Talk:Rosie O'Donnell/Archive 4

The article is huge!
Compared to other celebrity / actor pages anyway.

I suppose that reflects the American bias of this place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * would agree, she is also an outspoken activist and one of the world's most visible lesbians making her even more popular for attracting interest and "controversy." Benjiboi 10:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's easier to be outraged in America than where I'm from, in England. Over here, for example, Marilyn Manson would be seen as rather sweet and even quaint. Anyway, after a very brief look at the article, saw this sentence: "(Anti-Iraq War comments): O'Donnell has been very outspoken about her disdain for the Bush administration's policies and the war in Iraq, although public support for withdrawing the troops has steadily increased, the timetable for withdrawing troops is, as of yet, a point of disagreement." which does not scan somehow. It's like a list of facts, and the grammar is weird. It seems the bit after Iraq is unconnected. Judging by all the fuss in the article, I think I'll let someone else edit it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * Thanks for the heads up, I'll try to address it now. Benjiboi 21:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Getting back to 86.144.44.47's original point: yes, the article is huge. Too huge. Unwieldy. To the point of incoherence. There's so much detail, the reader loses sight of the big picture. NickBurns, in his Changes, and a plea (see /Archive 2), makes the excellent point that the article contains way too much stuff that it shouldn't.


 * The section on The View is quite long; it should be merged into The View, and this article should have one paragraph containing a link to the other article. The magazine section likewise should be merged to Rosie_(magazine). The section on controversies is enormous. Some of it (and the separate gun control section) should be split off, perhaps into articles about the issues or other people involved. If R Family Vacations is notable enough to belong here, it's notable enough to have its own article.


 * Ok, you ask, why don't I do all that, then? Well, I will, rather than let this article remain as it is. But I don't know jack about Rosie O'Donnell, nor do I particularly care about her, so someone who does would be able to edit this thing better than I would. Hope someone does. Tualha (Talk) 03:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with some of the points you make but not all. Yes, the article is large but this is a living person's whose story is still being written and has been, at least over the last several years, a lightening rod for the culture wars in America. I don't agree the article is overly incoherent as it's not a finished piece either and there are some who have an agenda to include or delete materials so, with time, an emerging article is forming and the extra material will sluff off. The View section can be trimmed a bit and all the "controversies" need to be re-examined now that she's no longer on the show. I think the gun control section is valid and would be included in any biography about the subject. R Family Vacations probably will have it's own article but a section here is fine for now and they are synonymous with O'Donnell. The magazine section might be trimmed a bit but I think we would still have at least a paragraph summarizing the highlights of that chapter. Benjiboi 20:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Golden Raspberry Awards
I've removed the "Raspberry Awards" content from the infobox as I feel it gives them too much weight and the should be referenced anyway. Not sure how, where or even if it should be included so anyone have ideas or comments? Worst Supporting Actress - 1994 Car 54, Where Are You?, Exit to Eden, & The Flintstones. I'm thinking should g right near where the films are mentioned as critic commentary. Benjiboi 02:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC) In checking the articles on the dishonor it seems it is, in fact, considered an insult and is based largely on the hype of a film, if the info is included, which I'm on the fence still, it should be reffed as well as qualified so there's no confusion of the nature of the awards. Benjiboi 03:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How about we make a hate Rosie page for all the ANTI-GAY BIGOTS? Anti-gay bigots are the ones editing this page and I'm really sick of it.  The controversies section is too large and NONE of the other people that were involved in the controversies has single thing mentioned on their page because they are straight.  STOP THE BIGOTRY!!!!!!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.147.134 (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In time they will all be trimmed, she was amongst the most highly visible and outspoken "leftists" and LGBT activists so she has been the target of much activity. At least the information is somewhat accurate but agree that it gives a bit too much undue weight compared to the rest of the article. Benjiboi 21:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect fact.
The following is poorly sourced or completely made up:

Donald Trump threatened to take away her partner Kelli ,

-- this is incorrect and fails WP:BLP for Trump. Nowhere in the article does that say that as a straight fact. It was sarcasm. Guroadrunner 13:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reference has been added to address this. Benjiboi 08:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Birth name
On her appearance on Inside the Actors Studio, O'Donnell stated that the name on her birth certificate is simply "Roseann O'Donnell" (wasn't clear to me if "Roseanne" or "Roseann"). Is there any objection to my removing the middle name from the article, then? Her own statement is probably the most definitive source. Page 13 of the book biography, "Rosie: The Rosie O'Donnell Story" (Parish, James Robert (1998). Rosie: The Rosie O'Donnell Story. Carroll & Graf, pg. 13. ISBN-100786705426) also states that she has no middle name. To the question above, although O'Donnell is of fully Irish descent, she stated in that Actors Studio appearance that she loves Jewish culture and because of that "feels Jewish" (or something like that) and grew up with many Jewish friends in Queens, etc. In this interview she says something along the same lines. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Where did the Teresa come from? We should consider addressing that as it was added from somewhere. Benjiboi 08:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It may have been a result of the fact that her mother's name was Roseann Theresa. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, I saw the hidden text which should keep it from being introduced again. Benjiboi 12:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

On March 26, 2007 O'Donnell discussed the Iranian seizure of British Royal Navy personnel comparing it to the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident that escalated the Vietnam War, implying Britain was provoking war with Iran stating:

There were 15 British sailors and marines who apparently went in to Iranian waters and they were seized by the Iranians. And I have one thing to say. Gulf of Tonkin. Google it.

She stood by the statement on March 28, 2007, stating on her weblog that the British had intentionally sent forces into Iranian waters, triggering the hostage crisis as part of a false flag operation intended to precipitate the invasion of Iran, writing:

The British did it on purpose. [They went] into Iranian waters as the U.S. military builds up on the Iranian border. We will be in Iran before summer as planned.

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

Category:Anti-Catholicism
I am Catholic and at times concerned about the depiction of the faith or community here. However I think we have to be restrictive on these prejudice categories when it comes to living people. It's not entirely clear that she's associated enough with Anti-Catholicism to merit categorization. She is not a leader of an Anti-Catholic group or a historian of the subject. So I removed it in the past, and now, in order to make the category more valid. I mean it lost a deletion vote once and only survived due to a review.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Past remarks have also pointed out that this article may already be over-categorized (not my area of knowledge so I don't know) but the main reason i oppose that category, and others have as well, is that she's simply not known for this only "accused" of saying anti-Catholic things. The entire section still reeks of POV-pushing but if it must stay I'll see if I can source content to support the section. Benjiboi 20:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * With regard to the anti-Catholicism section and tag, it is not necessary that she be "proven" to have engaged in anti-Catholicism for the tag to apply. The tag is appropriate for notable topics relating to the subject of anti-Catholicism.  The repeated accusations of anti-Catholicism have been reported scores of times in reliable sources.  Including that someone has been notably accused of Antisemitism, for example, or anti-Catholicism, as reported in reliable sources, does not violate WP:BIO or WP:LIVING. In fact, policy states "views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources".  See for example the discussion of accusations of anti-Semitism in the Mel Gibson article and the tag attached to it. Mamalujo (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think your interpretation and characterization of O'Donnell as anti-Catholic is far over-reaching but since you've now provided some sources we should let them speak for themselves. Also the category is for those notable for being anti-Catholic which still is inaccurate. She's simply not known for this. Benjiboi 23:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


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


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

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

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

correction
Under R Family Vacations the date is listed as 6 April 6 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.21.136 (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC) editprotected Please correct the date in the Rosie O'Donnell section from "6 April 6 2006" to 6 April 2006. Benjiboi 05:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Stifle (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism section
Resolved. Problems with that section:
 * the scandal was about child abuse, not about pedophilia. Child abuse is the widely used term anyway.
 * what kind of settlement was reached is irrelevant to the topic of Rosie O'Donnel.
 * Also we should not endorse any of Rosie's shrill statements, especially if they are false.

Finally, Benjiboi is repeatedly saying "don't change quotes" in edit summaries. Thus far I haven't found any quote that has been changed. Present them here or drop the claim. Str1977 (talk) 10:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "pedophile scandal" and O'Donnell said "the most interesting thing about Deliver Us from Evil (is) that the person who was in charge of investigating all the allegations of pedophilia in the Catholic church from the ‘80s until just recently was guess who? The current pope." are both direct quotes that you have now altered four times. Please stop. And as the subject of the article is about O'Donnell, her comments, ideals and values, whether you characterize them as shrill or not, are certainly relative to her biography. Her issues with the Catholic church have remained focused on pedophilia as she has expressed numerous times. The talk pages reflect that if she is to be saddled repeatedly as an anti-Catholic, which many editors have disagreed, then a fuller accounting of why that section is in there is certainly more balanced than simply the calling of such by the Catholic League.
 * "Archdiocese later settled most claims for $86 million by selling property" is quite short and concise although if you feel it's too WP:UNDUE I'm happy to find an even shorter way than the 11 words presently used. Benjiboi 11:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Benjiboi, you are wrong as
 * The scandal is not a pedophile scandal but a child abuse scandal
 * The quotes are no quotes. I don't see no quotes around them and we are not obliged to quote in verbatim, especially if the content is badly wrong.
 * I never said we should not cover her shrill views - but we cannot endorse them.
 * You still have not argued why the settlement is in anyway relevant to Rosie. The only thing I can think of is an attempt to vindicate her view, which would mean endorsing it. Not that she actually got it right, as none of the fictitious golden toilets were involved. And not that it makes a difference: even if she were right, the accusation of a-C would still stand.
 * We report what she said and report that this has been labeled a-C. Let the reader decide. Str1977 (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, thank you for engaging the talk page. "pedophile scandal" is a quote and has been presently in quote marks just as I have now printed it. Another quote is "the most interesting thing about Deliver Us from Evil (is) that the person who was in charge of investigating all the allegations of pedophilia in the Catholic church from the ‘80s until just recently was guess who? The current pope." You'll notice there is indeed quote marks there as well. I could see further expanding the section to explain that many don't believe the issue was about pedophilia but instead child abuse if we have a good reliable source that explains the distinction or clearly shows that O'Donnell got it wrong. I think it would need to confirm to the exception claims require exceptional sourcing caveat.
 * I apologize if I misinterpreted "we should not endorse any of Rosie's shrill statements", I think you're tying this to the inclusion of "Archdiocese later settled most claims for $86 million by selling property" which indeed seems to support that there was a "widespread "pedophile scandal" and was in the midst of a lawsuit with 552 victims."
 * I don't disagree that she has been accused of anti-Catholicism just that that category isn't justified. She indeed seems more anti-pedophilia then anythingBenjiboi 11:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for engaging here too.
 * However, the things you claim as quotes are not quotes. Yes, we are relating what she said and yes, we could quote her verbatim. But neither version does so (a mere word is not a quote, these might as well be scare quotes). A reason for that might be that her comments are not accurate. So instead of quoting her verbatim and then going to great lenghts pointing out the inaccuracy we relate her comments more neutrally. When Rosie says "pedophile" (which is in no way accurate) she means child abuse.
 * Our job here is to relate what Josie said and why it is deemed controversial by some, not to explain the extent of the child abuse scandal. There is no justification for including the settlement as Josie's comments were just as controversial and IMHO bigotted no matter what the settlement was.
 * We are not talking about categorisation here but about the wording of a single section. Also, how is it anti-pedophilia to mock the Eucharist? Is it anti-pedophilia to claim the Pope has golden toilets? Is it anti-pedophilia to issue false allegations against the then-Cardinal Ratzinger? I could go on as Rosie bashes Catholics and other Christians even if the child abuse (still the correct term) is nowhere near. But you'd probably say she is anti-(this-)war and pro-abortion and not anti-Catholic or anti-Christian. Well, there are some anti-Semites that would describe themselves more as being anti-Captilist. But that doesn't condone their bigotry. Neither does it here.
 * PS. You were violating wikirules when you dropped the tag I placed. I think that was unintentional as it had been removed by another editor who removed the problematic bits but still, you should be careful not to semi-revert to your disputed version without also reverting back to the tag. I am AGF here this time. Str1977 (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I agree with the section being called "accused of" a-C as that is accurate enough for now and I don't see this article going for A status anytime soon. What I meant was that the category, to me, and many others, has never seemed appropriate and frankly does a disservice to Catholics who actually have some a-C foes. The should be documented if notable enough. In O'Donnell's case it almost seems laughable as she is still, I believe a Catholic. She is more against pedophilia by Catholic priests and anyone else and her actions and words bear this out. Is she known for mocking the Eucharist? Perhaps by some, largely because the work of those informing them of such. I think her a-C is most known within the US Catholic universe and many of them also brush it off as not that noteworthy. And certainly a lower priority than ... you guessed it ... pedophilic priests. I will again state that I fully support qualifying these statements with a WP:RS that asserts that there was no pedophilia involved by Catholic priests. And it would also be good to introduce other WP:RS to dispute Ratzinger's involvement as Mamalujo has suggested he couldn't have been involved. In fact, it would serve the purpose to clearly show she didn't have her facts correct and incorrectly asserted his involvement although we cannot infer why she said it. Also I apologize if i dropped the tag, I fully support its use as it seems to concisely convey the major problems with the section presently. Benjiboi 12:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not laughable at all, Mr Benjiboi. I don't care in anyway about the category or whether it is a disservice to Catholics. Her bigotry (or the allegation thereof) neither be censored by you because you think it laughable nor should it be continued by this article through endorsing her views. She simply got her facts wrong as Cardinal Ratzinger was only in charge of the whole issue since 2002. That she cannot distinuish between pedophilia (a sexual disorientation) and child abuse (a crime) is her problem and shouldn't be parroted he.
 * Thanks for apologizing that you dropped the tag.
 * Thanks for trying to work out a way (I haven't looked at it yet but will do so in a minute)
 * Thanks NOT for claiming [[WP:OWN]ership of this article and for reverting six times. I have reported you for that and regardless of what I will think of your latest version: rules apply to you to, my dear.
 * Str1977 (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, your rewrite obviously doesn't cut it at all:
 * It still contains the irrelevant settlement.
 * It still wrongly calls the scandal a pedophilia scandal.
 * It still unashamedly contains the false claim that Ratzinger was in charge since the 80s. And while I think many sources can be added, we already have one source disputing it and that's good enough for WP not to spread falsehoods.
 * Hiding behind generalisations is no solution: Rosie attacked not some anonymous church figures who covered things up but the Pope. And since you asked about sources: statements of Rosie cannot be references by articles about the film but only by articles about her statements.
 * Stop the slander. Str1977 (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent). Hi, to me the easiest solution would be to add a reliable source that disputes that Ratzinger was "in charge of investigating all the allegations of pedophilia in the Catholic church from the ‘80s until just recently". We know that's what O'Donnell stated but we don't have a reliable source to show it isn't true. And, we further don't don't know if O'Donnell got it wrong, the filmmaker reported it wrong or a combination of the two. Benjiboi 17:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC) This seems to suggest he may have been involved on some level. Sunday April 24, 2005, Guardian Observer Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had 'obstructed justice' after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church's investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret. The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001. It asserted the church's right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II's successor last week. Benjiboi 17:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Pope 'obstructed' sex abuse inquiry: Confidential letter reveals Ratzinger ordered bishops to keep allegations secret by Jamie Doward, religious affairs correspondent
 * So the slander enters a new round. This report is of no consequence as a) at best/worst it moves the time Ratzinger was concerned to 2001 but not to, if I may quote Rosie, "the 80s", b) it doesn't put Ratzinger in charge of the entire affair, c) it is completely abusing the letter which did concern only internal church procedures and does NOT tell anyone not to inform the relevant secular authorities. True, the allegations are there but as I said, this is irrelevant to the case of Rosie O'Bigot. Also, you seem to think by levelling personal attacks against me and my religion, by dumping filth on mine or anyone's church that this somehow excuses Rosie's bigotry. It's clear why you don't see her comments as outrageous. You seem to think that somehow I have more of a problem with the existence of pedophile priest than you have! You seem to think that demands for a source that says that no priests were ever involved in pedophilia serves any purpose! It is a nonsensical claim and serves only one purpose: to keep up the slander.
 * There is already a RS saying that he wasn't in change, namely the source that says he was put in charge in 2002. Str1977 (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You could start by correctly attributing your accusations of slander to O'Donnell or the film producer and the quote says he was in charge of investigating case from the 1980s util recently which can be interpreted that the Pope was in charge of that process starting in the 1980s and can also be read that he was in charge of investigating cases from the 1980s until recently. Again we can ntroduce a reliable source to clarify the difference but as it's obviously a sensitive subject we should avoid OR inferring what was meant. It would also help this process if you could refrain from labeling O'Donnell as "Rosie O'Bigot". I also regard your accusation that I've personally attacked you or Catholicism as I've tried to be dispassionate about all the priest scandals and simply reported this is what was said, in what context and what the Catholic League stated in response to her statements. I would do the same if this were a called a pedophile scandal at Greenpeace, in the Red Cross, The Whitehouse or The Mormon Church. We don't censor, we simply state the facts and let the reader draw their own conclusions. My asking for a reliable source perhaps should have been more clear. We have a statement that it was a "pedophile scandal" within the Catholic Church, if we have another reliable source stating that actually it was not a pedophile scandal then that would help balance that statement you think is incorrect. To simply assert that it couldn't be that as we don't know that all those priests are pedophiliacs or not would be OR on our part. If you have a reliable source that shows they aren't then please post it so others can see it and figure out how to reconcile the two. Benjiboi 05:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I did find Vatican 'protecting paedophile priests' (BBC News, 18 October, 2002) we can use if no other sources appear to show that he was actively addressing the issue and was also trying to protect priests accused.

Supporters of the Vatican said the Holy See was simply trying to develop a policy that protected children while also preserving the rights of accused priests.
 * Also here's another possible source. Pope denounces 'evil' sex priests (BBC News 21 March, 2002) In his annual letter to priests, the Pope denounced the "sins of our brothers" which brought scandal upon the Church and made the laity suspicious of even the "finest" priests.

Hey Benji, there is no use for such a mudslinging discussion. It has no bearing on the actual issues. Stop it. In any case, if things were as they should be on WP you wouldn't be editing now. Str1977 (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reload

 * Let's try to get back to content issues. Here's a proposal:
 * We retain the word "pedophile scandal". Even though the wording is inaccurate it is a common mistake. However, I suggest changing the wikilinks to archbishop and pedophile scandal because this archbishop and this scandal are referred to. Let me state again that I never changed a quote, I changed from a quote to an indirect rendering.
 * We concetrate on the Rosie-relevant facts, thus removing the settlement.
 * Stylistic change: >>... she compared the Republican Party cover-up of the Mark Foley scandal to the cover-up by Catholic Church officials who actively took steps to conceal the perpetrators by moving them from parish to parish in Amy Berg's film about pedophilia in the Catholic church.< >... she compared the Republican Party cover-up of the Mark Foley scandal to Catholic Church officials' cover-up child abuse by moving the perpetrators from parish to parish.<<
 * Change of the content and how it's organized: >>O'Donnell said "the most interesting thing about Deliver Us from Evil (is) that the person who was in charge of investigating all the allegations of pedophilia in the Catholic church from the ‘80s until just recently was guess who? The current pope."[86] to >>O'Donnell said, in reference to Amy Berg's film about pedophilia in the Church, "the most interesting thing about Deliver Us from Evil (is) that the person who was in charge of investigating all the allegations of pedophilia in the Catholic church from the ‘80s until just recently was guess who? The current pope."[86], a claim that has been disputed.[83]<<
 * The last change ensures that Rosie's sentence is presented undiluted (something I never intended to change) but also makes clear that it is not an undisputed factual statement. Note 86 can be amplified by other references about the Cardinal's involvement. I moved the Amy Berg thingy over to this sentence so to clarify what "Deliver Us From Evil" is. The "has been disputed" sentence is already very much toned down.
 * Please reply. Str1977 (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate your effort, there are still things not right with the current version.
 * It still contains the settlement which is irrelevant to the ROD issue here.
 * It newly introduces facts about her being raised Catholic and being abused. Abused by whom? This belongs into a biographical section and not into this controversy. I understand that being a victim of course makes her more sensitive towards the issue but a) that is never made explicite anywhere (simply placing an undisputed fact next to this issue without drawing any link is not good writing) b) she actually does argue against this in the linked interview, c) there is no indication that she was abused by a priest, d) is there no indication that this was brought up during the controversy about her comments.
 * The explanation about the misnomer should also be placed into a footnote. IMHO it hurts the flow of the text and is also too detached from the actual occurence of the word.
 * I do not understand the "but" in "On The View O'Donnell has joked about communion rituals (alongside Behar's drunk priest comments)[89] but on 2 October 2006 she compared ..." Actually, I do not understand at all why the "drunk priests" are placed between one instance of child absuse scandal an another. Maybe chronology? It seems more reasonable to state that she also "has joked about communion rituals".

The rest seems acceptable enough. Please respond. Str1977 (talk) 10:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't followed all this, and I'm afraid I didn't properly examine the talk page before editing. I have now, though. Wikitumnus (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Str1977 says s/he "never changed a quote". Is that a reference to the "pedophile scandal"? If so, I've changed the direct quotation "pedophile scandal" to the indirect reference "sex abuse scandal", without quotation marks, and linked to Roman Catholic sex abuse cases. I think that's acceptable, especially since it's correct that many of these case involved post-pubescent victims.
 * I removed "raised Catholic", because it's in the Early life section. I removed "was abused as a child" because the source is an interview which says that she mentions it in her book "as an aside". There are lots of people who say that they were abused. I'm not suggesting that she's lying, but we need something stronger, like a conviction, if we're to state it on our own authority.
 * The pedophile versus ephebophile thing probably doesn't belong in that section. If it does, it should be put immediately after a misuse of pedophile. It was out of place where it was.
 * The bit which says that responsibility to investigate sexual abuse only started in 2001 needs to be worded better. I presume it means that that Congregation was officially given that task in 2001?


 * Hello Wikitumnus, it is good to have independent (apart from the two main "combatants") view getting involved.
 * I am afraid Benji will take issue with your move as I did exactly the same thing. I did exchange the quoted word "pedophile scandal" with the more accurate "child abuse scandal" and Benji called this changing a quote. Obviously I agree with your change which at the same time removes any need for the pedo-/ephebophilia/child abuse clarification. We'll see what Benji will say.
 * Regarding the biographical information, I believe it belongs in the "early life" section if it can be reliably sourced.
 * Actually, the responsibility was given in 2002. Benji's 2001 probably dates back from the letter quoted above.
 * Str1977 (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Benjiboi, I am asking you to engage on the talk page and to be more careful in your reverts, distinguishing things editors can disagree about from clearly false information:
 * ROD was not on the "Phil Donahue show" in 2002 - that show was cancelled in 1996 - but on a shortlived show called "Doonahue" - my link was very exact: to the section in PD's article covering that show. Until there is an article on the 2002 show this is the most exact thing we can do. I will therefore revert on this point.
 * Also, you may argue that the drunk priests should be in chronological order. Though I'd prefer a topical order, your point is not unreasonable. However the "but" is not a proper link between the two sentence. I will therefore redelete the "but".
 * I removed William Donahue's name only to avoid confusion with the show and host Donahue (adding his name is not feasible unless we change it to Phil Donahue's show - referring to it indirectly instead of by the actual title.) and because WD is acting as the spokesperson of the Catholic League, making the two de facto interschangeable. I will not redelete it but in a second edit introduce the solution proposed above.
 * I will also put the pedo/ephebophilia information back into a footnote so that it can be placed right next to the inaccurate word.
 * Also, please explain the purpose of the word "widespread". I don't think it's necessary to identify the scandal (as Boston Archidiocesis is mentioned immediately afterwards), making it a vague designation.
 * Str1977 (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am content with the gist of the asterisk solution to the "pedophile misnomer issue" and will only make some tweaks.
 * Can you again explain why we are including the word "widespread" if it is not needed (as you admit?) I think it is quite parallel to the word "falsely" that another editor included and which has been removed. We should stick to the facts needed to understand the controversy.
 * Finally, I think the passage "the current pope ..." is overlinked, containing three links to the same man and article. I will reduce it to one. Str1977 (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Photos Unflattering
I think the choice of photos for this article are very unflattering and are (even if unintentionally) biased against her.

Better photos should be found.

Her political opinions always bugged me, but that doesn't justify putting unflattering pictures up here, Wikipedia should strive for neutrality in it's articles.

69.171.160.37 (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you can take better photos of her (or any other Wikipedia subject) and release them under a free license, you are encouraged and very welcome to do so. Infrogmation (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible source
Possible source here. Benji boi 05:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Winner of 2007 Blogger's Choice Award needs updating
Rosie O'Donnell won the 2007 Blogger's Choice Award in the category "Best Celebrity Blogger".

Currently it only says she's a front runner.

http://www.bloggerschoiceawards.com/categories/32 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.146.227 (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

911 again.
Why were my comments on the discussion about 911 removed? Are you afraid that I exposed your fallacious argument? At least have the courtesy to address my points and not just delete them. So I will repeat:

It is ridiculous to say that 911 isn't relevant or warranted here when there are sections explaining things like the "Ching Chong", the catfight with Elisabeth Hasselbeck, the Donald Trump "incident", etc... She has said that she believes the government is responsible for the 911 attacks. The biggest attack on the US mainland in history. This is relevant. This is a serious issue. This isn't about her picking on Donald Trump's hairpiece. We are talking about premeditated mass murder by the US government. This is a very extraordinary claim and the most controversial thing she has ever said. It was also a continuing story in the national media.

"If O'Donnell were still on the View or even had another daytime talkfest where she was regularly talking about 9/11 conspiracies then maybe this would make sense." said the user Benjiboi.

What kind of arbitrary nonsense is this? When did you invent this standard? It isn't applied to the rest of article. I don't see you saying:

"If O'Donnell were still on the View or even had another daytime talkfest where she was regularly talking about gun control then maybe this would make sense."

"If O'Donnell were still on the View or even had another daytime talkfest where she was regularly talking about guns then maybe this would make sense."

"If O'Donnell were still on the View or even had another daytime talkfest where she was regularly talking about Catholics then maybe this would make sense."

etc.. etc...

You are going to need a better justification than that for why it is being deleted. Jesse Ventura made similar comments and it is prominently displayed on his page. Bill Maher has his criticism of 911 conspiracies on his page as well.

Savagedjeff (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for refactoring your comments. The content on this is simply not that notable but previous discussion was how to resolve numerous less noatble incidents into something like - "O'Donnell has been the subject of various criticisms including her views on the 9/11 attacks, her supposed "mocking" of the Chinese language], and her promotion of conspiracy theories related to the 9/11 attacks. Or similar. In researching it I found at least a dozens incidents that were also reported on about the same or even more than these as noted in previous section. None of them actually seem to be that important to O'Donnell herself who (i) no longer has a daily gabfest to promote her views (ii) no longer seems to be blogging on these issues - which would still be just ... her blog; (iii) no longer has her POV reported on daily by other media likely because she's not on a daily gabfest show, (iv) has pretty much not talked about any of these things on her appearances since leaving the show; (v) is not known for being a political commentator as much as just being opinionated and finally (vi) has stated she was paid to be opinionated on The View and admits she said things she likely should not have. All this amounts to WP:Undue on a BLP. I suppose we could rank the top twenty of these issues and list the top five as being notable issues, frankly what we have there presently needs to be reworked into footnotes and otherwise trimmed back. -- Banj e  b oi   04:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well to inject I just read about her first having spoken about the 911 truth beginning of March 07 and being fired from the show end of March 07. So for me this seems also important as all the other "incidents" couldn't touch her. But this one seems to have been too much for the (more or less conservative) ABC station so they pulled her and the wording dispute about Iraq being the final grave nail. But well this "coincidence" and making the connection is just my POV. But the chronological facts about her having spoken about it and being fired about a month later (even if it might not have been the so called "primary" reason) should be IMHO in the article and not just in the discussion. Ebricca (talk) 11:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We would have to have strong reliable sourcing to suggest she was fired for her views. -- Banj e  b oi   23:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A Google search of "Rosie O'Donnell yields 2,010,000 results. A search of "Rosie O'Donnell 9/11" yields 1,910,000 results. Perhaps not the most effective watermark, but you cannot argue that her support of the conspiracy theories are not a significant part of her media image. When I first read this article, it was absolutely stunning to me that there was no mention whatsoever of the fact that she is a "9/11 Truther." If it were possible, I would seek an investigation as to why there is such an egregious lack of relevant information here, what with the overabundance of videos and articles that contain her actually stating, aloud, her views on 9/11. At the very least, the comment "the first time in history fire has melted steel" deserves some mention. Her subscription to the conspiracy theories is, along with the rest of her provocative political views, a very important part of her celebrity character. It seems negligent to leave such information out of this article. IRSpeshul (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing Television Credit
In 1999 Rosie guest starred in an episode of Ally McBeal as a therapist. (s2 e19 Let's Dance)

mg43 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucky657 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"Citation needed.... or not"
In the section about Selleck and O'Donnell's debate over the NRA, this sentence claims a need for citation:

"According to Selleck, the two had agreed not to discuss the topic prior to his appearance on the show.[citation needed]"

And yet, the very next sentence, defending O'Donnell's position,

"O'Donnell maintains that Selleck and his publicist had been informed that the topic would be discussed."

makes no such claim. In all fairness, shouldn't O'Donnell's alleged assertion that they talked about it previously also need citation? The material in references 17 and 18 for the following sentence(s?) make no mention of a prior agreement between O'Donnell and Selleck or his publicist. I hope this request will be considered fairly and honestly. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolst (talk • contribs) 17:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching this, I've removed both sentences as simply unneeded. -- Banj e  b oi   23:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Rosie radio show
Instead of Fall 2009, put in: On November 2, 2009, "Rosie Radio" premiered. "Rosie Radio" is a daily 2 hour show discussing news and information for Sirius XM Radio Inc., on Sirius/XM Stars channel 102 from 10am to 12noon Eastern time, with replays in the afternoon. O'Donnell said she was approached by the company after she appeared on Howard Stern's Sirius XM show.[4]editsemiprotected

Let me know what you think or if it needs tweaking. Rosie was on the Stern show this morning talking about the new show on Sirius/XM if you need verification. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.236.240.138 (talk • contribs) 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't help but notice that even though today is 26 October, you refer to November 2 in the past tense...  Intelligent  sium  22:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This seems somewhat fine after a bit of clean-up and adding a ref.

In November 2009 "Rosie Radio", a daily two-hour show discussing news and events on Sirius XM Radio's Stars channel 102 from 10am to 12noon Eastern time, with replays in the afternoon. O'Donnell said she was approached by the company after she appeared on Howard Stern's Sirius XM show.


 * If no objection I'll add it in. -- Banj e  b oi   23:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No real objection, but your first sentence is a fragment. Intelligent  sium  00:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll fix it, thanks! -- Banj e  b oi   22:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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

I was addressing you intelligentsium. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.236.240.138 (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be fine now. FWIW I mess up in all manner grammar regularly. It's not a strength but mistakes are easy to correct. Also we've added two refs so I feel this is covered for now. Let's see is anything comes of her show there, since it's subscription-only I imagine it won't be terribly newsworthy. -- Banj e  b oi   22:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Photographs
(Sometimes I think I read too much into the pictures chosen for articles here.)

Is there any way we could get a picture that doesn't make O'Donnell look as if she's snarling at the camera?

J.M. Archer (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Occupation
TV personality ... ... Is this a joke? 99.236.221.124 (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No she is a TV Personality, at one point one of the highest paid one's.


 * TV personality is not a Job description. Holy crap. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The View is a show that habitually discusses topics that are inherently controversial. With the majority of its contributors being viewed as far to the American Left, they can hardly go more than a few sentences without inciting some controversy or other. It's hardly racism, and, if you like, I can go down the list of white media personalities who have a laundry list of items underneath their own "Controversy" section. That said, I am still of the opinion that there are at least some controversial issues that Miss O'Donnell has contributed to that deserve mention here. She's hardly the most "family friendly" character. IRSpeshul (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Pending changes
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Edit request from 69.34.85.100, 20 February 2011
69.34.85.100 (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC) I just wanted to say that I have been trying to find my ancestry also. I am from Brooklyn New York born March 21 1950...I do not know my dad but knew somewhere in my line we were Irish and English but on what side was what I did not know till last week. My grandparents from my dad's side were from Irland and my great great great grandparents from my mom's side were from England. I was pretty shocked to find that Irish blood was that close :. I watched your show this morning and have learned alot about the Irish and their fate. I was also very excited to here you had a Smith in your history and fast forewarded to find out just by chance if we were related...(would have been exciting)but I don't think so :( Just wanted to let you know that your show helped me so much in understanding my history. I would not have the means to go traveling but you did and I am so greatful. My name is Judith Mary Smith, born Brooklyn New York on March 21, 1950....Happy Birthday in advance.

P. S. I really hope you get to read this

Judith Mary Smith Barber69.34.85.100 (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Judith--> Wikipedia isn't connected in any way with Rosie O'Donnell. If you're trying to contact her, you will have better luck at her official web site (http://www.rosie.com) as listed in our article....it's unlikely that she'll read this page, and even more unlikely she'd respond here (and if she did, you'd have no way of confirming it was really her...) - Nunh-huh 05:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Restoring "Chinese parody" section
The section "Apology for Chinese parody" was removed in a WP:GOODFAITH edit with the comment "this is not notable and amounts to a smear against a living public figure"

Notability says content policy shall adhere to "Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons." All content in question is inline attributed using five reliable secondary sources including San Jose Mercury, Fox News, Asian American Journalists Association, People (magazine), and San Francisco Chronicle. NPOV "is not a lack of viewpoint", and "material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV", but it must not give undue weight to a minor point of view". If other viewpoints from reliable sources has been missed, it should be added or discussed. There is no original research in this content. Only facts and facts about opinions have been asserted. Unsourced opinions are not present.

The number of reliable sources makes this "notable" and the "smear" in question is in my opinion a NPOV. Specific comments are welcome. Bagumba (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This is very much a minor point being portrayed as big a controversy as Donald Trump and the original Elizabeth argument. In fact much of these controversies serve only to baggage her when she is in fact paid to be opinionated and loud-mouthed. The ching chong part was minor at best, as soon as she was told how offensive she was she apologized explaining she didn't know. That is completely different than all the other supposed controversies which she did defend and explain her position. If you put this in there are at least a dozen others so why not a whole laundry list of smears? Jnast1 (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In regards to the second reversion and section blanking by User:Jnast1 at and the response above regarding O'Donnell's ching chong comments, I'm open to suggestions on how the edits can be reworded and incorporated into the article.  Please see my thoughts to previous comments below:


 * This is very much a minor point being portrayed as big a controversy as Donald Trump and the original Elizabeth argument: As previously stated, five reliable secondary sources were used and each source contributed a different facet to the additions made. In my opinion that's quite a bit of coverage for a "minor point".  No additions made any claims as to how "big a controversy" this was.  That is for the reader to decide.  An existing reference in the article fron the New York Times, Rosie O’Donnell Will Say Goodbye to The View, also references the ching chong incident  four months later in the aftermath of O'Donnell leaving The View.  Also, another reference from the Washington Post after O'Donnell left The View lists the ching chong quote from O'Donnell among a sampling of six "choice words" from O'Donnell  Timeline: A Brief Compendium of Rosie Quotes.  This is in addition to the five sources already used.


 * In fact much of these controversies serve only to baggage her when she is in fact paid to be opinionated and loud-mouthed: This could be added to the article as a different point of view. Is there a reliable reference for this?


 * The ching chong part was minor at best, as soon as she was told how offensive she was she apologized explaining she didn't know: The incident occurred on Dec 5, and she did not apologize until Dec 14.  In between her rep said "I certainly hope that one day they will be able to grasp her humor."  The apology didn't happen very "soon" after the incident.  The "minor" part was discussed previously regarding the number of resources available on this subject and the fact that it was still being referred to four months after the incident.


 * That is completely different than all the other supposed controversies which she did defend and explain her position.: I would choose to publish and let the readers decide their opinion as opposed to censoring a very well sourced set of events on the use of an ethnic slur.


 * If you put this in there are at least a dozen others so why not a whole laundry list of smears? A smear is defined by Merriam-Webster as a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation.  All the events are reliably sourced. There is no claim or original research of "racism" if that is the concern.  Only the events were reported and sources were provided and quotes were attributed.  A reader can look at the events and conclude that it was a joke and critics are being too politically correct. They could also form other opinions.  It is left to the reader.
 * Bagumba (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing this again as it remains unnotable (and incredibly brief (one-day) episode in Rosie O'Donnell's life. I feel your ching chong article is also a minefield of BLP problems but you seem to be guarding that one from any changes so we'll start here. Only two "controversies" are talked about by O'Donnell and the majority of reliable sources since her departure. One is the feud with Donald Trump the other being her final arguments with Hasselbeck. The "ching chong" episode (which is really part of the Lemonchello/Danny Devito story) and the follow-up next live show when she apologized were completely unremarkable. There were dozens of incidents more impacting than this and they too are nothing compared to the two main dust-ups. In the world of the ching chong article this may be a big deal but in no way is it needed or appropriate here. None of them actually seem to be that important to O'Donnell herself who (i) no longer seems to be blogging on these issues - which would still be just ... her blog; (ii) no longer has her POV reported on daily by other media likely because she's not on a daily gabfest TV show, (iii) has pretty much not talked about any of these things on her appearances since leaving the show; (iv) is not known for being a political commentator or extolling political correctness on others, (v) her initial comment was to be funny and no one disputes that, as soon as she was made aware she apologized the following show -mistake made, understood, apologized (vi) she has also stated she was paid to be opinionated on The View and admits she said things she likely should not have. All this amounts to WP:Undue on a BLP.Jnast1 (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no ownership of articles, so please do not use "your" or "my" in relation to articles.
 * You did not respond to the original points. Your arguments have morphed from generally labeling the text in question a "smear", "POV", "BLP problems" and now it is "undue" with no specific violations provided. Undue is giving unnecessary weight to a view based on number of available sources. Certainly you are not disputing that there are multiple reliable sources on this subject?
 * If your concern is Recentism (I am guessing as you did not say), I have added additional sources since the event on December 2006 with references from April 2007 and more recently in 2011.
 * WP:UNDUE that you noted says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." While the current count of 11 references doesn't discount that there might still be POVs missing (you have yet to offer reliable sources), undue weight does not imply that there should be no weight at all as implied by your persistent full deletion of content. I would suggest you add to the article the POVs from reliable sources to add neutrality on your claims that reliably sourced events "were completely unremarkable."
 * Feel free to get other's assistance or posting a request for mediation. Bagumba (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're still missing the point and perhaps WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:WELLKNOWN could help? The fact remains that dozens upon dozens of "controversies" could be wedged in here but this is a biography of a very accomplished person and this blip of a mistake is non-notable by almost every standard. Technically there are some sources but there are sources for dozens of "controversies" all of which are rather meaningless. The two biggies that she herself acknowledge are the Hasselbeck argument and the feud with Donald Trump. I recognized that building and documenting notable cases of ching chong is important to you but that doesn't mean we should wedge in an inflated account here at all. O'Donnell made a mistake, she was informed of it and she apologized, case closed. This biography of a living person isn't the place to allege she is/was racist or insensitive or anything else. Even the sources we have simply acknowledge she made a mistake but corrected it. The non-primary sources mostly cover the apology (actually the same story recirculated as most of her "controversies" were recycled and repeated ad nauseam by FOX News. In no way does this rise to the level of Trump or Hasselbeck issues.Jnast1 (talk) 04:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No it doesnt help as you are still not talking about specific text in the article or specific rules being violated. It seems like you only content with constant reversions without any good faith attempt to incorporate in any form 11 reliable sources on a reliable sourced event in 2007 that is still making the news with reliably cited sources in 2011. WP:WELLKNOWN that you cite says, "If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."  Are you implying there are not reliable sources?  I'm not sure how your comment about Fox is relevant, it is but one of 11 sources. All I can gather is that you believe since she apologized (which TIME says was a "pseudo-apology", an example of neutrality to not mention it) we should all pretend it never happened.  I must have missed that morality policy somewhere while thinking verifiability, not truth.  I'll flag this as a neutrality issue in the article and seek outside assistance. And it is convenient for you to claim that there are other more notable events while you are making no effort to enumerate reliable sources on what those are. Bagumba (talk) 06:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Giving some more thought to WP:UNDUE, it states that "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." I have only found her publicist, Cindi Berger, and O'Donnell herself, and both the explanation that it was a joke and the subsequent apology are already included in the article. Is there something else you would like to add? WP also notes that "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." I believe this is a key point of contention, but IMO WP is quite clear about this. Bagumba (talk) 07:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are still missing the point. This was a blip of an incident 4/5 years ago. Other media outlets (FOX News et al), Entertainment reporters and advocacy groups (who are paid to complain about such things) had a vested interest in arm-flailing and loudly complaining, each with their own agenda. This is how the media works. O'Donnell was the poster child of speaking her mind and frankly she said some dumb things. But to inflate this non-notable incident as to being so important is the very UNDUE that BLPs shouldn't have.


 * O'Donnell controversies also not covered; whatever she said about Rupert Murdock, calling Oprah a little gay, radical Christians are as bad as radical Islamists, Paula Abdul, Kelly Ripa, Fox Network, "American Idol", etc etc.
 * O'Donnell regarding the controversies - "a lot of it was due to the fact that I was on a program which encouraged you to speak your feelings — and I did. And some of those, at the time I spoke them, were controversial.".
 * If there had been any long drawn out controversy we would have it, instead on the very next date she was there she explained what she had done wrong, apologized and moved on. So should we.Jnast1 (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks RightCowLeftCoast for offering your perspective. Regarding listing the events chronologically, I have no objection. I've added O'Donnell's general statement about the controversies after leaving the show. Thanks Jnast1 for providing the source. Bagumba (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree. Unless there is good reason to think that the incident is a major aspect of O'Donnell's career essential to be detailed in any summary of her life years from now, the long section is not warranted. See Recentism. Unless there is good reason to believe that actual hostility and wish to provoke violence was O'Donnell's explicit intention (as opposed to, for example, ignorance, or a moment of passing stupidity), the quotes detailing violent ethnic history are inappropriate (that topic is better treated elsewhere such as the ching chong or Sinophobia article).  I have no strong opinion one way or another about a short mention of the incident here, one or two sentences at most, but unless there are additional developments with a major impact on O'Donnell's career, no more. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a long thread, so I wouldn't doubt you missed my comment on recentism in my 21:55, 15 March 2011 comment above. It was a December 2006 event that was referenced in April 2007 in reflecting on her View tenure by NY Times, Washington Post and TIME, and more recently was brought up again in 2011 by Southern California Public Radio, Mediaite, and Gothamist. That seems more than just the usual overblown celebrity recentism that everybody forgets. Bagumba (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Those "recent" mentions are merely in the context of Rush Limbaugh. And appreciation to RightCowLeftCoast for spending the time to look at this. I think you did bring up an interesting point that I apparently didn't express well. There were dozens of "controversies" that churned in a news cycle or two then dropped. None of them including this one persisted over a period of time.


 * "rosie o'donnell" "ching chong" on Google News results in 68 hits.
 * "rosie o'donnell" "donald trump" on Google News results in 2,710 hits.
 * "rosie o'donnell" "elisabeth hasselbeck" on Google News results in 1,370 hits.
 * Both the Trump and Hasselbeck stories have been discussed but O'Donnell as having impacted her personally whereas the "ching chong" part came and went and I don't think she's ever had to re-apologize or even mentioned it. We'ree making a mountain out of a molehill which I think is still UNDUE.Jnast1 (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mark Twain had a phrase cautioning the use of statistics. First, the comparison is inconsistent comparing one specific phrase used in one event versus the people involved in the other events. There is another  phrase regarding different types of fruit. A fairer comparison would be to use other phrases in the other events, but such a statistic alone would not filter out matches that have nothing to do with specific event we are interested in. If we were to compare against people involved, the affected parties would be Chinese, Asians, Danny Devito, etc.  Secondly, some caveats about Google news are that companies have to register to show up on Goggle News and they can restrict access to articles from Google News but allow for Google Web.  For example, the three sources that are cited from 2011 in my 22:57, 16 March 2011 post are listed in Google Web  but not under Google News. More fine print, Google News counts as a hit any article whether it is original or syndicated, "At this time, Google News will not make any changes to article ranking based on this tag. We think it is a promising method for detecting originality among a diverse set of news articles, but we won't know for sure until we've seen a lot of data."  This is similar to your earlier point about news "recycled and repeated ad nauseam by FOX News."  Finally, why not to blindly trust everything Google finds in a search is that the "rosie o'donnell" "donald trump"  search on Google News leads to psychic predictions about "Leaving their wives, Donald Trump and Rosie ODonnell elope" and websites whose names dont hide their (lack) of reliability  Bagumba (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is an article on Google caveats that would have saved me some writing.
 * Jnast1, can we get your agreement to form a consensus with RightCowLeftCoast, Infrogmation, and myself that some mention of O'Donnell's Chinese parody belongs in the article.  If we can get a consensus on that point, I would suggest to the community that we start new sections in the talk page to continue to discuss any other other open issues as this thread is becoming too large and divergent. Bagumba (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You've already wedged the entire thing (with voluminous and unneeded quote notes) into ching chong, where it's presented out of context but at least it makes sense in that article. The section is still bigger than most of the prior sections of this person's life. You have still not met the burden that this blip of a "controversy" should be given any space at all, sources exist for many controversies which also have had no meaningful impact on this subject's life. The Trump incidents certainly did as did the Hasselbeck ones. This is evident from reliable sources asking O'Donnell about them specifically and her talking about how they affected her. Those incidents were huge, the ching chong was not. We have reliable sources that Rosie was called fat and ugly. Do those belong because we can source them? Howabout that she was a horrible mother? etc etc? No, we don't write to appease Donald Trump or Fox News. What you have is a brief incident that was loudly complained abou by groups that are paid to do so. O'Donnell made the remarks, found out that they were offensive and she apologize on the very next show she was on. She (and the other co-hosts) have all put their feet in the mouths at some point, we don't compile a hitlist of complaints and mistakes, we cover how article's subject was impacted. Again This probably shouldn't be mentioned at all because as soon as you do you have to explain how insignificant it was then defend why this insignificant mistake was included and none of the other ones were. Leave them all out unless the rise to the level of the far more notable ones.Jnast1 (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While I understand your concerns, there is no consensus on removal with RightCowLeftCoast, Infrogmation and myself.
 * For the repeated point that other comparable incidents do not exist in the article and therefore this incident should not exist, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST recommeds that since "articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they are missing before they are created, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should." RightCowLeftCoast had suggested already that these incidents should be used to expand the article and possibly be spun out to a new article if it was voluminous. There are expansion templates that you can add to the article to invite others to add the missing information.
 * For the repeated point that O'Donnell does not talk about this issue, that is not a requirement in WP:GNG and WP:WELLKNOWN says "it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
 * I suggest for a second time that we close this thread and if needed continue in new sections that are more focused in content. Bagumba (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you are very passionate about ensuring as much "ching chong" content is stuffed into the article. I can also empathize with again wanting to cite rules for entire articles when WP:Undue is the issue here. I simply disagree with you even if I don't know which rule to pull out. This was a insignificant event in that compared to the other main ones (Trump, Hasselbeck) this was done and over with, kaput. These others raged for weeks and actually impacted her life. This one did not and no sourcing supports that it did. Sources technically exist for lots of things that are true and have happened in people's lives but that does not mean they belong in the article. Jnast1 (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the "ching chong" controversy was not notable enough to be included in this article. Mixaphone (talk) 06:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I will leave a longer note at Bagumba that although i believe the information is not suitable here it can be very helpful at the ching chong article, O'Donnell made a mistake scene over but the comments about the mistake speaks towards the impact and significance of the phrase itself and peeled into a paragraph minus the blaming could be very good and benefit all concerned. Jnast1 (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply to Mixaphone(talk) Only saying its not notable without providing reasons is not sufficient.  Please elaborate with reasons below at . —Bagumba (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Imitation chinese ("ching chong" controversy)
This is a summary of the long discussion.


 * Points for inclusion
 * The incident is described neutrally with perspectives from both O'Donnell and her detractors (WP:NPOV).
 * The incident was notable based on 13 reliable sources. The incident was over a two week span in December 2006, but sources reported on the the event again in April 2007.  One of the sources is a book published by a PhD scholar that discussed the impact of the event in 2008, and O'Donnell herself discusses the event in an autobiography in 2007.  The number of reliable independent sources over an extended period plus the mention in O'Donnell's autobiography point to the notability both in the media and by the subject herself (WP:GNG, WP:INDEPTH)
 * The incident is notable and based only on reliable sources (WP:RS), which is supported by WP:WELLKNOWN with regards to reporting on events that might portray negatively on the subject.


 * Points for deletion
 * WP:BLPSTYLE was raised as a concern. A third opinion said it was largely unfounded, but recommended that consensus be reached if any content should be reworded or shortened, with the existing references to remain to support any shortened statement.
 * WP:UNDUE was not observed by the third opinion. "This section appears to be no larger, and is even smaller, then other sections regarding other controversies that occurred" It is now six sentences.
 * There was concern that other similar controversies were not included (WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST). It was recommended to include any missing events if they meet WP:EVENT. Others can be invited to help expand by use of expansion requests.
 * Raw results from Google to establish non-notability was unfounded based on incorrect assumptions that could be drawn from looking at the results without examining the actual sources (GOOGLETEST).
 * Quotes from critics that could be deemed hostile were recommended to be summarized and not used verbatim. This has been done.
 * There was concern that O'Donnell did not consider the event significant. Even if the text is negative for the subject, WP:WELLKNOWN says it should be included if it is notable and reliably sourced.  In any event, this has since been sourced to her autobiogrphy as well.
 * It has been proposed multiple times that since O'Donnell immediately apologized so the incident should not be reported. However, an apology did not take place until nine days later.  Reliable sources called that apology disingenuous. O'Donnell herself later said in her autobiography that she regretted her apology was not more sincere. The notability and number of reliable sources reporting on this over time is what should be considered, not a moral judgment on how one should receive her apology.
 * Mixaphone(talk) solicited a vote that this was not notable, but consensus needs to be established, using reasons based in policy and sources.
 * There was concern that using the quote parameter in citation templates was inappropriate for online references. However, this parameter is expressly for use for online sources in case the link should die in the future (WP:LINKROT) —Bagumba (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yet another repeated and I would say very biased reading of all the great reasons this content should weigh prominently in the article but yet fails to meet this content to be presented so poorly. You didn't like my compromise so you re-wedged in quotes, needless other items and every source possible. Again, what happens on the ching chong article is pretty much out of my hands, I've tried to address the issues so wherever that article goes from here is wherever it goes. As for the quote parameter you might also note that it is merely an optional one, what you do on the ching chong article is no longer of my concern but I refuse to let the O'Donnell article serve as the cursed goat sent to sacrifice to make a point. I have a feeling it shouldn't be in the article at all and others have agreed and disagreed but if it must be there in needs to be kept at a minimum. On the ching chong article the O'Donnell content is certainly a notable and appropriate example even if presented poorly. On the O'Donnell article it simply did not figure greatly into her life as the two main controversies certainly did. I think WP:Undue on a WP:BLP is the salient guides. And since quotes help define the focus a bit this may help - BLP's must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. You also seem to be misrepresenting the context that that third party source commented when The View section was still sprawling out of control. After I trimmed it down there were two editors who want to remove it altogether and yourself but I will let you express your own views. If we can't reach a compromise then a neutral solicitation of opinions can certainly be done. Jnast1 (talk) 10:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This was my compromise version allowing the narrative to remain but paring it down to only the most salient points and as part of the sections arc: "Actor Danny Devito appeared drunk for his interview and admitted he had been up all night, the following day after the segment had been widely reported as a scandal, O'Donnell used ching chong while comically describing newscasters worldwide covering the non-news event. She then had to apologize the following show to "those who felt hurt" saying "Some people have told me it's as bad as the n-word. I was like, really? I didn't know that."."

This is your version re-inserting voluminous unneeded quote parameters, sources which are unneeded and extra POV commentary alluding that her apology was forced and hollow: "Actor Danny Devito appeared drunk for his interview and admitted he had been up all night. On December 5, 2006, after the Devito segment had been widely reported as a scandal, O'Donnell, while describing worldwide coverage of the incident, used ching chong to imitate newscasters in China. She was criticized for her use of ching chong,  and there was disappointment of her perceived insensitivity when she had fought for gay and lesbian rights and spoken out against homophobia.  On December 14, O'Donnell apologized to "those who felt hurt" explaining that "Some people have told me it's as bad as the n-word. I was like, really? I didn't know that." O'Donnell warned that "there's a good chance I'll do something like that again, probably in the next week, not on purpose. Only 'cause it's how my brain works." Time called it a "pseudo-apology". O'Donnell later wrote in Celebrity Detox that "I wish I had been a bit more pure in my public apology.""


 * (—unsigned edit by Jnast1 10:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC))


 * I find the edits confusing. Your edits on March 23–24 removed subsections "Donald Trump incident", "Accusations of anti-Catholicism", and "O'Donnell/Hasselbeck argument" from under "The View" and chose to collapse and form a larger section in "The View" instead.  But you duplicate the Chinese incident both in the larger "The View" section while leaving a more detailed subsection.  This is inconsistent.  Please describe incidents either in subsections or include them as part of the larger section.  You have reverted my edits to keep this consistent on March 24.  It is misleading for your edit on April 3 to place the text inconsistently into a separate subsection and then inappropriately  calling it "my version" on this talk page when it was clearly your edit to repeat mention of the incident.
 * Writing BLP's conservatively means relying on reliable sources and not unsourced rumors or original research. Your repeated argument of WP:UNDUE is unfounded.
 * I'm not sure why you are arguing against using an optional parameter in citations to prevent linkrot. If you find it inconsistent that not all citations use them and have bad faith about my intentions, I have no objection if anyone wants to add them for other citations if there is a thought a point of view is being advanced by this. —Bagumba (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)