrewBay 02:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would give it a few more days, to make sure there is no new news about it, then pare it down to a more appropriate longer-term level. Since she seems to make these gaffes on Tuesdays, maybe wait until Wednesday the 20th or so. Wahkeenah 02:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did decide to edit it a smidge since someone made some changes that were a little gossipy.  I'm comfortable with giving it a little while (and you're right, maybe just until she goes and does/says something else).  I'm thinking the first thing I might remove will be all the info relating to Councilman John Liu as that seems to be more related to him than to her.  What do you think? KrewBay 05:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you had seen Liu talk about this on the O'Reilly program, you might understand why this is so offensive and why he got involved. It could be trimmed, though. Wahkeenah 06:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This is important to note in the article, but it is taking up a disproportionately large amount of the article. It does need to be trimmed back a bit. [User:NickBurns|NickBurns]] 17:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have pruned the section regarding the Asian controversy. As I said before, it is very important and notable and should be included. I linked reference to both John Liu and Unity (a journalist's group) and their comments. But there was a little TOO much detail in the article. Thus the links, which allows the reader to link to an external article with additional details. NickBurns 20:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really really liked how this section read before the information regarding The Chronicle was added.  I thought it was appropriate, succinct, and readable, now it seem significantly less so.  I think it should be taken out and changed back to the way it was before that information was added.  Agree? KrewBay 03:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, you think that one sentence about the SF Chronicle makes the whole section less appropriate, succinct, and readable?  I included it because I thought it - that is, her online response - was a relevant part of the story. schi talk 04:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might just be the formatting before the add that I liked better.  Although, if you feel that the online responses are important, it seems like we're highlighting a middle man with The Chronicle.  It's not like she did an exclusive interview with them or anything.  She posted her response for everyone to see, so why highlight their story? KrewBay 14:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's attributing the report to the Chronicle, because it seems that Rosie disabled comments so you can't even see them and took down the post in question.  I feel like her online response may be important - it's another official response directly from her that isn't quite the same as her other responses. schi talk 20:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese accent 

message: I removed a number of references from this page (from one user) that made derogatory references to O'Donnell. Everyone is entitled to their opinions about her, but please remember that (a) talk pages are for discussing THE ARTICLE AND ITS CONTENTS, not the person or their merit or lack thereof; and (b) Wikipedia has a policy regarding personal attacks. Thanks. NickBurns 17:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of talk page and personal attacks 

message: === Donald Trump Controversy ===
Yes, I agree, I don't see what Rosie's point is, a lot of todo about nothing, distastful at best. The Miss USA Pageant has standards and its Trumps show, I am appalled at the disgraceful events displayed on the View. This has tarnished Barbara Walters and ABC TV network for life.Focusmoney 21:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a bit of editing Donald's quotes would be beneficial. Seems to ramble on a bit, giving much more detail than necessary. --Amynewyork4248 20:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, unless it's anything other than just name-calling between the two, it's not especially relevant. As I said earlier, Rosie is constantly getting into verbal scrapes. We can't document every last one of them. Wahkeenah 22:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey Ripberger - you're right, it was, somebody replaced 'gun control' with 'slavery', it'll be in the history log who did it, but odds are they've been banned, at least five distinct editors have been tonight.  If you see if happen again, don't hesitate to revert it - be bold! :) --Mnemeson 23:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That new User:Mdey33 messed with the page a second time. I reported it to an admin, and hopefully it will be blocked sometime soon. Wahkeenah 23:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The insertion of slavery its second time was actually my fault - I was reverting vandalism, accidentally reverted to an earlier version that had yet more in that had been removed in the intervening time.  My apoligies --Mnemeson 23:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was another blurb that I reverted. Hopefully the article is back to where it should be now. Wahkeenah 23:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you guys are keeping on top of it; I saw some heavy POV, but someone else edited it before I could get rid of it. Nicely done. =) Hanzolot 05:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should have seen Trump on O'Reilly on Thursday night, the 21st. Trump was one of the rudest guests O'Reilly has had. It was funny hearing O'Reilly trying to lecture Trump on being civil (which Trump was having none of). And although Rosie had shot her mouth off yet again, she does have a point in this case. Wahkeenah 07:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We don't have to report the validity of statements.  Just report what happened.  The whole section needs citations/references.  And it may be too long.Luigibob 20:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a spinoff article is needed: "Rosie's controversy of the week." And her point?  Well, do we need more coke snorters like Miss USA as American "icons"? As for Trump, my guess is that he's shtupping Miss USA. Wahkeenah 21:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Alan.ca removed it again, correctly pointing out the lack of citations. So I added it back with a citation that verifies all of the quotes. Maybe the section could be re-written to be more encyclopedic, but I don't think it deserves to be taken out. It's quite newsworthy. It was in all the major press, not just the gossip rags. Jhinman 06:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "I removed the limo controversy section because it was pointless" -- To you! Rollo44 11:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "the story is no longer in the news, so it is dated and unnecessary" -- I'm glad people don't use that rationale for other historical events. Rollo44 11:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Rosiethegreat, shut up!  You don't belong on Wikipedia.  This isn't the place for spewing vemon.  Rosie has praised far more people than she has criticized.  The media only pick up on the criticisms which is a major reason why some people hold a negative opinion of her.  She has donated far MORE money and time to charities than Donald Trump has ever done.  The balance between the controversies and charity work is out of proportion and needs to be fixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.212.43.185 (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statements needing citation 

message: Yes, I agree, I don't see what Rosie's point is, a lot of todo about nothing, distastful at best. The Miss USA Pageant has standards and its Trumps show, I am appalled at the disgraceful events displayed on the View. This has tarnished Barbara Walters and ABC TV network for life.Focusmoney 21:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a bit of editing Donald's quotes would be beneficial. Seems to ramble on a bit, giving much more detail than necessary. --Amynewyork4248 20:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, unless it's anything other than just name-calling between the two, it's not especially relevant. As I said earlier, Rosie is constantly getting into verbal scrapes. We can't document every last one of them. Wahkeenah 22:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey Ripberger - you're right, it was, somebody replaced 'gun control' with 'slavery', it'll be in the history log who did it, but odds are they've been banned, at least five distinct editors have been tonight.  If you see if happen again, don't hesitate to revert it - be bold! :) --Mnemeson 23:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That new User:Mdey33 messed with the page a second time. I reported it to an admin, and hopefully it will be blocked sometime soon. Wahkeenah 23:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The insertion of slavery its second time was actually my fault - I was reverting vandalism, accidentally reverted to an earlier version that had yet more in that had been removed in the intervening time.  My apoligies --Mnemeson 23:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was another blurb that I reverted. Hopefully the article is back to where it should be now. Wahkeenah 23:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you guys are keeping on top of it; I saw some heavy POV, but someone else edited it before I could get rid of it. Nicely done. =) Hanzolot 05:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should have seen Trump on O'Reilly on Thursday night, the 21st. Trump was one of the rudest guests O'Reilly has had. It was funny hearing O'Reilly trying to lecture Trump on being civil (which Trump was having none of). And although Rosie had shot her mouth off yet again, she does have a point in this case. Wahkeenah 07:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We don't have to report the validity of statements.  Just report what happened.  The whole section needs citations/references.  And it may be too long.Luigibob 20:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a spinoff article is needed: "Rosie's controversy of the week." And her point?  Well, do we need more coke snorters like Miss USA as American "icons"? As for Trump, my guess is that he's shtupping Miss USA. Wahkeenah 21:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Alan.ca removed it again, correctly pointing out the lack of citations. So I added it back with a citation that verifies all of the quotes. Maybe the section could be re-written to be more encyclopedic, but I don't think it deserves to be taken out. It's quite newsworthy. It was in all the major press, not just the gossip rags. Jhinman 06:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "I removed the limo controversy section because it was pointless" -- To you! Rollo44 11:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "the story is no longer in the news, so it is dated and unnecessary" -- I'm glad people don't use that rationale for other historical events. Rollo44 11:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Rosiethegreat, shut up!  You don't belong on Wikipedia.  This isn't the place for spewing vemon.  Rosie has praised far more people than she has criticized.  The media only pick up on the criticisms which is a major reason why some people hold a negative opinion of her.  She has donated far MORE money and time to charities than Donald Trump has ever done.  The balance between the controversies and charity work is out of proportion and needs to be fixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.212.43.185 (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donald Trump Controversy 

message: Substituted at 22:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment