Talk:Janeane Garofalo

message: I can't seem to find any reference anywhere of her doing anything with this game. Does she perform in it under a pseudonym, or is it just wrong? Jawsper (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; the IMDB credit list does not show her: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0383385/  Brian Westley (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role in GTA San Andreas 

message: I can't find ANY reference to her name ever being "Jane Anne"; she sometimes refers to herself that way as a joke, as some people try to pronounce her name that way, but I don't think there's any support that it's her name.  Brian Westley (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are there references showing her supposedly true birth name, like "Born" section of  and page 83 of 2011 book Disney Voice Actors: A Biographical Dictionary by Thomas S. Hischak? Santiago Claudio (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jane Anne" 

message: Doesn't seem like the inclusion of the "Majority Report Weblog" in the external link section is providing much value. Thoughts? BigBrightStars (talk) 01:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Majority Report Weblog 

message: I suggest removing (or at least rewording) the sentence "Despite her celebrity status, Garofalo continues to circulate regularly within New York City's local comedy and performance art scene".  The text (with the word "Despite") implies that it's somehow unusual for celebs to perform to local NYC audiences.     --Rob (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead  

message: I love how the comments added to her page about her comments that the tea party protesters are all racists keeps getting removed.  This noteworthy piece of information (and YES it is noteworthy--it has been played and reported on numerous television and print media giants--don't know how much MORE noteworthiness you expect seeing as this is probably the first time I've seen anything about her in a LONG time) should be included.  And as for WP: SOAP assertions, soapbox has nothing to do with it.  I could care less what side of the political spectrum she is on, I don't have any agenda or propaganda to push--these were all things SHE said from her OWN MOUTH. None of this was taken out of context or misconstrued.  She actually stated as a fact that conservatives/tea party protesters are racist.  This is a definitely controversy that has stirred up strong condemnation from all sides and should be included.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwplumley (talk • contribs) 20:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Better, but may still be a problem by giving undue weight to the matter. In a few weeks whether this merits mention at all should be clearer. It is not at all clear (to me at least) that this rises to the level of an actual controversy outside the blogosphere, though obviously some folks are worked up. Some reliable sources (i.e. not blogs) showing that this is worthy of note would help. CAVincent (talk) 07:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

text: There were still severe POV and WP:OR problems with this, but more to the point, it's not notable enough for inclusion in the biography.  Blogs of a certain political slant are all abuzz over her comments this week, but we write these articles with the long view.  Remember, Wikipedia is not news.  In six months nobody will remember or care about whatever random punditry occurred this week.  To add it now would be undue weight.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Loonymonkey et. al. - what I added was NPOV, although later edits seem to have changed this.  Ms. Garofalo appearing on a national and highly viewed program and expressing views definitely contributes to who she is as a person, and in this respect is most worthy of inclusion in a biographic article.  While this is not news, it most certainly is a very clear part of the picture of who Garofalo is today.  The fact that search terms relating to her interviews are now trackable on  Google Insight supports the assertion that people are interested in this aspect of who she is.  You are correct in that nobody will remember or care about this interview - especially if it is deleted or censored.  Either the complete picture of this person should be presented (weighted appropriately), or perhaps the entire article should be nominated for deletion, if, as you say, "noone will remember".  I suggest a pairing down of the quote and listing under a section of Interview Appearances to address your valid concern of undue weight. As for the youtube reference, it can be replaced with this one directly from MSNBC.DanD (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that your edits were a little more neutral and were made much worse by other editors, but really the question is whether this has anything to do with her biography. Frankly, it doesn't.  She commented about a notable event, but that doesn't make the comments themselves notable, as the event has nothing to do with her life.  She's a pundit, and so she is going to be making comments on lots of things in the news in any given week.  But, like every other pundit article, we don't rush to add those comments to the biography as they happen.  As I said, nobody is going to remember or care about her comments about those rallies in six months.  So why should we add them now?  I respect your opinion, but claiming that this is "censorship" is just absurd and the argument that the choice is between including the quote or deleting the entire article is a little bizarre.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, let this germinate a little bit and see if there are multiple reliable sources that indicate this incident has sustained significance instead of just another mini-flash in the pan of partisan rhetoric.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism Generalizations 

message: Today I added a sentence saying that some people feel that Janeanne is not funny anymore since she became such an activist.  The funny thing is - the link I posted to was a black woman who doesn't feel she's funny anymore because she bashes Obama a little bit.  This was reverted as blog-sourced and violation of BLP standards, and it's probably technically correct to revert it.
The funny thing is, someone later added the "atheism" tag to the top of the infobox.
So the fact that people think she ain't funny is newsworthy for the ages.  Let that sink in.  Janeane Garafalo, a purported comedian, not being funny - let's strike that.  But tagging her infobox with Atheism - that sticks.  Yep, that's the first thing I want to think about her - that she's an atheist.
I was just pointing out to my wife how this means that you really can't trust what you're seeing here.  It's not so much explicit bias as it is a filter in what to cover, a filter of what's considered important versus unimportant to discuss.
Yep, that atheism tag is REAL important to have there.  I don't mind so much my edit about her not being funny being removed, but it sure seems that it's a little bit more relevant than atheism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.113.52 (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A discussion about the kinds of games played on Wikipedia 

message: 1: "Garofalo's best work is in Reality Bites but her first critically-acclaimed starring role in film was in 1996 in The Truth About Cats & Dogs" should obviously be changed.
2: I'm not sure how her NOT getting a part in Jerry Maguire is noteworthy, especially as it isn't cited.
//Zhirzzh 13 May 09
::The Jerry Maguire role business is rather interesting.  She was told that she'd be cast if she lost weight and, if memory serves (I'm remembering this from live stand-up appearances), she went on a diet of primarily bananas, or maybe it was some other similar single food, and rapidly lost the weight only to learn that the part had been cast with a different actress. The film was such a runaway smash hit that it would have vaulted her movie career exponentially. Moreover, this story was told on television and elsewhere for years with the identities of the other principals and the name of the movie left out and everyone wondered about it.  Jump Forward Immediately (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie section needs cleaned up 

message: While on Fox News' program 'The Pulse', Bill O'Reilly asked Garofalo what she would do if her predictions that the Iraq war would be a disaster were to turn out wrong. Garofalo stated "I would be so willing to say I'm sorry, I hope to God that I can be made a buffoon of, that people will say you were wrong, you were a fatalist, and I will go to the White House on my knees on cut glass and say, hey, you were right, I shouldn't have doubted you."
Notice she didn't need to apologise, folks.
In April 2009, Garofalo drew criticism when she denounced the Tea Party protests, saying: "Let's be very honest about what this is about. This is not about bashing Democrats. It's not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston Tea Party was about. They don't know their history at all. It's about hating a black man in the White House. That is racism straight up. This is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks."
This is all rather silly, and citations from Faux and Doughy Pantload? Surely Wikipedia is better than this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.174.187 (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this whole page needs a rewrite.--The lorax (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I have removed the flagrant WP:BLP violation, wherein "teabagging" was a wikilink to the sexual act. Adding a wikilink inside a quote is obviously adding information that she didn't say. MichaelLNorth (talk) 02:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm glad to see Garofalo's personal clean-up squad is still on-duty - this is valid criticism, and she invites it by speaking out on political issues. What is tiresome is her fans' insistence on removing verifiable content, such as the fact that her attack on the Tea Parties was criticized by people of different ideological standings; refusing to allow the actual nature of the Tea Parties to be stated to offset how offensive and ridiculous her comments are (and thus explaining why they are 'controversial'); pretending that she wasn't talking about teabagging when she said ... teabagging; and so forth. Can't wait to see what Wikipedia's like when you folks have to permit edits of any kind. Should be real 'fair and balanced'. 08:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

text: While this quote appears to be accurate, I'm not sure why, out of the dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of things she's said publicly, this is important enough to be in the article.  Is this trying to imply that she was right?  That she was wrong?  I can't tell.  In any case, shouldn't this section be attempting to summarize her viewpoints instead of including (seemingly) random quotes?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I could see removing them all with a link to wikiquote.Cptnono (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious POV issues 

message: Why is there nothing on her page about Daria Morgendorffer being modeled after her? I always wondered Janeane's opinion on that. Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide a source.Cptnono (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is on both the "Plot and Setting" section of Daria on Wikipedia and on Janeane's bio on IMDb. Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Production section does not have a source. IMDB has questionable reliability (if I recall correctly the release information is vetted but the bio sections may not be see the archived discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If sources are OK, any suggestions on where to put it? I'm thinking the line undr Production at the article under Television here if a reliable source is provided.Cptnono (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a thought. I personally thought Daria looked like her. Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed! Keep an eye out on sources and we'll stick it in (huh huh) under "Television".Cptnono (talk) 09:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny reference to Butt-head. I'll be on the lookout. By the way, will there ever be a DVD release of the entire series of Daria besides just the two movies? I'm still waiting for a release of the entire set of Beavis and Butt-head. I know there's a box set, but it doesn't include every episode. Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a clip from some MTV documentary where Janeane says that many people think she's the voice of Daria and "[she's] flattered by that, I guess." Tracy Grandstaff refers to herself as the "poor man's Janeane".--The lorax (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The clip didn't come up. Is it anywhere else? Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, ugh. I guess you can't direct link without it redirecting...here's the long way to find the clip. Go to http://www.homunculus.com/eikona/garofalo.html , hit movie clips and click up to Gallery 8 and it's filed under “The Poor Man’s Janeane”: the myth of Daria is finally laid to rest.--The lorax (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it. Thanks. Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daria Morgendorffer 

message: I clarified Ms. Garfalo's liberal POV in the article introduction - this edit was subsequently reverted in extreme haste (fast enough to suggest the edits to this article are being monitored by technical means such as SMS which would bring into question the editors POV):
Ms. Garfalo's political affiliation is inextricably linked to her persona - I feel her political POV is noteworthy in the introduction by the addition of a single, clarifying word.
Comment to the editor of my revision:
--
I am the "anonymous" (IP: 75.225.127.2) editor.
While Ms. Garafalo's political persuasion is indeed made clear near the *middle* of the article, other notable conservative personalities such as Glenn Beck (also a comedian, and television personality, as is Ms. Garafalo), have their political persuasion front-and-center (first sentence) in their respective articles, with nary a complaint or edit.
This edit was reverted in the course of one hour (from 0300 EDT).  One can only conclude the American Ms. Garfalo has a large partisan following in Australia, which I find highly unlikely.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axatax (talk • contribs) 08:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV regaring Ms. Garfalo's political stance 

message: The article claimed that Garofalo was initially hired for Jerry Maguire by director Cameron Crowe, but the reference doesn't actually say that.
I've changed the article from: "Based on the success of this film, director Cameron Crowe then offered her the leading lady role in Jerry Maguire with Tom Cruise if she could lose weight;" to "Based on the success of this film, a producer then offered her the leading lady role in Jerry Maguire[...]".
Here's the relevant quote from the referenced source, an interview:
One of the producers wanted me to do it, with the caveat that I lose weight
Katana (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loss of role in Jerry Maguire 

message: Yes, someone wrote an editorial and doesn't like Garofalo's opinion on a war. This tells us nothing about Garofalo. How many opinion pieces can we find stating this, that or the other person didn't like Bush's opinion on the same war? Or didn't like Obama's opinion on (whatever). The general principle here is that we do not pull material out of opinion pieces to add to articles unless the opinion piece is covered in independent reliable sources. Yes, person from party A doesn't like person from party B's opinion on an issue the parties don't agree on. Shocking. That's why there are two parties -- they don't agree. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  X doesn't like Y 

message: Seriously, she mentioned it in her comedy act. is it possible she was exaggerating, for comedic effect? i think we need more refs. her whole collection of photos at the commons is categorized as "asexual women", and shes the ONLY ONE.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. It is poorly sourced, and could just as well be a punch line for "not having sex very often". Anyone who can come up with a better source for it? Nymf (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I would speculate that she's been involved with enough men over the years to not be regarded as asexual and that it was a joke. An intriguing sidelight, though, is that all of her men, to my knowledge, have been extraordinarily tall, while she's of course the opposite.  Veering off the topic a bit, she's also never been given enough credit for her beauty and remains quite appealing up close, so if it wasn't a joke, it would definitely be a waste. Jump Forward Immediately (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

text: (Courtesy ping @Rob T Firefly) I have just removed it again because in both sources, she also explictly says that she doesn't identify as asexual (or at least isn't sure). In the cited article, she specifically responds to the question "Do you actually identify as asexual?" with "No, no, I just say that in my life.". In the cited podcast, she says "I didn't always quote unquote identify, I dont even know if I do identify, I don't even know if I'm allowed to say that I'm asexual." (ca. 30s before time stamp in the citation, so like 34:45). Also, in both she goes on to talk about (her) low libido which is technically a separate concept from asexuality afaik. I do see/hear that she uses the word to describe herself / her situation (and the implication of "didn't always" isn't lost on me either) and it's kind of a tricky/borderline case, but I'm on the fence given that she explictly denies it in the article (and expresses doubt about it and whether 'asexual' is the correct term for what she means in the podcast). (Also, a few sentences later in the article, she says "When you're with the same person in a one-bedroom apartment for 17 years, I say asexual." and I don't know what to make of that...) I didn't listen too much around the podcast time stamp, so please let me know if there is something later on (or maybe another source) where she clearly self-identifies. Or if I'm mistaken how "much" self-identification is needed for inclusion or what it means to self-identify, of course. Felida97 (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Asexual?

message: Where is the proof she got married again? 
Also, can anybody comment on the rumor that she wears a wig.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.64.224 (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Husband/Wig 

message: IP user 2604:2D80:D702:5900:58CD:694C:D2CA:3AAE wants to include in the Personal life section a quote from Garofalo's 2010 stand up special that 2604 reads as a declaration of Garofalo being asexual. The cited source added with the quote doesn't include the quote or mention asexuality. 2604, instead of edit warring this content in, could you build consensus here for inclusion, or seek out a reliable source that verifies the content? Firefangledfeathers 02:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life