Talk:Rosie O'Donnell/Archive 2

message: The purpose of the talk page is to discuss article improvement. It isn't to discuss ideas for "Coffee Talk" or why we are or aren't fascinated with Trumps actions. It's not to insult Rosie O'Donnell either. Please keep your comments on topic. This isn't a fan forum. AniMate 07:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of talk page 

message: I just went ahead, being bold and put back the Donald Trump section. I don't understand why its not in there in the first place (whereas the minor unsourced Kelly Ripa/Clay Aitken item is still in there). The "feud" has been covered in numerous reliable, non-tabloid news sources (AP, BBC, New York Times and others). It is a rather significant development in her career picking a fight with Donald Trump. I cited the AP news report via CNN.com. --Eqdoktor 14:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: is there any Wikipedia-friendly way of linking to the most recent Trump vs. Rosie verbiage -- where just as Rosie decided to leave early, Trump phoned in MSNBC live, and berated Rosie to a degree far exceeding what he had ever done before (which says a lot :o ) -- Trump phone call to MSNBC in video clip "Rosie quits 'The View' early": http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=c3a3ad4e-b6fb-4ab6-a3fc-1be5b26cf1f0&f=00&fg=copy (I am curious if over the next week or so Rosie says anything in response to the egomaniacal verbal essay that Donald directed at her.) 199.214.27.4 18:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donald Trump and Rosie 

message: http://www.tvsquad.com/2007/01/18/rosie-set-to-leave-the-view-for-her-own-show/
68.45.4.118 16:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaving show for her own show? 

message: Is this really a controversy?  As far as I can tell, it's totally uncontroversial.  It hasn't been reported anywhere that I've come across, and it certainly hasn't turned into a big thing like any of the other so-called "controversies."  Exploding Boy 17:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Impeachment "controversy"

message: Should there be a mention of her "comments" hours before Anna Nicole died? It's caused a bit of a frenzy with some people and perhaps it merits mention on Wikipedia.
*Not without a citation. And whatever Rosie said could well have been true or prophetic. Wahkeenah 15:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anna Nicole Smith

message: On February 8, 2007, Rosie O'Donnell made the following comments (live) on The View about Anna Nicole Smith:
Big things going on in the news. If I have to see Anna Nicole Smith one more time on television. That woman and her paternity test ... and she can hardly even speak now. She can't even speak. She's like (stares and mumbles). You know, it's a tragedy all around. Her son died. She has this little baby. There's obviously some kind of medication or substance involved. I don't know. http://www.rosie.com/blog/2007/02/09/where-the-light-is/
Coincidentally, Smith died three hours later. The next day's show was pre-recorded the same day that this show was aired live, so Rosie did not have a chance to make follow-up comments until Monday, February 12.
</blockquote>
Where do you see the bias? --Cupcakeforyou 18:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Anna Nicole Smith

message: :It was indeed. Now sorted. talkGiler S 17:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Awards section is upside-down

message: Um . . . seriously?!?  KrewBay 03:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to be gone, thankfully. It was likely a piece of short-term vandalism.  --  Zanimum 16:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's back again, so I removed it.  KrewBay 22:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A user named Mamalujo (apparently a devout Catholic) had put it back about 3 days ago. Citing that guy Donohue is pretty funny. As I recall, that guy was defending the Catholic Church and the Cardinals during that ugly episode of the public exposure of the perversion rampant in the church's Boston diocese. Donohue is in no position to be lecturing Rosie or anyone else about moral issues. Wahkeenah 23:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the article's history, there's been no editing of the Catholic section since 2/25  - at which time the section was not deleted.  Personally, I don't feel that the section merits being included because it wasn't newsworthy enough to be reported in the mainstream press.  But how anyone *feels* about the incident is irrelevant.  I.e., "Donohue is in no position to be lecturing Rosie or anyone else about moral issues" is NOT a reason this section shouldn't be included in this article.  Let's learn to keep the article neutral, please. --Cupcakeforyou 12:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point I'm trying to make is that the user who added that material back is pro-Catholic and is citing Donohue to justify pushing his own viewpoint. Wahkeenah 14:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ????? Donohue is the person who accused Rosie O'Donnell for being anti-Catholic.  Why wouldn't he be cited in a section about O'Donnell being accused of anti-Catholic statements?  Also, I think you're out of line to accuse other editors of religious bias when you have no evidence. --Cupcakeforyou 14:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check his user page if you have doubts. I say again, he's citing Donohue in order to justify pushing his personal anti-Rosie viewpoint. If you can find something Rosie herself has said about the Catholic Church, then you've got something. Meanwhile, Cardinal Law defamed the Catholic Church far more than Rosie O'Donnell did. I bet you won't find a quote from Donohue saying that, though. Wahkeenah 17:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're having a lot of trouble distinguishing between FACT and OPINION.  The FACT that a user page indicates an editor's religious affiliation is no reason for you to assume that s/he is biased, or that their contribution merits less respect than yours.  On the other hand, your statements about Donohue are all OPINIONS, and clearly reflects your own bias. --Cupcakeforyou 17:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't have so much of a problem with the Donohue quote if it was actually relevant. If Rosie had actually made a statement denouncing Catholicism, maybe a response by a Catholic apologist would be in order. As far as I know, she hasn't. So posting the quote as the core of the section that is about her alleged anti-Catholicism serves only as editorializing, as POV-pushing, as "Rosie-bashing", and also has the potential of being libel/slander against Rosie O'Donnell, assuming she even gave a hoot what either Donohue or wikipedia had to say about her. Wahkeenah 19:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section (as of its last edit on 2/25/2007) offered no commentary on whether O'Donnell is or is not anti-Catholic, but simply said that she was accused of it.  (This is a FACT.)  A neutral recitation of facts that she was accused cannot be "editorializing, POV-pushing, or 'Rosie-bashing'" if it is the truth.  (This is also a FACT.)  A statement that she was accused also cannot itself be libel/slander if it is the truth.  (Yet another FACT.)  In addition, a public comment on Rosie O'Donnell can be relevant to her biography without O'Donnell's input or response.  (Hey, another FACT.)  However, based on this Talk section, your objection to the inclusion of this section is motivated by bias.  (FACTS are fun!)  --Cupcakeforyou 20:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's the mere inclusion of Donohue's remarks that constitutes the bias. It's one guy's editorial judgment that one guy's criticism is worth including... it's the judgment of somebody who is also pro-Catholic, and thus appears to want to further a Rosie-bashing agenda and hide behind some part of wikipedia policy in so doing. Is it also wikipedia policy to look for quotes accusing people of this thing or that thing, just to have something to pad out an article? I don't think so. When some public figure criticizes some other public figure, does that make it worthy of entry? Or is it only worthy of entry because somebody wants to add to the list of Rosie-bashing entries in the article? FYI, lest you think I'm a Rosie apologist, I wrote some stuff at the time of the ching-chong story, because it originated with something she said and there was a well-deserved backlash. But unless she's made some statement that criticizes the Catholic Church, including Donohue's views here is POV-pushing, pure and simple. Wahkeenah 21:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Wahkeenah wrote: "... and thus appears to want to further a Rosie-bashing agenda ..." - this is at the heart of the fallacy of your argument.  How something "appears" to you is not a FACT; you've concluded that a user has a "Rosie-bashing agenda" simply because his user-page indicated that he is Catholic.  That is your OPINION.  However, the mere inclusion of any FACT cannot itself "constitute a bias."  (And that's a FACT.)  --Cupcakeforyou 21:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess I have to keep restating it until you get the point. Yes, it's a fact that Donohue said this about O'Donnell. The question that goes begging is WHY does a random "accusation", a random quote, need to be included in the article? Should we go looking for every random quote about O'Donnell and include it here? What's special about this one quote? There's only one answer: that the editor thinks O'Donnell is anti-Catholic, and went looking for a quote in support of that viewpoint. Wahkeenah 23:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I am going to reinsert the section.  It's not a random accusation, it is multiple complaints of bigotry on her part.  I haven't included all the accusations and limited the section in the interest of avoiding giving the issue undue weight.  The Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights is the premier organization concerned with Catholic civil rights and fighting bigotry and defamation against Catholics.  If the organization cites a prominent individual multiple times for bigoted behaivor, it warrants a mention.  Likewise, if the ADL multiple times complained of a noteworthy person's public acts of anti-Semitism it would warrant a mention.  As far as the issue being covered by the press, it has been.  TV news reports covered it, including major cable news outlets.  It was also covered in the print press.  News talks shows addressed it including The Abrams Report and Rita Crosby.  The Sunday Mirror (U.K.) also covered it.  While I appreciate Wahkeenah's assumption of good faith on my part, I should agree, as pointed out above, that my views are, are beside the point.  If it belongs in the article, it belongs their regardles of my views, and visa versa.  And quite frankly, it's a little bit offensive.  If the issue were about anti-Semitic or racist comments would he be saying "Hey, this guy's a Jew" or "Hey this guy's black". Mamalujo 09:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. You're quoting Donohue directly in the article, but forcing the reader to go to an external page to see why he said it. You need to cite her original comments in the article, to put some context to his comments and some balance to the article. Also, her comments basically take issue with policies and practices of the Catholic Church. Nowhere in her statement does she say "I hate Catholics". If she said "I hate Jews", that would be anti-Semitism. If she said "I don't agree with Jewish policy", that would not necessarily be anti-Semitism, although it's certainly likely that the JDL would try to paint it that way. The Catholic Church has a long history of lashing out against anyone who dares to challenge its self-styled moral authority. (And before you say it, yes, they are far from unique that way.) Wahkeenah 09:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I took the citation from the article and posted it in the article. It's up to the reader to decide whether criticism of Catholic policy is the same thing as being "anti-Catholic". Wahkeenah 10:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling a critic of the church "anti-Catholic" is analogous to calling a critic of the American government "anti-American". It's a red herring. It's an attempt to undercut freedom of speech, and to deflect attention away from the points the critic is making; in the Church's case, its institutionalized misogyny, and its well-documented tolerance of perversion in the priesthood. Those are among the complaints that Rosie and Joy have about their Church. Donohue's argument is that no Catholic (or anyone else) has the right to question anything the Catholic Church does. Wahkeenah 11:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not merely being a critic of the Church that got her called on the carpet by the Catholic League.  Scads of people do that, and should feel free to do so, with no complaints at all.  It was the context of the use of falsehoods, pretext and vicious attacks that constitutes bigotry.  And the incident referenced in the article was not the only incident.  Other incidents included mocking the Eucharist, on more than one occasion, falsely claiming that the current Pope had been in charge of investigating clerical sexual abuse for decades, when in fact he had only taken control of those investigations in his previous position in 2002, and spending almost an entire segment,which was purportedly about Ted Haggart, attacking the Church when the subject had nothing at all to do with the Catholic Church.  Look, there are people who don't think Richard's statements were racist or that Gibson's statements were anti-Semitic, or that Rosie's comments about Asians were racist, but they are still found in the articles about those people. Mamalujo 20:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as you include some examples (as I did, from that same article) that put Donohue's comments in context. Would that Donohue had been as infuriated at Cardinal Law for systematically protecting pedophiles, as he was at Rosie for merely shooting her mouth off. Wahkeenah 23:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That problem can be neatly solved by removing the section, as it is blatant POV-pushing. Wahkeenah 17:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I shortened the section earlier today, leaving the laundry list in as a footnote - not removing it - but Mamalujo put it back again.  I say again that this section is way too long and is being given too much attention in this article. Mamalujo just keeps putting it back and adding on to it - is there consensus here for this section to be as long as it has become?  I am reverting to my edit, moving some of it to a footnote.  I think this should be discussed further before reinstating anything more. Perhaps the Anti-Catholic bigotry article is the place for this level of detail - not here.  Also, there is no independent reliable source given - only a Catholic League press release.  I'm actually inclined to remove the entire section, but will await consensus for that. Tvoz |talk 22:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This sectioned needs to be rewritten. Quoting an inflamatory press release about two celebrities doesn't seem terribly encyclopedic to me. In context of the rest of the article I could see a phrase added "accused of being anti-Catholic for views on____" but the entire section needs to go unless beefed up and vetted. Benjiboi 20:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this point. Tvoz |talk 20:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, someone said and I agree that if this section is to have any meaning what is needed are quotes of what she said, not just what O'Donohue characterized it as.  This is no more than his biased opinion, backed up only by his own POV press release. NO independent reporting whatsoever.  The whole thing should go -  it is clearly pushing a POV.   I put the neutrality tag back on - it should not have been removed until the editor who placed it is satisfied and is no longer disputing the neutrality of the section. I placed it before, and I am not satisfied, so the tag has to stand.  Tvoz |talk 20:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Also the main sources for the entire section, I think, would not stand up to wiki standards, The Catholic league? Hardly neutral. There might be something to the allegations of anti-Catholicism but no more than allegations of her being a terrorist. This section needs to go until credible sources support encyclopedic statements. O'Donnel's comedic remarks on hundreds of subjects hold more weight than this subject and cherry picking some choice phrases from an hour talk show and propping up with pro-Catholic propaganda makes the entire article suspect.
I've removed this section and taken the one valid section about partial-abortion into the The View section. I also researched the quotes and transcript of that conversation and i was clear she was more concerned about the Roe v. Wade implications as was Supreme court Judge Ruth Ginsburg (sp?). Also it was a lengthy conversation so added context for her statements. If anyone wants to readd new anti-catholic info then please provide accurate quotes and references that aren't conservative bloggers or media hungry campaigners. Benjiboi 02:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you made a mistake, but I did remove her from the Category as I think it should be limited to people who are not alive or who are especially activist on the issue.--T. Anthony 18:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Catholic Section?

message: What does years active in the little box on the right hand side mean?  It says from 1979, but what does this date mean?  What has been active since 1979?  I don't get it.  KrewBay 23:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Years Active"? 

message: What Rosie O'Donnell says should be scrutinized and mentioned because she is a public figure who has decided to become a commentator on US foreign policy and other issues.
She won 11 Emmies so like her or not, she is a major public figure. The inaccuracies about her accusations related to her 911 therories are therefore fair game, and critical to the national debate.
Public figures have a serious responsibility to be accurate in their claims about our country-- especially when we are at war and our soldiers are risking their lives every day. They have a right to free speech whether right or wrong of course-- but they should also expect to have their comments examined and scrutinized as well (that is also a part of free speech).
The editors of this article were therefore right to explore (debunk) her claims about 911 in detail. Very appropriate for a wiki article. And they have done so in a very unbiased and even-handed manner.
71.208.226.116 14:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? I don't understand why everything she says should be considered encyclopedic.  Aleta 00:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a pretty significant claim she is making, and newsworthy.  I think it should be included.  She has more to say about it, so let's see how it plays out before adding the section. --Cupcakeforyou 03:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not her claim, it's a restatement of an existing conspiracy theory. A lot of people adhere to that conspiracy theory, especially in light of the seemingly opportunistic response to 9/11 by the Bush administration. I think the conspiracists are wrong about the facts of the WTC collapses, but I don't claim to be an expert on building engineering; and I say again that many people think there is more to 9/11 than the official stories. And I agree that it should play out a bit before making a thing of it here. Wahkeenah 04:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also important to keep in mind that Rosie has fantasized about Bush being impeached, so this fits. However, looking at the larger picture, if there was something rotten about 9/11, this would not just be an impeachable offense, it would be a constitutional crisis of the gravest order. It would make Watergate look like a parking ticket. It would also philosophically tie back to some of the JFK conspiracy theories that suggest LBJ and/or other members of the goverment were involved, which if true would have been another constitutional crisis, obviously... and would join the ranks of the conspiracy theory connected with Lincoln's assassination, which is starting to get a bit off the track but there is a connecting thread here, namely conspiracy theories. Wahkeenah 04:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you think about the validity of her claim is not relevant to whether it's worth including in this article.  I think you have some real trouble with being neutral and objective.  Anyway, as I said, her claim is significant (and it's her claim because she's the one making it, it's pointless to parse that) and newsworthy, so we should include it. --Cupcakeforyou 06:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did she really make those claims or merely parrot what conspiracy theorists say? They are coherent, grammatical sentences with punctuation and everything; not her usual style. It's a direct copy&paste... Weregerbil 09:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just her blog (where she cuts-n-pastes things routinely without citing them), but her statements on The View which makes this claim newsworthy.  O'Donnell has been citing 9/11 conspiracy theories on her blog for a long time, but has only been talking about it on The View recently. --Cupcakeforyou 19:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That's what I'm getting at. It's not "her" claim. She's not the one making this claim. She did not invent this out of the clear blue sky. She is, as you say, merely parroting what the conspiracy theorists have been saying for several years now. This claim itself is by no means "news" (Bill O'Reilly has covered it, as I recall), and my Islamic colleagues have been talking about it for quite awhile. But her bringing it up so openly could be considered newsworthy, depending on what happens next, if anything. I'm not sure it's appropriate for this page to become "Rosie's top ten bizarre comments of the week". So Mr. Cupcake is saying that I'm biased, even as I'm agreeing with him on how it should be handled. Go figure. Wahkeenah 12:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never called you "biased."  I think you're so used to calling people "biased" without basis that the word has lost all meaning for you.  But your opinions on the validity of conspiracy theories in general is not relevant to this article and doesn't even belong in this discussion page.  Learn to keep YOUR opinions about history, world events, and everything else not relevant to this article to yourself, please. --Cupcakeforyou 19:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a one-word summary of a sentence you used. And the conspiracy theory stuff is not irrelevant. It's at the core of this most recent or potential Rosie controversy. You can't censor Rosie, and you can't censor me, either. This is America. We have a quaint concept here called Freedom of Speech. Wahkeenah 09:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's rich, coming from the person who routinely censors other editors by accusing them of bias without any evidence. This entire discussion page is full of your efforts to control the tone of the article to your liking. But please, go ahead and talk all you want about your thoughts on Lincoln and JFK and try to convince someone that it's somehow relevant to this article. Good luck! --Cupcakeforyou 11:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a one-man gang. The talk page is the place for content disputes, and that's what all this discussion is ultimately about. We can yack all day about issues, but the only thing that matters is what goes in the article, based on consensus, not just my opinion. If you think the article should be "Rosie's rants of the week", so be it. That's pretty much what it has become in any case. Wahkeenah 12:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah I think it should be mentioned.  This is supposed to be a biography of a celeb, so surely their stance on issues is relevant.  You only have to look at Mel Gibson to see that his personal views dominate a fair amount of his article.  Or is that somehow different? 201.231.185.144 03:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Is the NPOV concept really this hard to understand?  Sheesh.  Anyway, O'Donnell said she was going to talk about this topic this week on The View.  My prediction is that ABC and Barbara Walters will shush her, but you never know.  It's definitely newsworthy, but please, let's keep your POV out of it.  Thanks. --Cupcakeforyou 09:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: All media are controlled. Wahkeenah 00:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Newsworthy is not the same as encyclopedia-worthy.  Wikipedia is not Wikinews.  Just because something is headline news today does not mean it should go in an encyclopedia article! Aleta 01:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you define "encyclopedia-worthy?" --Cupcakeforyou 02:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a simple question.  I refer you to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.  From the latter, I quote, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Beyond that, I'd just say that the answer to your question is debated with every addition and removal of information on Wikipedia every editor makes. Aleta 02:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how this particular section would be considered a random factoid that's not "encyclopedia-worthy."  It's a pretty significant piece of info. for anyone who wants to know more about Rosie O'Donnell.  In fact, I would argue that *every* newsworthy item of late is important.  That she happens to generate a lot of news lately doesn't make any of it trivial. --Cupcakeforyou 03:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Kudos. The voice of reason emerges. :) Wahkeenah 01:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a controversial statement that has generated media controversy .  And as her article has a "Controversy" section, her statement of belief in such things belongs there.  The fact that there is a category/article listing the people and organizations challenging the "official account" makes it self-evident that people doing such things ARE worthy of being noted. --Hiddekel 21:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 911 truth

message: "The couple are parents to adopted children Parker Jaren (born May 25, 1995), Chelsea Belle (born September 20, 1997), and Blake Christopher (born December 5, 1999). Their fourth child, Vivienne Rose (who was conceived through sperm donation) was born November 29, 2002 to Carpenter."
==> Yesterday on The View, Rosie said that Parker was conceived through sperm donation and the other three were straight adoptions. Didn't make any changes, leaving that to you all. Aunlan 16:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sperm donation is not a means of conception. Artificial insemination is the means of conception. The act of Insemination produces a child; the act of "donation" alone only produces a full Dixie-cup. - Nunh-huh 03:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the first step in HGTV's DIY guide to artificial insemination. Then comes the turkey baster. Wahkeenah 09:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Insemination

message: It's become apparent that Ms. O'Donnell is intent on shredding every
hint of credibility that she ever possessed.  She's going down
fast and taking no prisoners.  When our forefathers conceptualized
the premise of freedom of speech as a basic right they never could
have imagined the travesty that is Rosie O'Donnell.  Sorry but I think a lengthy stint in rehab is in order. Until then, "WHEN WILL
IT EVER END?" proserpine March 24, 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.29.104 (talk) 
*I agree. So, let us know when you're back from rehab. >:) Wahkeenah 09:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Complete and Total Mess

message: Proserpine, you are currently signing your posts with the link to an article on Proserpine, not to the userpage User:Proserpine.  The way to sign your posts is by using four tildes like this: "~~~~" (without the quotemarks).  -Aleta 19:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Signing your posts

message: On this wikipedia article, it states that Rosie O'Donnell was born in Bayside, Queens in New York. In TV.com and IMDb.com, it states that Rosie was born in Commack, New York.--Sli723 02:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place of Birth? 

message: I've requested this, as her fringe views are gettings tons of anon BLP vandals now. - Denny 17:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed the semiprotect tag from the page.  Since we're getting anon ip vandals, the page clearly is not currently semiprotected.  I agree that it needs to be! -Aleta 22:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please can we semi-protect this page?  What do we need to do to make this happen?  I'll ask an admin about it.  Aleta 12:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long term semi protection 

message: Several months ago Rosie and Joy alluded to Bill O'Reilly's sexual harassment lawsuit.  This is what happened next according to Rosie at rosie.com:
Legal filings about Bill O'Reilly's sexual harassment lawsuit are here.
:Yeah.  I ref'd that entry already in the "Conspiracy theories" section. --Hiddekel 15:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intimidation from Bill O'Reilly and Fox News 

message: Who keeps editing the documented instances of Rosie's bodyguard carrying a firearm?  It is entirely relevant because Rosie believes that no one should have a gun or be able to carry one concealed.  Stop deleting it.--Davidwiz 15:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gun control section has been cleaned up and moved into The Rosie O'Donnell show section. Benjiboi 21:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gun Control 

message: I reckon it is completely absurd to have this article listed under the category of Anti-Catholicism. To imply or even assert that somebody questioning aspects their own faith is to be against that faith entirely is completely ridiculous. If that is anti-Catholic, then every single Catholic in the entire world is anti-catholic.
Is it not possible to have debate against the role of faith and religion without being anti-Jewish, anti-Christian, anti-atheist anti-Muslim.
Please, for the sake of common sense, remove that category from this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.202.129.56 (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm mixed on this. I think the section on accusations should stay because I can find credible sources on it. However I think we should be fairly restrictive in adding :Category:Anti-Catholicism to articles on living people. Rosie's statement on the Supreme Court seems close to the line, but we don't have Tony Auth in the category and he did basically the same thing. If you check the names of living people in the category you see names like: Tony Alamo, Les Balsiger (activist), Jack Chick, and Bill Maher. There's a few debatable ones too, like Daniel Goldhagen, but mostly it's people who clearly self-describe as hating Catholicism or wanting it eliminated. Unless Rosie starts vandalizing churches I'm tempted to think she shouldn't be in the category.--T. Anthony 16:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I've watched her work throughout her career and have a hard time labelling her anti-Catholic or anti-religion. Anti-Republican maybe but she has not targeted Catholicism in her work to the degree that is being asserted here at all. If she did it would be well documented in mainstream press as opposed to the extremist catholic media which seems to find anti-Catholicism whenever an election in underway (which is pretty often). If anything add to a category of people who some Catholics would like to label anti-Catholic along with hundreds of others. Benjiboi 20:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found respectable sources, not just Donohue, but I suppose it doesn't matter.--T. Anthony 18:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are those sources? Please reference them here so someone can work them into the article if you're not. Benjiboi 19:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I can´t see anything anti-catholic in the quoted remarks. Clearly she is critical of the Catholic Church's stance on abortion (wich is completely natural if you're pro-choice), but beeing critical of the Catholic Church isn't the same thing as being anti-catholic. It seems a lot of people in America have trouble separating critisizing something and being against it. Sebisthlm 15:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Catholicism????????? 

message: Quoting Donohue blindly, unchallenged, is blatant pro-Catholic POV-pushing. He's not some innocent cherub. He was on O'Reilly's program frequently during the Boston priestly child molestation scandal a few years ago, and he made it clear by his arguments that defending the Catholic hierarchy is more important to him than defending the children those priests molested. That fact not only colors his comments, it also explains Rosie's angry comments of her own on the matter. Leaving that information out is extremely misleading and prejudicial. Wahkeenah 16:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some context about Donohue maybe should be given, but like him or not Donohue is a significant name when it comes to discussing accusations of Anti-Catholicism. Still I don't like him and have concerns about the segment. His credibility on accusations of Anti-Catholicism is questionable due to the fact he accuses just about everyone of being Anti-Catholic. So it seems unwise to mention this on the article of every person or show he accused. Perhaps Laura Ingraham would be a better choice.  Still you didn't make it clear enough why your statements on him were relevant. You should have made it clearer that his view on the scandal was to blame homosexuals and that that shows a bias against Rosie. Instead you kind of say that being a defender of the Catholic Church, even in a naive way, is bad and invalidates a person's opinion on prejudice. I think that's unfair. (And yes I'm Catholic so I know my opinion might be dismissed on issues like this. I have also been at Wikipedia long enough to know that some here deem Catholics "The enemy")--T. Anthony 12:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "anti catholic" section sneaking into the article is truly ridiculous, and I'm catholic myself.  I agree with you and the "Anti-catholic!?!?" section above that it should be removed.  I think Joy and Rosie are also Catholic or ex-Catholic themselves... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.245.173.200 (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it was also added and discussed here, in Feburary 2007: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rosie_O%27Donnell#Anti-Catholic_Section.3F.  Then it was removed for a while.  BTW, Rosie confirmed that she was "raised Catholic" during the candy segment, I believe, in today's show (Thursday 26 April 2007).  So with this confirmation, the anti-catholic section is almost hilarious. To me it's almost like being gay and then being called anti-gay, or any of the other dichotomies you can think of... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.245.173.200 (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donohue 

message: I archived parts of this talk page older than 2007, because it was getting insanely long (and in anticipation of the flurry of people who may post here since she's announced she is leaving "The View".) You can find the link to the archives at the top of the page.
I'm going to say this as politely and humbly as I can: THIS PAGE IS A WASTELAND. There is so, so, SO MUCH content on here that does NOT belong here. Whether you love her, hate her, or wish she would fall face first into a vat of sharks? Doesn't belong here. NOT. AT. ALL. EVER. For some reason, people are NOT getting this point. I am not a fan or an apologist for her - quite frankly, I couldn't give a baboon's bunghole about her either way - but when Wikipedia is getting slammed left and right for accuracy and objectivity, this is an example of What Not To Do.
I'm going to plead as sensibly and nicely as possible to KEEP IT ON TOPIC. I realize that might be hard, since in some cases article content may in fact be driven by your perception of her. But the talk page should always be for discussion of the article and its contents - not opinions of the subject themselves. NickBurns 20:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!!!  It needed to be said. Cupcakeforyou 01:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, based on subsequent comments...people are still going to misuse the talk page as a forum. I may as well have been talking to a brick wall. NickBurns 14:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at least you tried. Cupcakeforyou 02:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes, and a plea 

message: KevinScott71 16:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added some relevant context to that section. Benjiboi 20:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding content to "The View" section 

message: Are there transcripts of "The View" on the web? The only one I could find was from the episode on depression.  Transcripts are much better sources than blogs or biased websites on the matter. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 00:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where...I can't find it? Do you mean "comedienne" (female comedian) as in the intro? Jumping cheese Cont@ct 06:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcript 

message: It would be nice to have a before and after image rather than just "severe haircut", also adding a date would help ensure was in chronological order with the rest of the article. Not sure how relevant it all is but at least document it well. Benjiboi 20:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Transformation section 

message: This section needs to move to after the The View section if she didn't start the project until 2007, if the date is wrong it should be fixed. Benjiboi 20:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: section moved. Benjiboi 21:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  JaHeRo 

message: A section about her movie career (1992-1996) should be inserted before the Rosie O'Donnell show section. Benjiboi 22:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: started movie section. Benjiboi 22:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie Career 

message: Anybody heard anything about this? On Janette's website's resume, it says "Rosie O'Donnell Radio Pilot, Westwood One, Producer". 
Is this ill-fated or something to come? I googled Westwood One and Rosie's names together and got nothing.
Somebody have some info to offer? I don't want to add it on the page without knowing if its old or current. Tonprince 02:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From looking at the resume it seems like it might be an older item for a program that wasn't used, for whatever reason. Benjiboi 01:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rosie O'Donnell Radio Pilot 

message: I think the controversial comments section should be split with the Gun Control part going to the O'Donnell show section and all the rest under The View. It would help get all the info into context as well as a better chronological order. Comments? Benjiboi 02:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Controversial section split and moved under appropriate sections. Benjiboi 21:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Controversial Section