Talk:Rosie O'Donnell/Archive 2

Purpose of talk page
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)

Ok, I understand about the Coffee Talk (although, as it turns out, the controversy actually did get lampooned in a skit on Saturday Night Live this weekend). But why not the fascination with Trump's actions? He angrily embarked on a full-court press to stomp Rosie out of existence. Didn't work, because Rosie and Barbara Walters brilliantly ended the discussion first. How is that not worthy of mention in an article about her? If she should die suddenly, the airwaves would be covered with video clips of the controversy. It is now part of her legend. For a female comedian/author/tv host to stare down the mighty Donald? Unheard of! Until now. She's made history. The least this article can do is to acknowlege that FirthFan1 00:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

"She's made history"??? Please, you are giving her too much credit. As if Donald is chopping people's head off with a sword for insulting him. And he isn't even a media mogul so he could hardly pull enough strings to hurt her in the first place. 66.171.76.248 07:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Donald Trump and Rosie
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)

The following are all solid Associated Press stories: -- Rollo44 23:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ivanka Trump to Rosie: Don't Mess with Dad
 * Rosie on Trump: Boy, did I hit a nerve
 * Trump Widens War with Rosie O’Donnell
 * Madonna Defends her Pal Rosie O'Donnell
 * Donald Trump Writes Letter to Rosie O'Donnell, Bashes Barbara Walters
 * Walters Calls Trump 'Poor, Pathetic Man'

If anyone believes this controversy with Donald Trump is material to the article, please be brief, keep it NPOV and cite your sources. Alan.ca 09:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

Leaving show for her own show?
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)

Picture Change?
What's the deal with the change of the image? I thought the picture from The View was perfect while the new one is significantly more amateurish. Was the other image not fair use? I'm not suggesting it has to be changed back just because I personaly preferred the other one, but I am wondering what prompted the change? KrewBay 01:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The old picture isn't there anymore, its a screenshot of a copyrighted TV show "The View" - thus it was used in Wikipedia under fair use rights. Right now there is a big effort to reduce the amount of fair use images in Wikipedia (fair use images aren't legally "free" which prevents Wikipedia from distributing a truly free free encyclopedia) when "freer" pictures can be obtained or made, especially of living celebrities that make regular public appearances. The old picture was probably deleted because it failed the WP:FUC (wikipedia policy) first fair use criteria when the new one (a picture released under creative commons 2.0 license) which is free for use in Wikipedia became available. A rather technical explanation of a policy thats causing a lot of heartache these days for people who upload images. --Eqdoktor 09:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not heartache, more like heartburn that the wiki-nannies are causing. They constantly yelp about wording not being "encyclopedic" and at the same time opt for second or third rate photos, which make this so-called encyclopedia's picture collection look like somebody's scrapbook instead of a supposedly serious work. At least this picture of Rosie is semi-acceptable, even if it looks like a paparazzi came up and said "Smile!" Take a look at the wretched photo on the Carmen Electra page, which really "enhances" the article's credibility. Wahkeenah 13:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We're trying to create and encourage free content. If we had a spectacular illustration, people aren't likely to say "hey, do you want this pic I took?" With either bad or no image, people are more likely to offer their creative works (and have on multiple occasions). I'm not a fan in many cases myself, but it will lead to a better product in the longterm.


 * As for Carmen, I've asked Toby Forage, photographer of this image, to relicense his image as CC-BY. He's the photographer that gave us the photo for Anna Nicole Smith. Here's hoping.


 * And always remember, the illustration could be worse. --  Zanimum 16:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Impeachment "controversy"
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)
 * And it's hardly unique. A lot of lefties have been saying it. But it's merely a fantasy; it's not going to happen. Wahkeenah 19:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Anna Nicole Smith
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)

I was wondering too. I didn't get the word by word from Ms. O'Donnell but I heard that she was critical of Smith. Could that play into one of the memorable controversies? Anyways, Rosie didn't hear about her death during taping, that can't be blamed on her or anyone who wasn't a fan of Anna Nicole Smith.LILVOKA 16:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, from what little I've heard of it, Smith's own mother said much the same thing after the news came out, i.e. that she was drugged up. On the other hand, that guy Durham who made posthumous shock-jock comments about her character, should be fired. But I'm sure he won't be. Wahkeenah 16:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It should absolutely be mentioned on the main page. It is highly likely that Rosie's comments were watched by Anna Nicole Smith in her hotel room, and as a result she decided to end her life with an overdose of medication or in some other manner. The reference is Rosie's blog, as follows:

http://www.rosie.com/blog/ where the light is Posted by ro on February 9th at 6:25pm in in the news ME: 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 (I DO A BLANK AND MUMBLE INTO THE CAMERA) …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.

ELISABETH HASSELBECK: THAT’S AN ODD SITUATION.

KRISTIN CHENOWETH: OR NOT INVOLVED

ME: OR NOT INVOLVED, EVEN WORSE. BUT IT’S SORT OF LIKE DISTRACTING. THE ART OF DISTRACTION. THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE REAL.

EH:WHO DOESN’T.

ME: I THINK OUR CULTURE NOW.

EH:YOU THINK THE THE REPUBLICANS ARE PUTTING ANNA NICOLE ON THE TV ?

ME :NO.

JOY BEHAR: YOU CAN’T BLAME THE REPUBLICANS FOR EVERYTHING.

EH:WE WERE THERE BEFORE. JUST NEEDED TO CHECK. John 16:51, 10 February 2007 (EDT)

-Definitely relevant. Should be put under the controversies section.--Zombiema7 09:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Clearly... CLEARLY... this is encyclopedic content. Surely everything, even remotely controversial that Rosie writes in her blog, stands the test of time. This latest entry CLEARLY stands the test of time as well. How many more will Rosie's blog kill??? AniMate 11:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeh, I'm sure she had nothing better to do than watch The View, and that Rosie's comments (which echo those of Smith's own mother after the death was announced) were the final straw of all the public scorn and ridicule she brought onto herself over the years. Wahkeenah 10:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is long enough as it is. Let's not get blogged down. Wahkeenah 11:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * One way to shorten the article would be to only carry the "controversy of the week", or maybe to take a weekly vote on the Top 5 Rosie Controversies of All Time. Wahkeenah 11:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone rewrote the Anna Nicole Smith version, claiming that O'Donnell's comments were taken out of context. I had to revert, as the rewritten version clearly ran afoul of WP:NPOV, but I wonder if the version given now is really appropriate, either. JuJube 00:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote it, but I realize my version may have been heavy handed. I do think the idea of having this section in Wikipedia at all is ridiculous, but I'll concede that battle. But, the section as written right now is terribly written as well as inaccurate. KrewBay 05:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The Anna Nicole section is bullshit at best. It's clearly biased by using the word "mocked" and saying Rosie didn't offer an apology. She didn't "mock" her. She did an imitation to show how Anna REALLY was. And she has nothing to apologize for. Rosie showed concern for the woman. Much more than most of the people in Anna's life who are now using her child trying to get at the money.
 * Anna/Vicki's own mother spoke of concern that her daughter was on drugs. : "Although the medical examiner found no obvious evidence that Smith's death was drug-related, Smith's mother believes it is. 'I think she had too many drugs, just like Danny (Smith's late son),' her mother, Vergie Arthur, told ABC's Good Morning America today. 'I tried to warn her about drugs and the people she hung around with. She didn't listen. She was too drugged up.'" Wahkeenah 12:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Details of Anna Nicole Smith's drug use as suspected by her mother is not relevant in a bio about Rosie O'Donnell. Also, Rosie direct quote is the most efficient text to include, rather than a description of what she said. --Cupcakeforyou 14:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It IS relevant to include her mother's quote, because quoting Rosie alone is part of the POV-push having to do with controversial statements. Wahkeenah 14:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ??? How is a direct quote more "pov-pushing"? It lets readers interpret for themselves what O'Donnell meant.  You're trying to frame your specific pov with your text.  And the details about ANS's mother's opinions are extraneous, not my opinion, it's a fact - Rosie was talking about ANS, not her mother.  You're all over this page, because you're trying to put your own slant on this article.  Learn to be neutral and objective. --Cupcakeforyou 00:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wahkeenah wrote: "Today ANS's mother testified on this same point. Don't gripe at Rosie for speaking the truth." This illustrates the very problem with your edit - which is that you are biased. Also, the fact that ANS may have been on drugs has been a widespread belief for many years, and Rosie's contribution that that general supposition is not remarkable enough to devote any space to what ANS's mother has to say ... it's all very off-topic and irrelevant.  My edit is neutral, it just states the facts.  There is no griping involved. --Cupcakeforyou 03:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thus, Rosie's comments are not remarkable either, and should be omitted altogether. Wahkeenah 04:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It's newsworthy because of the timing of her comments, and a straight recitation of facts (with no bias) is an appropriate addition to Rosie's bio. --Cupcakeforyou 06:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Its inclusion amounts to bias. It's singling Rosie out for criticism, for saying stuff that a good portion of the general public would conclude for themselves, and that even ANS's own mother said. Wahkeenah 12:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How does the including any factual information "amount to a bias"? --Cupcakeforyou 14:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've restored my edit of this section, which is (and always has been) a straight recitation of facts, with a direct quote, with no commentary or bias. Please read it for yourselves before reverting or deleting.  The fact that this incident may reflect badly on Rosie O'Donnell does not itself "amount to bias" nor is it "singling Rosie out for criticism."  And besides, if User:Wahkeenah believes that allegations of ANS's drug use is something that is publicly accepted and corroborated by ANS's mother, she should not interpret the inclusion of this FACT itself as criticism. I welcome any editing or additions (especially about Rosie O'Donnell's follow-up comments on 2/12/07, which I think offers more insight on the subject of this article). --Cupcakeforyou 15:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your very inclusion of this stuff is to help fulfill your POV-pushing, Rosie-bashing agenda. So far, you're outvoted 2 to 1 on including this non-event in her writeup. Wahkeenah 15:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the section was included by another writer. I merely edited out your biased spin on the text.  Judging by this very long section on the discussion page, there are clearly other users who find the section worthwhile and relevant.  Maybe you should start your own Rosie O'Donnell website since you cannot be objective. For the record, this is the entirety of my text:

Comments on Anna Nicole Smith
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."

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.

Where do you see the bias? --Cupcakeforyou 18:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The bias is in the very inclusion of it. It's another attempt to bash Rosie for being outspoken, even (or especially) when she's says something that's spot-on and, in this case, prophetic. Wahkeenah 18:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You had no problem with the inclusion of this section when it reflected your bias. --Cupcakeforyou 19:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Awards section is upside-down

 * It was indeed. Now sorted. talkGiler S 17:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic Section?
Um. . . seriously?!? KrewBay 03:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears to be gone, thankfully. It was likely a piece of short-term vandalism. --  Zanimum 16:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's back again, so I removed it. KrewBay 22:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * ????? 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)  edited --Cupcakeforyou 21:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

I had a hunch that guy would add it back without discussing it further, and he did, and I took it out again. The editor needs to explain why one public figure offering an unsolicited opinion on another public figure is considered noteworthy. Wahkeenah 09:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

There's a typo in this section (September is spelled Septmeber). I'd normally just fix it myself, but I can't due to protection. Can someone more powerful than I am make the correction? Thanks. CsikosLo 17:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That problem can be neatly solved by removing the section, as it is blatant POV-pushing. Wahkeenah 17:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * I agree with this point. Tvoz | talk 20:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

"Years Active"?
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)
 * Apparently it refers to when her professional career started. But it's fairly bizarre. It might be someone's idea of a joke. Wahkeenah 23:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

911 truth
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)

www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/170307Rosie.htm she has woken up...] and is out of the closet, again --Striver - talk 21:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is significant, should definitely be mentioned in the article. -AlexLibman 00:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? I don't understand why everything she says should be considered encyclopedic. Aleta 00:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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&amp;paste... Weregerbil 09:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

So long as it is referenced, then there is no reason her comments about 9/11 can't be in the article. The far left hates Bush so much, they'll believe anything that will reinforce that hatred, even if it only demonstrates how uneducated and ignorant they are.--MONGO 05:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

Without a doubt it's newsworthy. Details of her statements on 9/11 must go in. Unless Wikipedia want to be labeled yet another biased/controlled media. In comparison to the other tripe related to her, this must go in. Besides, it's not a matter of whether or not WE think it should be included. The premise of Rosie's Wiki entry seems to be based entirely on highlights of her career. The premise has been set and this is a huge highlight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.40.89 (talk)
 * All media are controlled. Wahkeenah 00:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * How do you define "encyclopedia-worthy?" --Cupcakeforyou 02:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not a simple question. I refer you to Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and 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)
 * 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)
 * Kudos. The voice of reason emerges. :) Wahkeenah 01:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think Rosie is a voice in the wilderness, just check out this category called Individuals challenging the official account of 9/11. There are plenty of well-known names in there. The official account is becoming, in some minds at least, this generation's version of the Warren Report. Singling out Rosie for "special consideration" for her adherence to this semi-popular conspiracy theory comes across as POV-pushing. Wahkeenah 10:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

Insemination
"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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

A Complete and Total Mess
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)


 * I'm glad you agree. I can see Rosie in rehab now...the first order of business would be to apply a muzzle. proserpine March 25, 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.29.104 (talk)
 * Censorship... as American as apple pie. Wahkeenah 14:41, 25 March 2007
 * And since we're on the subject of Rosie, that apple pie would be prepared with a generous portion of trans fats. proserpine March 25, 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.29.104 (talk)
 * Since this paragraph has nothing to do with editorial content of the article, it will be deleted soon. Meantime, I'm goin' fur the pie. :b P.S. You might have been conceptualized by four fathers. I just have one. :) Wahkeenah 17:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * lol. really tho. its amazing how much stir she has caused with her statements when you consider that all she has done is question the 'official' 9/11 story (infront of a 30 million viewer audience, yes. but still, just simple questioning) this is where we are in america right now and where we are with 'democracy'. you question things, you get death threats; you get outcries from   ignorant people with obvious issues like proserpine. it's sad. 71.232.108.228 01:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Signing your posts
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)

This whole discussion should be deleted or archived away, it's not adding to making the article better just commenting on the subject and replies to same. Benjiboi 20:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorist"
This is a BLP violation, note, not a reversion. Doesn't count for 3rr. You can't just call someone a disparaging thing without sourcing it. RS, please. - Denny 21:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Rosie isn't a conspiracy theorist. She's part of the 9/11 truth movement, which is composed of conspiracy fact.


 * Meanwhile, on her blog, O'Donnell has pasted in a widely debunked rundown of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center from the whatreallyhappened.com Web site, created by conspiracy theorist Matt Rivero.


 * O'Donnell repeats his discredited theories, which include the notion that because the fires were not evenly distributed, it made the building's perfect collapse into its footprint "impossible that landlord Larry Silverstein told the FDNY that "the smartest thing to do is pull it," a phrase conspiracy theorists take to mean that he ordered the skyscraper's destruction; and that firefighters withdrawing from the building feared it was going to "blow up." -
 * Tom Harrison Talk 21:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if a gossip column in that paper counts as RS. Is there more than one source? If not, leave it out as non-notable. - Denny 21:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"A growing movement of imbeciles who believe the World Trade Center attacks were the result of a US government conspiracy has been joined by actress Rosie O'Donnell, whom you might recall from small roles in such films as Sleepless in Seattle and ... and ... a couple of others, I guess." -

Tom Harrison Talk 21:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Works for me, thanks. Just needed to be sourced. - Denny 21:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"Then Rosie O'Donnell and Elizabeth Hasslebeck go at it, head to head over Rosie's shocking 9/11 conspiracy." -

I'll add suitable references as I find them. I imagine there will be more coverage over the weekend. Tom Harrison Talk 22:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It takes time to appear in headlines on the web...your sources are sufficient. It is commentary she made in regards to this issue on her show "The View"--MONGO 22:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * i posted the following and it was immediately removed. please let me know why you removed it


 * "This comment has drawn moderate attention and ire because of its perhaps intentional factual inaccuracies.  Namely, it is not necessary to melt the steel infrastructure to collapse a building.  Demolition experts point out that it is only necessary to weaken the steel, which is easily accomplished by burning jet fuel.


 * While Rosie popularity isn’t for her titanic intellect, she still likely knew this fact prior to her inflammatory comments.


 * Additional calls for physicists from Ivy league schools to confirm her theories has not happen to date, and unlikely as the scientific community has rejected the theories of intentional demolition. "


 * It was deleted, by more than one editor, not just because of the catty editorializing, but because it reads like it was written by someone who just started learning English today. Wahkeenah 04:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Popular Mechanics now quotes her and has a link to a video clip where she makes her remarks regarding 9/11 and Tower 7. I don't have time to incorporate this into the article, but barring any objections, and anyone beating me to it, I think it warrants being integrated into the Iran section, since O'Reilly and Trump were rebuking her for these statements as well--perhaps even mostly for these statements. --Hiddekel 03:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

More interesting than just O'Donnell's words would be a poll showing how many take seriously the established conspiracy theories which she is merely repeating. The larger issue is distrust of the Bush administration, which it's fair to say is more widespread now than it was 4 years ago when the Iraq invasion started and everything seemed peachy. Wahkeenah 03:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am very concerned that there is currently no note of her open and repeated comments that 7 WTC was demolished. I see there is some kind of edit war going on, but this must be mentioable. There are no BLP concerns whatever since it has been mentioned in multiple (over 20) sources. Even calling her a conspiracy theorist is not a BLP concern in such circumstances. David Spart ( talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log] ) 00:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as you make it clear that this is not her own original idea, but that it's an established (albeit dubious) conspiracy theory that has been around for several years now. Wahkeenah 01:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that is obvious to be honest. How would you put that without NPOV or OR, none od the sources I have make that point? David Spart ( talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log] ) 01:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're talking in abbreviations, and I don't understand your question. Wahkeenah 02:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest I don't really understand yours either. The text as it currently stands merely mentions the press coverae and quotes from her.  What would you add? David Spart ( talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log] ) 02:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My concern is that this latest rant is being pushed by the Rosie-haters, and runs the risk of making it look like she just thought up this theory herself, when in fact it has been circulating for years. As long as it's clear that this is an established conspiracy, and not her own original idea, then it would be fair to include it (assuming there is consensus for including it, of course). Wahkeenah 02:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty self-evident, particularly given the blogquotes, that O'Donnell did not come up with any of this on her own but is rather regurgitating the conspiracy theories of others... Not that I see how that would make her look any better, but if that's your concern I don't think you need to worry.  --Hiddekel 14:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

i think the most significant aspect of rosie voicing an 'established' conspiracy theory is not the fact that it is not her own 'original idea' but that it reached such a large, mainstream, american audience. that is what is siginificant. you can have this raggedy old conspiracy theory that has been around for 5 years, fact is it has prolly reached a very small percentage of the country, and of that percentage, a certain social/political type. lets be real here. it's not about her being a 'conspiracy theorist', it's about her relaying this information to a large portion of american people that may never have even been exposed to any other story other than the 'official' story of 9/11.71.232.108.228 01:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You've got a point. The fact that so many are so down on her about it, makes you wonder if there's something to it. Wahkeenah 03:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * also, for the record Wahkeenah, that was not my point. my point is that i don't think rosie fancies herself an expert conspiracy theorist. i do think she is an honest, well-meaning american woman trying to ask questions about what will be among the most important events, if not the most important event, in the 21st century. and she is trying to act as a conduit for a *huge american audience* by stating these views so that more people will ask questions; not so they may undermine our country, but so they may make it stronger by acting as intelligent, thoughtful people who don't blindly accept every single thing the government and the media tell us. that's all :)71.232.108.228 20:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, so if something is hated it must be because it is good?! Thats a charming precis of Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind" if ever I saw one! David Spart ( talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log] ) 04:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * She's not hated like you think. A lot of people who weren't born with silver spoons in their mouths admire Rosie for her courage in speaking out. They just don't happen to be in your circle. But as a red-blooded American, you should be suspicious of anyone's attempt to censor someone else's views, especially views critical of the government. Wahkeenah 04:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * exactly. that is what is so important about this rosie situation. whether you agree with her, with the views she is mirroring of so many other indie news media and conspiracy media, or whether you do not, doesn't matter. what is important about all this is that she is getting slammed by lots of people out there simply because she is *questioning* the government and the official version of events imposed on us by mainstream news outlets worldwide. we are slowly sliding into a fascist state in this country (if not already there) and that is what is disturbing.71.232.108.228 19:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Does the fact that "so many are so down" on Ernst Zundel mean he has a point, too? --Hiddekel 15:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * gosh, it was only his/her opinion that she had a point. can't we ask eachother more constructive questions, rather than ones with accusatory tones?71.232.108.228 19:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a side note - Wahkeenah, you mention above that someone was speaking in abbreviations and you didn't know them - not to sound harsh, but were you being serious? Because as often as you post, both NPOV and OR are things that you should really be familiar with. NPOV = Neutral Point of View. OR = Original research, or research that is not supported by a verifiable source. Those are rather fundamental cornerstones of good editing on Wikipedia. NickBurns 20:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Place of Birth?
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)

Long term semi protection
I've requested this, as her fringe views are gettings tons of anon BLP vandals now. - Denny 17:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Intimidation from Bill O'Reilly and Fox News
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: when joy and i alluded to bill oreillys sex scandal on the view

we were told the following day that we couldn’t bring it up anymore or else bill o would “go after” all the hosts of the view 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)

Gun Control
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)

The Popular Mechanics response to Rosie's Questions about 911 should not be referred to as a scientific response. See: scientific method, please. Regurgitating the charachteristics of steel and repeating what allegedly happenned is a hypothesis, and thus a small part of the scientific method, but that in itself does not constitute the scientific method, and definitely not a scientific response. Scientists and engineers that did use the scientific method, including the testing of various hypotheses to prove what happenned on 911 is as the official story states have never suceeded in modelling experiments in repeating those horrifying events.


 * Gun control section has been cleaned up and moved into The Rosie O'Donnell show section. Benjiboi 21:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism?????????
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).


 * 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)

1. Rosie is not a Catholic. She herself says she's a "recovering Catholic". 2. Rosie is not debating Catholicism and Christianity, she's flat out condemning it. She's an anti-religious bigot. 3. This is all very well documented. Matt Sanchez 07:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The article goes on about how she condemns the teaching of the Catholic Church. Her actions are certainly anti-catholic.Tourskin 05:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * I found respectable sources, not just Donohue, but I suppose it doesn't matter.--T. Anthony 18:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Donohue
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)


 * 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)


 * 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).


 * 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).

Changes, and a plea
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)
 * Thank you!!! It needed to be said. Cupcakeforyou 01:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Well, at least you tried. Cupcakeforyou 02:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Dismissal
Foxnews O'Reilly reported as if she had been dismissed. Is there any source other than his speculation for this? 144.132.216.253 05:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Does he ever need actual evidence? BUt to answer your question, none that I've come across. Tvoz | talk 05:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * O'Reilly was tying it to a "profanity-laden" speech she gave the other day that supposedly was the "last straw". But he and his panelists made it clear that officially it's merely that the contract is not being renewed, and that a dispute over the details of the contract figure into it. Either way, she's leaving. There's no question that O'Reilly dislikes The View in general and Rosie in particular. But as they said on the show, ultimately it's about money and ratings. They didn't say anything about Don Imus, but the same thing could be said about his situation: it's all about money. Hey, I just had a great idea for a TV show: Imus and O'Donnell. That would be something. I'll write the both of them and suggest that. I'll get back to you if they agree. :) Wahkeenah 10:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * what about the ny post article that said there is more to the story than a simple contract dispute? is this relevant to the article?216.69.63.254 13:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently she has explained her decision to leave (including the "early" departure) in a video blog, using a "foster child" metaphor, i.e. after a testing time realizes she doesn't "fit in" with the potential adoptive family.

Adding content to "The View" section
KevinScott71 16:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC) I think that someone ought to flesh out the section devoted to Rosie's tenure on The View, either by adding or moving content there. Right now, the section discusses only Rosie's hiring and Rosie's departure. There is no content related to anything Rosie has done or said while on The View. Besides being a significant omission, this omission also causes the section to have an awkward feel to it.

I am thinking I'm not the best candidate to do this, since I almost never watch The View.


 * I've added some relevant context to that section. Benjiboi 20:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Military Bias
We often see claims of bias when reporters report stories that are often not flattering to a specific group, but since when did O'Donnell hold herself out as a journalist? She is a hack who is consistently far FAR left on most issues, and the military statements aren't the most sensational claims in the world. (Not to mention that they are statistically true, there are a high number of felons and poor people in the military, nothing to sensational there.) I honestly think this section should go altogether, it isn't noteworthy, and this isn't being "biased" as there is no underlying claim of objectivity. Bluefield 21:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Rosie is not a journalist and journalist are not the only ones held to a standard for bias of any sort. Her "objectivity" isn't in question here. It's just a "controversy" about her statements.  That's fact.  Your and her "claims" on the military are not statistically true.  I don't think you've seen the Department of Defense's statistics.  The American military is better educated, and wealthier than the American population. You can easily look up the stats.Matt Sanchez 07:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * She just equated the military in Iraq with Terrorists- heck, she all but came out and directly called them terrorists. She's more than biased.Saxophobia 01:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the most absurd section in the article. It should be taken down.  Another thing, servicemembers do join the military to gain a better education that they normally could not afford.  It's a fact.  Saxophobia is caught up in the media hype.  Rosie never equated the military with terrorist.  She has equated the Bush administration with terrorists though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.41.39 (talk • contribs)


 * Matt Sanchez the writer of the "anti-military bias" section has an agenda. Go read about his history.  He is bitter and vengeful that his gay porn past was revealed, now he lashing out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.41.39 (talk • contribs)


 * Please remain civil.  Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 21:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting debate here, but can anybody provide some facts please? I have not been able to locate anything that indicates the percentage of military veterans who have joined for a higher education, or because they are poor, or felons.


 * The section needs to go but parts could be merged into the Elizabeth Hasselbeck section below it as this was the genesis of that confrontation. O'Donnell's comments were clearly anti-war (in Iraq) not anti-military. She was making the classism point that it's not the children of Congressmen or the President that are going to war but poor kids who are trying to get a college education. Also the felons comment is also true, to ensure military recruiters could meet their quotas the standards of allowing felons to enlist have dropped. She was also not saying at all that our military was terrorists, she was pointing out, as many have before her, that the 9/11 terrorists weren't from Iraq and Iraq didn't invade us, we invaded them. There were no weapons of mass destruction and indeed we were responsible for killing 650,000+ Iraqi's. "Who are the terrorists" she asked. Benjiboi 00:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Transcript
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)

somebody spelled comedian wrong on the page just wanted to have that changed--Regan,5/25/07 4:12PM CDT


 * 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)

Image Transformation section
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)

JaHeRo
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)


 * section moved. Benjiboi 21:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Movie Career
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)


 * started movie section. Benjiboi 22:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Rosie O'Donnell Radio Pilot
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)


 * 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)

Move Controversial Section
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)


 * Controversial section split and moved under appropriate sections. Benjiboi 21:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)