Talk:Rosie O'Donnell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rosie O'Donnell article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
Portal:Nickelodeon
 Nickelodeon Portal
Rosie O'Donnell is part of WikiProject Nickelodeon, an attempt to better organize articles about and mostly related to the Nickelodeon television channel.
Unknown
This article has not been rated on the quality assessment scale.
Unknown
This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.


Contents

[edit] Lets move on from "Controversies"

  • Here's to deleting the controversies section. Its unnecessary and is not fair in comparison to the amount of text written about the good Rosie has done. Perhaps we can edit the controversies section to a paragraph or two that describe what is in each of the sections? Lets have a discussion. (Flexpedition 00:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC))
  • Boy, do I ever agree with you! Each one of them has been blown out of proportion and having a section in Wikipedia about them only makes them seem like bigger situations than they actually were. KrewBay 14:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you kidding me, I dont think she has ever done anything nice in her life. I heard that she invented being overweight. I think that should probably be added.
  • Using that kind of logic , we can eliminate the incidents of human genocide by many dictators all over the world because most dictators hav often proven themselves to be very capable leaders .Rosie O donnel is at best a B list celebrity .The only reason why people notice her is because of
1) her usual controversies or
2) her stupid quotes or
3) the fact that she uses charity to become famous .(normally its the other way round , famous people use their fame to raise money for charity )
  • Controversies define Rosie Donnell - without that she is not a person not many people wll notice .She is not funny , she is not smart - what people notice about her is her loud obnoxious behaviour .Rosie Donnell is basically another ann Coulter on the other side of the spectrum .Rosiethegreat 04:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't believe you all wish to delete real information like the controversies section. That's so wrong. Screw open source, Wikipedia is a de facto oligarchy. - Rollo44 07:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Who deleted the Donald Trump controversy ? Why are people deleting some controversies ? I also see that somebody has deleted the part about Rosie's bodyguard who carried a gun?This is an encyclopedia where people come to refer information about events that made headlines.Rosie now has picked up a fight with the American Idol judges .Please be more objective and include all the pertaining facts regarding Rosie instead of trying to make her biography all very rosy.She is a sensationalist - she is nothing without her controversies .Why are people overe here soo biased?Hahahaha1 01:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that the people who are deleting parts of the controversy section are those who would get on all fours and lick the floor clean for Rosie.--63.152.12.231 19:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Or for Trump. Oh, wait, he already has that service. It's called The Apprentice. Wahkeenah 21:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Be more objective .This is an encyclopedia .So all events pertaining to a person has to be included.Rosie is famous only for her stupid rants .She initially latched onto Donald Trump to rant about .Then she decided to latch onto the American idol judges .She is a ZERO without her controversies .All controversies pertaining to such people have to be included .They are nothing without those controversies.Hahahaha1 22:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  • That hardly sounds objective. I think controversies should be included, but a lot of people here don't seem to have NPOV intentions. We should add that which gives more information about her, but not that which is just pushing a particular line. By reading various posts, it seems that those who wan't to, quite properly, remove pro-O'Donnell bias simply wan't to replace it with their own anti-O'Donnell bias. We shouldn't have either. - Matthew238 03:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree I have anti-O Donnell bias but thats because of her controversies .I had barely heard of her show 'The rosie donnell show' a long time ago .After that , this is the first time I am hearing of her .Ever since she got on the view she has had fights with soo many celebrities .Hahahaha1 01:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Most of them deserved it. Trump, especially. Wahkeenah 03:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"Most of them deserved it"?Could you please elaborate who would fall under the category of 'most of them'?Are you talking about the billion plus chinese people she insulted , or the fact that she called Kelly Ripa a homophobe or the fact that she says evangelicals are as bad as terrorists?Donald Trump is a shady character but that doesnt give her the right to go aboout insulting his morality or finances.Who does she think she is?Rosiethegreat 03:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

From the very first time I saw her on the Rosie O'Donnell show, I knew she was a fake. Her smile reeked of fakeness. And then finally she came out and with that her nasty repulsive personality. I agree, she isn't funny and judging from her "justification" for saying "ching chong ching chong", she is just a loud mouthed hypocrite. 66.171.76.248 07:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"Using that kind of logic , we can eliminate the incidents of human genocide by many dictators all over the world"
Did you honestly just compare the Clay Aiken "remark" to an ethnic purge? I realize you were leaning toward hyperbole, but yeesh. --AWF

Rosie strikes me as a very angry, lost person. She's constantly giving views on how to better the world when she can't even handle her own issues. People need to take care of themselves first before solving the world's problems.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.114.62.150 (talk)

Nobody's perfect. And this being America, even the imperfect have the right to criticize other imperfection. "With criticism comes progress." Thus spake Harry Truman. And he wasn't perfect, either. Wahkeenah 17:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone thinks that referencing her belief that the US Government was behind 9/11 does not warrant mention, then perhaps they should do some internal reflection and honestly decide if they are NPOV enough to act as arbiters of her site.

  • Spoken with all the courage of an IP address. There's no problem posting it, as long as the article doesn't put forth the notion that she invented this conspiracy theory. It's been out there for years, and many people believe it or at least don't trust the Bushies. Wahkeenah 23:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry I haven't registered. Would a silly name like Wahkeenah make me less "anonymous"? And "the Bushies"? How old are you again? If you can't understand how logically-vapid the 9/11 conspiracies are, then I don't think you're qualified to act as the voice of reason here.
      • I'm only 3 1/2 years old. Wahkeenah 14:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] non-article related talk

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

  • So archive it. Wahkeenah 04:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't just mean old talk, I mean stuff that shouldn't get her in the first place. - 21:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Eh... There's plenty of room and a convenient index. No harm done. That's why it's called Discussion because you can discuss anything. - Rollo44 23:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No ones cares about the "good" Rosie has done, because all rich people could donate to charities to cover up from their "mistakes." She is a loud-mouth hater who has no idea what she is talking about. She called people homophobe for no reason, mocked Chinese language, and talk shit about Donald Trump for no reason. We have to show that in some way. Trump said it best "she is very lucky to be where she is."

  • No one cares about The Donald either, except those who hope to get a few crumbs from his cookie. He's a pig with bad hair. Wahkeenah 05:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference

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

NEEDS TO BE CHANGED, SINCE CITATION DOES NOT SUPPORT STATEMENT*** In the early life section, there is a statement: "Four days before her 11th birthday, on March 17, 1973, her mother died of breast cancer." In fact, the citation leads to the Rosie O'Donnell biography page: http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9542144 . Does not support the statement. Her mother dies of pancreatic and liver cancer when she was 10. Soparu 16:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marriage vs. Union

When two people become married, is it not customary to refer to them as such? The phrase "legal union" redirects to the Wikipedia article for "Same-Sex Marriage". Why the apprehension about calling a spade a spade? Flakeloaf 03:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC) She tries to defen gay people and called Kelly Rippa out for being "homophobic" to a man that isnt really gay. Then she goes on and insults about 1.3 billion people with her ignorant comments. Not to mention shes not funny.

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

Although their original marriage isn't legal, didn't they get married in Canada afterwards? Exploding Boy 19:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't know, but even if they did, the USA is not legally compelled to recognize it. Wahkeenah 04:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • If the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. has four wives, wouldn't we just say so, whether or not such thing is legal in the U.S. or approved of by a majority of people? - Matthew238 04:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Only one of those marriages, at most, would have any legal standing in America. But if he's an ambassador and not a citizen, it's likely to be a moot point. Wahkeenah 04:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lesbianism

I don't agree with stating "lesbian" as part of her very first sentence in her article. I view at as aggressive labelling. I'd prefer it to be brought up as a fundamental element in her "personal life" section. Does anyone else agree? -- Matt0401 21:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know...At the same time, when she said she was a lesbian, that was a very large thing to the American public, and she's been an activist in seeking equality for homosexuals since that time. Michael 00:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Mike 7. It is highly relevant. The rational by Matt0401, seems to be little more than personal preference.

I'm in agreement with Matt. The lesbian label, while appropriate to her personal life section, is rather irrelevant when discussing the forefront of her career. It's rather secondary overall. --AWF

I think it is refreshing to have a woman announce that she is sexually aroused by another woman like Rosie does on THE VIEW. Men get away with saying that about woman ALL THE TIME!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hotbikerguy (talk • contribs).

  • Yep, us heteros get away with a lot o' things. Wahkeenah 01:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

GET RID OF THE TITLE OF LESBIAN! MOVE BEYOND LABELS! As a Lesbian I find Rosie's behavior to be disgusting because it just reinforces the stereotype that all Gay people think about is SEX, SEX, SEX...She needs to be more of a postive role model for our children and show that sexual desires do not interfer with us being productive parents, etc. I would like to see this title changed to less of a label as I do not want as a Lesbian to be associated in any way with this nit wit. Cr8tiv 3:51 23 March 2007

  • The only overt "desire" Rosie has expressed on TV is for Tom Cruise. Wahkeenah 23:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rosie O'Donnell Show

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

[edit] Threatened by Star Jones Reynolds

Talk about Star's fans leaving, how about all View fans leaving, Rosies mouth has tarnished Barbara Walters and ABC TV network for life. And talk about one of many unpleasant events, I don't see what Rosie's point is, a lot of todo about nothing, distastful at best. The Miss USA Pageant has standards and its Trumps show, I am appalled at ALL the disgraceful events displayed on the View by Rosie. 69.165.153.116 22:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ever since Rosie was named to replace Meredith, there have been rumors that Star Jones Reynolds would be fired or quit. Today, June 27, 2006, Star finally announced that she would be leaving the show (although it is rumored that she told People that her contract was not renewed). (unsigned comment)

Rosie O'Donnell has a problem with anyone who doesn't agree with her values. Star Jones Reynolds is an openly Christian celebrity. If you work in film or television, you are supposed to be a progressive liberal who supports gay marriage, gay adoption, who is anti-war, pro-PETA, vegan or vegetarian, and Democrat. God help you if you aren't. The LGBTQ and aetheist communities always bash Christians for facism. Well, they do the same thing by being hateful to everyone who doesn't BELIEVE what they believe in. This is why I am a centrist. Republicans and Democrats, LGBTQ and Christian, Progressive and Conservative, they're polar opposites who play innocent and who accuse the other side of evil agendas. Yet whenever one group is in power, they oppress the other group. Hypocrites!

That is completely not true. I'm not a vegan, I'm not a vegetarian, I'm not pro-Peta, although I am against animal cruelty, and I have no problem with anyone being religious, you'll find most Democrats are very religious. The only people you're talking about who Liberals will not support are the ones who are fanatics, trying to work their way into the government and pushing their religious views down everyone's throats. Everything you posted is a complete stereotype. Liberals will not stand for bigotry, and the gay community deserves the same liberties as anyone else. Democrats have never opressed religious people, what are you talking about???! The looney Christian right hides behind their bibles to commit the heinous of acts. You are not a centrist.

The LGBTQ community is notorious for oppressing people of color inside and outside their community. Racism is a factor in Rosie's "problem" with Star. We're all suppossed to act like racism is extinct, but it isn't. Sure, Star has some personality traits and values that some people don't agree with, but dig deeper or just be honest and you'll see the racism fueling some of the debate.

If you agree with Rosie, she loves you, if you don't she hates you. Ask Tom Cruise. And what about Rosie's fake crush on Tom Cruise? For years she hid behind this crush pretending to be heterosexual before she finally came out. So who's Rosie to call Star a hypocrite?

Tom Cruise is a nutcase who went on national television acting like a fool telling women to take vitamins for their post-partum depression. Rosie could not come out of the closet. You do not understand what it's like when you have nutcases who want to kill gay people. Rosie also had a corporation behind her who wanted her to keep her image, which is why a lot of people don't come out of the closet. You could tell Rosie was just about to blow by the end of her show's run not being true to herself or who she really was.

I've watched The View for 9 years, and when Star goes, a whole lot of her fans are leaving with her. User:Prangel 18:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't go blaming Rosie for Star's current state of malnutrition. Wahkeenah 01:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Lots of Christians are progressive liberals who support gay marriage, gay adoption, who are anti-war, pro-PETA, vegan or vegetarian, and Democrat, so I don't see how it's relevant to bring up Ms. Jones's religion. Rosie O'Donnell might be a Christian too for all we know. When did Ms. O'Donnell call Ms. Jones a hypocrite? Ndteegarden10:59, 28 June 2006

You can't be a real Christian and advocate those things. BTW, the Bible does not prohibit war. Also, anti-war liberals supported Clinton's war in Serbia. PETA's a joke. Rosie is not a real Christian. She's a bull dyke.209.244.43.4 07:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The original rant is evidently by one of that category of "Christians" who look for persecution everywhere, i.e any situation where they don't get their way, and has specifically got Rosie on their "hit list". I don't know if Rosie called Star a hypocrite as such; maybe she did, maybe not; but she definitely called Star to task for denying that she had had stomach sectioning surgery in order to effect her dramatic (and not necessarily attractive) weight loss. I also think that Star's psychological state has changed, and not for the better, since this surgery. It is also fair to point out that Rosie is not perfect herself. When she invited Tom Selleck on and ambushed him about the gun control issue, it was sabatoge, and unprofessional on her part. However, unless there is a news release the writer can cite, the rant about her "phony" crush on Tom Cruise is based on nothing except the writer's hatred of Rosie. Rosie herself said she didn't want to marry Tom Cruise, she just wanted him to come over and mow her lawn sometime. Gays and lesbians aren't always 100% into their "own kind" when it comes to physical attraction. But anybody who honestly thought Rosie was straight wasn't paying much attention. Wahkeenah 11:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The only thing Rosie has done that I didn't like was the Tom Selleck interview. She was completely out of line. I'm a Democrat, and pro-gun. If you want to debate someone, you don't ambush them like that. She could have chosen another time and another place. However, I do think Rosie has a lot to bring to the table, and other than that time, I truly support her and her courageous effort to bring equality for all and speaking out. That takes a lot of guts. Even Howard Stern loves her now. You're never going to love someone 100% when they are very outspoken, but O'Donnell is not a biggot, and she is on the side of good. That doesn't mean I agree with everything. She seems more at peace with herself, and I'm glad she came out and can now be true to herself.
A centrist? Give me a break! With your constant tirades on these talk pages I think not. Also, new comments are supposed to be posted at the bottom of the page not the top.--Red Titan 13:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Recent reports indicate the show's producers were ready to dump Star last fall. Rosie O'Donnell is not the reason Star left the show. Wahkeenah 13:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
"The LGBTQ community is notorious for oppressing people of color inside and outside their community." It's obvious that this user is a troll and/or a joke account. No one can be this uneducated. --AWF

[edit] Labeling

An IP address continually adds "homosexual" to opening paragraph. It's unclear what the motive is, but I haven't seen where it's standard practice to label everyone's (or anyone's) sexual orientation in the opening paragraph. Her lifestyle is discussed at length in the article. Re-emphasizing it by "branding" her in the opening paragraph strikes me as POV-pushing of some kind. Wahkeenah 22:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your personnal opinion. Too bad consensus was already reached. However, well address your point. Is she, or is she not a homosexual, and a homosexual advocate? If the answer is yes (which it is) it is not POV. It is fact. Now please stop.
An advocate, yes. Wahkeenah 03:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
So she is not also a homosexual??? Give me a break. Your argument has no rational to it. By your logic, the term "actor" should be removed because it is POV. She is a homosexual, and is widely known as such. It deserves to be in the heading. Stop deleting it.
Sexual orientation is not part of the intro for biographies. Should we label Hugh Hefner as "heterosexual" in his intro? I think it's you that's the homophobe, since you insist on making a big deal about it in the intro. I also think, you're not really serious about this, you're just an IP address vandal trying to cause trouble. We're done talking. Wahkeenah 15:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Wahkeenah, you are 100% incorrect. Her sexual orientation is very imporatant as she is more than just a homosexual--she is a noted homosexual. She was one fo the first celebrities to come out. It is a big deal. Furthermore, your argument it is POV is absurd. I happen to agree witht he analagy that if we followed your logic, the term actor would have to be removed. The fact is, she is a homosexual. Do you have a shred of evidence to prove otherwise? I don't believe that the basis for you deleting the post is homophbia (it is not approiate to say it is) however, your argument simply doesn't hold water under any level of scrutiny. Comparing her to Hugh Hefner??? Come on. If you can't see the distinction, you shouldn't be posting here.Cliesthenes 01:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Being an actor is her choice. Being an advocate is her choice. Being a lesbian is not her choice. And her advocacy is well-known and discussed in the article. Your labeling of her (and of others, as I see from your "contributions") emphasizing someone's orientation is actually bigotry in disguise. Wahkeenah 01:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Wahkeenah. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) does not permit this type of information to be in the lead. 03:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually it does. If you read the posting standards, the openning paragraph is for things a person is noted for. Whether you want to admit it, or not. Rosie Odonnell is noted for being a homosexual actress. She was one of the first to come out. This fact is very importasnt in the gay community. Please don't call me a bigot. It is a direct violation of wikipedia guidelines. You should know that. The fact you resort to "below the belt" name calling shows a weakness in your argument.Cliesthenes 11:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't call you any names. And she is NOT known for being a "homosexual actress". How many films has she done in which she's making love to women? Not all that many. Meanwhile, why don't you also specify "woman" in the opening paragraph? She didn't choose that genetic trait, either. Posting her orientation in the first paragraph is POV-pushing, labeling, stereotyping, etc., as well as being redundant. The first paragraph also says she's known for being a gay advocate, which is true and fair. And Hugh Hefner is a noted heterosexual. So what?Wahkeenah 11:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
That is some dumb logic. No one is claiming she starred as a homosexual in a movie. Her being gay has nothing to with her being an actress, however, it is something she is noted for, silly. 152.163.100.197 17:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I've asked for a ruling, or at least an opinion, from the one you went crying to. If you win, fine. Then we'll have free reign to include sexual orientation in the opening paragraph of every bio of anyone whose sexuality is publicly known. Wahkeenah 00:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

To coin a phrase "a plague upon all your houses". The edit warring over this point is a waste of everyone's time and the accusations and attacks coming from both sides are unnacceptable. Everyone here needs to calm down and start resepecting Wikipedia's policies on no edit wars and no personal attacks. I will block on sight users who are not able to be civil and act like decent human being to each other. Gwernol 01:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!!!!!!67.162.212.254 01:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Thus leaving the technical issue unresolved. But it's your page, and you win. Wahkeenah 04:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the paramount questions to inclusion of "Lesbian" in the lead section are 1.) Is her Lesbianism tied into her notability? 2.) Was her identification as Lesbian, groundbreaking or history making in anyway?. As the guide to writing better articles notes about the lead section "It should establish significances, large implications and why we should care.". It is my opinion that Rosie O'Donnell sufficiently established notability prior to coming out as a Lesbian and unlike Ellen Degeneres, her coming out what not groundbreaking or historically signifigant. The article deals with her sexuality in the appropriate context later in the article but in accordance with WP:MOS, I don't think enough of her notability is tied into her lesbianism to merit inclusion in the Lead section. Of course, if there is a sourced reference that contradicts that (like a reliable source that says her notability has increased or decreased due to coming out) then my view would change and support inclusion. Agne 21:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

Is she still religious?

She claims to be Roman Catholic, yes. --AWF
Nope. She sure isn't. She was RAISED Roman Catholic.
She is still Roman Catholic.
Has she either renounced her Catholicism or been excommunicated? If not, then she's still a Catholic, ¿sí? Wahkeenah 21:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Her lifestyle renounced her Catholicism, and I've excommunicated her.209.247.23.131 22:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hey, the Pope does wikipedia! Homosexuality is welcomed with open arms in the Catholic church hierarchy, in case you hadn't noticed. Wahkeenah 22:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Every reference I have seen Rosie make with regard to her affiliation with Catholicism is that she was "raised" Catholic. Catholics don't say I "was raised" Catholic (note the past tense), they say "I am Catholic". If editors want to list her in a category that describes her as Catholic, they have the burden of showing she is currently affiliated with the Church. Those of us who would remove that category do not bear that burden. One editor suggested that we prove she's not Catholic. Those who want to include a fact bear the burden, not those who insist upon a citation for a fact to be included.

Until a credible authority establishing her Catholicism is cited she should not be categorized as such. Mamalujo 21:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Never mind Rosie, the better question is, why is anyone being categorized by their religion? Personally, I think it's offensive to do so. "Hey, a convenient list of Jews! Catholics! Muslims! Zen Buddhists! Or anyone else we want to persecute!" Yeh, that adds to the credibility of this site. Wahkeenah 01:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • And if y'all insist on these labels... unless Rosie has openly renounced her religion OR has been excommunicated, she's still Catholic, and no one has to prove she is. The burden of proof is on those who allege that she is no longer Catholic. Wahkeenah 01:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
As a technical matter of canon law no one ever loses their membership in the Catholic church. Even excommunication does not sever that tie. The Church maintains that the availability of grace bestowed at baptism is irrevocable. Of course this is a nicety of canon law and has no relation to one's practical affiliation with the faith. As an actual and practical matter Rosie was raised Catholic but does not remain so. Indeed, she may be automatically be excommunicated latae sententiae due to apostacy or heresy (including the ground under canon law for publicly rejecting the authority of the Pontiff). Of course, all of this is beside the point. It is those who would include a fact within an article that have the burden, not those who would remove it. No facts can be provided showing Rosie's current affiliation with the Church because none exists.
As far as whether categories of persons' religion should be included, that is a wholly different matter. And not something we can decide here. Could the information be used by someone maliciously, sure. But so could all kinds of information about public figures, including whether they are Trotskyites, Pashtun, Hutu, etc. Still, such information is biographical and clearly proper in an encyclopedia. Mamalujo 20:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
That general question, as with many others, is something "we can decide here", "here" being on the talk pages of wikipedia in general, not just this article in particular. Nearly everything about content is open to debate. I think it's offensive, others may not. The question becomes, what is the purpose of such information? If she was "raised Catholic" then, according to your argument, she is Catholic, until proven otherwise (e.g. if she publicly renounces the church and/or switches religions), and therefore it should stay. Wahkeenah 22:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably she is best described as a non-practising catholic. Like Zinidane Zidane is a non-practising muslim.

  • Assuming any of us knows whether she goes to Church or not. Has she ever said? Meanwhile, here's something to ponder: How would you characterize a non-practicing atheist? Wahkeenah 00:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Separation of Church and State

I'm not even a Christian, but Rosie is a moron. We don't actually have seperation of church and state by law, just by tradition. The 1st amendment says there cannot be a state established religion which means people can't be forced to practice a religion by the government. This doesn't mean that government slogans cannot have the word "God" in them, it doesn't mean politicians cannot talk about God, it doesn't mean that religion can't be taught in school,ect. The FIRST ACT OF CONGRESS after the ratification of the constitution was to APPOINT CHAPLAINS. Yes, THE FOUNDING FATHERS APPOINTED RELIGIOUS FIGURES! So go fuck yourselves, religion-hating socialists, I hope the government stops giving you handouts.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.151.167.250 (talk • contribs) .

Number one, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, two founding fathers, were Deists and not Christian. Number two, I'd say the First Amendment to the Constitution is American law. Number three, it's spelled "separation." Number four, this page is meant for discussing issues with the article at hand and not your personal, biased opinion. Keep this up and a banning will probably be in order. --AWF
Actually, the First Amendment does not explicitly mention a separation of church and state. I think that was the point that guy was trying to make, he just made it very poorly. Pablothegreat85 08:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The first amendment prohibits the government from establishing a state religion, hence we have seperation, and also separation, of church and state, whether it explicitly calls it that or not. The first amendment does not prevent lawmakers from personally or collectively embracing religion, It prohibits compelling people to adhere to religion, which means that forced prayer in schools is forbidden. The teachers are in position of authority, so there is no such thing as "voluntary" school prayer. Wahkeenah 15:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
If the Christio-fascists (to borrow a Bush-like expression ONCE USED BY A CONSERVATIVE ON THE McLAUGHLIN GROUP) get their way, their forced "voluntary" school prayer push could have unintended consequences. In communities with a large Islamic population, those schools might decide to establish "voluntary" calls-to-prayer several times a day. Then the Christian minority in the classroom can either stand there looking like fools (remember, it's "voluntary") or they can submit to authority and peer pressure, and join in. It will be interesting, then, to see what tune the Christio-fascists sing. Wahkeenah 16:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Wahk, please keep your personal hatred for conservatives out of this talk page.209.247.23.129 04:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't even know what fascism is. I think that liberals like Rosie who want to take away our guns are fascists. In fact, fascists in Italy and Germany did confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens.209.244.43.4 07:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Section on Gun control Stance

Hey there - I've rewritten the section about The View after the Amish school shooting again [1]. I'm not too keen on the word 'argue', because it was more civilised than that, but I'll agree that 'debate' makes it sound too planned. I'm not at all comfortable with the line that "Rosie used the Amish school shootings", because the word "used" makes it sound as if she went out of her way to exploit something for her own personal agenda - that's a POV interpretation of what happened. And I figured this was too long for a comment insertion, plus discussion about it would be better than just reverting each others changes. --Mnemeson 16:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


Could someone please tell me where the "slavery" thing came from. I checked sources 5-8, which seem to be for that section, and nothing about that. Also, about those sources, number 7 is a pretty biased webiste to be used as a source in anything imo, and the youtube video is deleted on number 8. I'm new, just wanted to add my two cents. --Juniperdc 22:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Juniper - the addition of 'slavery' was vandalism, which has since been reverted. Thanks for raising it though, sometimes vandalism can get missed :) --Mnemeson 23:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rosie and Kelly's marraige picture

Where has Rosie's and Kelly's marriage picture gone?

They were never actually legally married, so maybe the picture didn't exist, either. >:) Wahkeenah 18:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
They were MARRIED in San Francisco. The marriage was later declared void. The picture was posted on this page for several months, now it's gone. Why is it gone? It was an important day in her and Kelly's life.

[edit] Nip/Tuck

Barbara Walters was just on David Letterman's show denying that Rosie is joining the cast of Nip/Tuck or leaving "The View." I'm not sure that statement at the beginning of this article can be suported, and I didn't see evidence of it when I went to the referenced link. (unsigned comments)

[edit] Chinese accent

I have defended this page against vandalism, and will continue to do so, but this Chinese joke, coming on the heels of the Kelly Ripa / Clay Aiken incident (which many editors tried to downplay) is really offensive and casts O'Donnell in a very bad light. I also tried to clean up and reduce the repitition that another editor had introduced, but this needs to be written better, with more about the Ripa incident for some balance, since O'Donnell really made a thing out of it, and it's now more her story than Ripa's. To paraphrase Rodney Dangerfield, if you look in the dictionary under "Political Correctness Hypocrite", you'll find Rosie O'Donnell's picture." Wahkeenah 13:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I tidied up this section a bit as she has since apologized on her blog. Also, the section made it appear that the Chinese speakers were the intended targets of her joke, which she also says on her blog is not true. Should I cite on the main page the place on her blog where she explains what she was trying to do with the joke? She does explain she that imitates accents of every type (she mentions that she has done Irish, Australian, and Southern accents in her act and this particular was not meant to be seen as degrogatory. She says she was making fun of the enormity pf the DeVito coverage, not the Chinese. KrewBay 02:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
In short, "they shouldn't be offended." Sorry, that doesn't hold politically correct water. Wahkeenah 02:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Does this situation still merit a section on a personal biography? She has now apologized for her actions/words. Is this still relevant? If so, it could at least do with quite a bit more editing. KrewBay 18:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
It sounds like one of those non-apology apologies: "I'm sorry if I offended you, but you had no right to be offended." Wahkeenah 18:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of the quality of her apology or how politically correct her joke was, the question is - does this now belong on her biography? I don't think it does, but I would like to hear yours (and others) opinions as to why you might feel it should stay KrewBay 18:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's see what stupid thing she does next before rubbing out the whole thing. Wahkeenah 00:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Would you support at least editing this section down considerably? I'm thinking it should look more like the section in Adam Carolla's bio regarding his almost identical statements? KrewBay 02:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I would give it a few more days, to make sure there is no new news about it, then pare it down to a more appropriate longer-term level. Since she seems to make these gaffes on Tuesdays, maybe wait until Wednesday the 20th or so. Wahkeenah 02:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I did decide to edit it a smidge since someone made some changes that were a little gossipy. I'm comfortable with giving it a little while (and you're right, maybe just until she goes and does/says something else). I'm thinking the first thing I might remove will be all the info relating to Councilman John Liu as that seems to be more related to him than to her. What do you think? KrewBay 05:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
If you had seen Liu talk about this on the O'Reilly program, you might understand why this is so offensive and why he got involved. It could be trimmed, though. Wahkeenah 06:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. This is important to note in the article, but it is taking up a disproportionately large amount of the article. It does need to be trimmed back a bit. [User:NickBurns|NickBurns]] 17:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I have pruned the section regarding the Asian controversy. As I said before, it is very important and notable and should be included. I linked reference to both John Liu and Unity (a journalist's group) and their comments. But there was a little TOO much detail in the article. Thus the links, which allows the reader to link to an external article with additional details. NickBurns 20:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I really really liked how this section read before the information regarding The Chronicle was added. I thought it was appropriate, succinct, and readable, now it seem significantly less so. I think it should be taken out and changed back to the way it was before that information was added. Agree? KrewBay 03:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Wait, you think that one sentence about the SF Chronicle makes the whole section less appropriate, succinct, and readable? I included it because I thought it - that is, her online response - was a relevant part of the story. schi talk 04:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
It might just be the formatting before the add that I liked better. Although, if you feel that the online responses are important, it seems like we're highlighting a middle man with The Chronicle. It's not like she did an exclusive interview with them or anything. She posted her response for everyone to see, so why highlight their story? KrewBay 14:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It's attributing the report to the Chronicle, because it seems that Rosie disabled comments so you can't even see them and took down the post in question. I feel like her online response may be important - it's another official response directly from her that isn't quite the same as her other responses. schi talk 20:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree it bears mentioning, but the line "which is an ethnic slur on par with the word nigger" is pretty ridiculous. If she had repeatedly referred to a black person as "nigger", she would have been fired and blacklisted from the entire entertainment industry on the spot. I'm not saying that "ching chong" isn't an ethnic slur in some contexts; but even if we agree that it is ALWAYS an ethnic slur (and I would not agree with this assertion, as many times it is just a stupid parody of their language), it still has NOWHERE NEAR the strength and taboo of "nigger." I'm removing the line. --Lode Runner 22:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I was quite moved by what Councilman Liu had to say about it on the O'Reilly show. It's a very hurtful expression. However, I'm inclined to agree that it's not "as hurtful" as the N-word, because the black experience of involuntary servitude, and the association of the N-word with slavery and repression is unique in America. Maybe someone needs to develop an index of the degree of hurtfulness of racist insults, using the N-word as the top level, i.e. the "Nth degree". Wahkeenah 22:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • So are you saying if she said "chink" or demonstrated how ching chong speaking people look like with their slanted eyes, that it is bad but not as "you're-fired" bad as the N-word because the Chinese weren't made slaves? It seems more like to me that the N-word is banned because the black communities would riot on your white neighborhood which would take days or weeks to control and cause millions in damages while the Chinese probably wouldn't riot. Maybe Asians should get far more aggressive and destructive when these things happen because people start paying attention only when the monetary consequences are higher. 66.171.76.248 08:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The "ching-chong" quote is in inaccurate. If you look up the clip from the show on YouTube, you'll notice that impression of the Chinese language consisted of more than just "ching-chongs".

[edit] Purpose of talk page and personal attacks

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

Left wing bias is rampant in the coverage of O'Donnell's chinese slurs. If she was a male conservative, the wikipedians would be screaming for blood. Sad. 76.186.108.170 01:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

  • That's easy for an anonymous IP address to say. Wahkeenah 04:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Made even easier by the fact that it's true. 76.186.108.170 19:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
      • It's definitely true that you're an IP address. I saw Bill O'Reilly defending O'Donnell. O'Reilly, the flaming liberal, yep. Must have been because she's Irish. Wahkeenah 22:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Anon, if you have suggestions as to how the "left wing bias" you perceive here could be mitigated, in ways that would contribute to the encyclopedia's policy of NPOV (so not screaming for blood, as fun as that might be), please let us know. schi talk 00:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Thank you for making the point a lot better than I did. :) Wahkeenah 00:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Agreed, you really don't know how to make a point. 76.186.108.170 02:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
              • Sure I do, I just made one with my pencil, and here it is. Wahkeenah 04:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Being a conservative, bisexual, and Asian (yes we do exist!) I'll have to say the double standards are apparent. Rosie gets a "green light" to say the Asian "N" word, while Gibson and Michaels are condemned. But not being the hypocrite, I'm not going to "off" Rosie, as I didn't with Gibson or Michaels. She's yet another person that proves for a fact that racism and bigotry lives on in --everyone-- regardless of color, ethnic group or creed; and that PCness won't eradicate it as long as the finger pointing pundits prefer class/economic/race/religion warfare to divide and conquer, than answering the real problems of social strife. Rosie is yet another Ann Coulter, and she uses a talkshow as a venue of hate. FResearcher 09:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • My opinion of Rosie O'Donnell has dropped considerably, due to her double standard. It seems like some segments of every group has some elements with their "antenna up", zeroing in on every slight, while oblivious to the slights against other groups, including (and maybe especially) the ones they themselves commit. And with Rosie, it seems like every week it's something else. At some point, the press is liable to stop listening. One thing for sure: I don't think anyone's calling her "The Queen of Nice" anymore. Wahkeenah 11:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The whole issue in all of this PCness, is it driving racism and bigotry underground. In the South, we make comments that at least racism is "in your face" here, to avoid, prosecute or educate against by example. Other sections of the country that isn't so, making racism and bigotry much harder to combat. This PCness has the danger of taking "in your face" racism/bigotry and making people feel racism/bigotry doesn't exist, when in fact it's rampant in every facet of daily life. It in turn breeds resentment by those forced to be unnatural, with the friction causing more hatred.
      • Yes, the media is reponsible for this double standard, and pushing the whole issue into some hidden corner, to only harp on it in hypocritical anger when ratings are needed. All folks are racists and bigots in small ways themselves (it's the awful truth), and instead of acknowledging this fact they scream fake outrages to claim otherwise, denying human nature, instead. Regardless of background people prefer their own kind (be it if you're gay or straight; black or white; short or tall as they're more familiar), and because of this it's how people have a more favorable view of their own kind and be blind to others. It's not fair, it's not nice, but artificial laws and peer pressure alone won't make people get along, only time and eliminating ignorance will. PCness doesn't cure the ignorance, acknowledging human nature is the start. That prevents these double standards that folks hide behind, and then folks can look in mirror at their true selves to cure this social problem -- not rebox it or shove it into a corner, again.
      • What stinks in Rosie's "apology" is that she acknowledges she was ignorant, and then comes back to say she may repeat the same ignorance again. People can excuse many things, but few have much tolerance for expousing ignorance. FResearcher 12:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
        • It's the famous (though not so-labeled) "non-apology apology", that basically says, "I'm sorry if I offended you, but you shouldn't have been offended." You hear that from bigots on both sides of the aisle. I was amused (sort of) to hear O'Reilly defending O'Donnell during his discussion with Liu, about how people are "too sensitive". That's typically their lame defense. I am inclined to think there are two types of bigots: those who wear it like a badge of honor, and those who are ashamed of it and want to keep it quiet. The final answer is Freedom of Speech. Censorship doesn't fix things. Freedom does. Hmmm... now I'm sounding like one o' them there conservatives. Wahkeenah 13:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I wonder, if Rosie and Ann Coulter met, would it be like matter and anti-matter? Would they anihilate each other? And would it be available on Pay-Per-View? Wahkeenah 11:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Honestly, Rosie and Ann both need personality transplants. Sooner the better, as their foul rhetoric hurts more than helps. FResearcher 12:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree somewhat. Please remember personal bias belongs in forums not in biographical pages. I also don't see the point of including her anti conservative sentiment as 99% of homosexuals are against conservatives.--Noman953 12:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually there's more than 1% conservative homosexuals even in the GOP (i.e., The Log Cabin Republicans, for one example). The GLBT community is a hodge-podge of beliefs, and claiming they're 99% liberal or Democrat is a politically ignorant response, lacking the knowledge that conservatives are conservatives not just for social reasons. Being a GLBT conservative isn't shameful, at all. To think, or acknowledge otherwise, is the hypocritical state of this PCness in full light, too. FResearcher 09:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • In my anecdotal experience, I would say that anyone who thinks 99% of gays are political liberals either doesn't know much about the subject, or only associates with liberals. I've known gays who are considerably more conservative in their general views than this straight WASP is. The don't call it the "Gay Old Party" for nothing. :) Wahkeenah 11:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I don't see what Rosie's point is, distastful at best. The Miss USA Pageant has standards and its Trumps show, I am appalled at the disgraceful events displayed on the View. This has tarnished Barbara Walters and ABC TV network for life. 69.165.153.116 21:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

    • I don't have an account here but could somebody please remove the "fatttt whalleeee :]" line from her page? Really inappropriate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.6.126.123 (talk)
      • That was already taken care of, 7 hours ago. Wahkeenah 23:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statements needing citation

[edit] Donald Trump Controversy

Yes, I agree, I don't see what Rosie's point is, a lot of todo about nothing, distastful at best. The Miss USA Pageant has standards and its Trumps show, I am appalled at the disgraceful events displayed on the View. This has tarnished Barbara Walters and ABC TV network for life.Focusmoney 21:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

On December 20, 2006 O'Donnell blasted Donald Trump during the "Hot Topics" segment live on The View after he gave Miss USA winner Tara Conner a second chance at holding on to her crown the day before. This came after the pagent winner admitted to extensive partying and underage drinking in New York City.

O'Donnell claimed that Trump himself is hardly a moral compass, having had 2 publicly known affairs which both resulted in children. O'Donnell went on to attack Trump's finances, saying that he once went bankrupt. O'Donnell also made a brief impersonation of Trump during the segment branding him a "snake oil salesman" reminiscint of those seen on the television show Little House on the Prairie.

O'Donnell's words offended Trump, who fired back by threatening to sue her, called her his "fat, little Rosie", and a loser. He also called her a failure in TV Talk, and listed her magazine as being a failure, too. Trump later added that he would send a friend to take away O'Donnell's "girlfriend" which he claimed would not be hard to do.

O'Donnell responded by posting an article about Trump's bankruptcy from Wikipedia on her own website, Rosie.com.

I think a bit of editing Donald's quotes would be beneficial. Seems to ramble on a bit, giving much more detail than necessary. --Amynewyork4248 20:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, unless it's anything other than just name-calling between the two, it's not especially relevant. As I said earlier, Rosie is constantly getting into verbal scrapes. We can't document every last one of them. Wahkeenah 22:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if this warranted another section (please forgive this newb), but at the controversy section , it mentions that she is an outspoken supporter of slavery. I'm pretty sure it's vandalism but I wasn't sure how to handle it. Ripberger 23:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Ripberger - you're right, it was, somebody replaced 'gun control' with 'slavery', it'll be in the history log who did it, but odds are they've been banned, at least five distinct editors have been tonight. If you see if happen again, don't hesitate to revert it - be bold! :) --Mnemeson 23:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
That new User:Mdey33 messed with the page a second time. I reported it to an admin, and hopefully it will be blocked sometime soon. Wahkeenah 23:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The insertion of slavery its second time was actually my fault - I was reverting vandalism, accidentally reverted to an earlier version that had yet more in that had been removed in the intervening time. My apoligies --Mnemeson 23:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
It was another blurb that I reverted. Hopefully the article is back to where it should be now. Wahkeenah 23:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Glad you guys are keeping on top of it; I saw some heavy POV, but someone else edited it before I could get rid of it. Nicely done. =) Hanzolot 05:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
You should have seen Trump on O'Reilly on Thursday night, the 21st. Trump was one of the rudest guests O'Reilly has had. It was funny hearing O'Reilly trying to lecture Trump on being civil (which Trump was having none of). And although Rosie had shot her mouth off yet again, she does have a point in this case. Wahkeenah 07:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's best if we keep the gossip about living celebrities out of this article. Rosie is a great person, I think her bio would be better served by us sticking to her positive achievments versus her spat with Donald. After the spat is over, if it proves historically significant I think it could be reviewed for encyclopedic value at that time. Alan.ca 10:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Rosie's a great person? How? Again, nobody is entitled to a positive article on Wikipedia. As far as the Donald spat goes, right now it's news. Therefore, it should be in the article.209.244.43.4 20:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what Rosie's point is. The Miss USA Pageant has standards, which the winner evidently violated. Donald Trump is not Miss USA; his personal life is irrelevant. Once again, Rosie put her foot in her mouth, which is also the only time that she can see her own foot.209.244.43.4 20:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

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

I AGREE that this section should have been removed.Luigibob 05:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I edited this section a bit. Tidied up his quote too. This whole "controvesry" as it's labelled really doesn't need a place here at all, but oh well. I didn't want to be the one to delete it. Oh - and this entire discussion page needs to be cleaned up a bit to make it easier to read and follow. KrewBay 23:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I removed the section again because there are no sources cited for the statements. Further, it doesn't read like an encyclopedic article, but more like a gossip column. I think a brief summary of this event is reasonable, but otherwise not noteworthy. Alan.ca 18:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the section back in :-) User:Flexpedition 28 December 2006

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

I think the paragraph right now reads very nicely. I don't think it needs to be here permanently, but since the story keeps bubbling up to the news (mainly because she'll answer some question on her website about how she thinks the situations overblown, then he'll go on some entertainment show again and call her all sorts of terrible and mysoginist names that are really uncalled for.) But, sigh, until this thing completely blows over I think this pargraph is good. KrewBay 00:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel that a paragraph outlining all of Rosie's controversies are absolutely necessary because thats the only way she gets publicity for herself .She is no Mother Teresa , neither is she a Julia Roberts , neither is she a Bill Gates .She is not funny , she is not talented , she is not rich , she is not such a nice person and she is not a politician .She has no credentials currently other than being the voice of controversy in 'the view' .Having a 'controversy' section for her is very appropriate .Rosiethegreat 03:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I edited the controvery sections quite a bit (while not signed in by mistake). I removed the limo controversy section because it was pointless, I also removed the Kelly Ripa section because the story is no longer in the news, so it is dated and unnecessary. Plus, somebody had edited it down beyond all recognition and had only left a link to a People magazine article from a few weeks ago. I also edited down the Trump and "Ching-Chong" sections because I think they could be slowly phased out as those stories die down. Finally, I edited her gun controversy sections as it also contained some unencyclopedic information. KrewBay 04:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"I removed the limo controversy section because it was pointless" -- To you! Rollo44 11:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
"the story is no longer in the news, so it is dated and unnecessary" -- I'm glad people don't use that rationale for other historical events. Rollo44 11:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

the reason why the Limo controversy and kely ripa controversy are important is because such controversy's are Rosie's existence .If she was not such a controversial person , nobody would cease to recognize her as a person .And who editted that gun control advocacy thing - especially the part about the bodyguard?Can somebody please include that ?Rosiethegreat 21:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have now removed the Kelly Ripa section twice because I feel it is irrelevant and unencyclopedic. The above argument that these "controversy's (sic) are Rosie's existence" does not hold water. KrewBay 21:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

I don't give a crap about Rosie's charity work. Evil people like her do charity work because they feel guilty about their own vile lifestyles. She also probably feels guilty for having gotten so far with so little talent. I, on the other hand, am pleased with my way of life. Therefore, I don't give a dime to charity. I also evidently mixed up the Trump controversy. Rosie attacked Donald for giving Miss U.S.A. (not to be confused with Miss America) another chance and then mocked him as a "moral authority." I previously had thought that Rosie was attacking Trump for being too tough on Miss U.S.A. I had thought that Rosie wanted her to get a second chance and that she was calling Trump a hypocrite for not giving Miss U.S.A. a break when Trump has lived an immoral life. Now that I've found out the truth, I have to say that Rosie's babbling makes even less sense. It would have made more sense for her to rant had Trump made the girl relinquish her crown for her immoral behavior. In that case, Trump would be acting as a "moral authority." However, in this case, Trump was cutting the girl some slack. I honestly don't get how Rosie can call him a hypocrite for this. She is one fat idiot! 76.21.45.13 06:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

hah thanks for replying for me .Why do people think Rosie is soo great just because she does some charity work? She does manage to shout from the rooftop abut how she does charity work though - always looking for attention .Nost milionaires/billionaires do indulge in charity but we seldom know about their contributions - thats primarily because they dont like to boast about money they gave to charity contrary to Rosie who tries to get publicity by doing charity work.She actually uses charity to become famous .How underhanded!!!Rosiethegreat 07:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Rosie O'Donnell was parodied on WWE television and the program WWE RAW by Kiley McLean. She was facing Donald Trump(also a parody) he was being portayed by Ace Steel. These are both in the developmental teritorry, Ohio Valley Wrestling. O'Donnell was beat by the Trump impersonator. This skit is believed to turn into a WWE storyline by internet wrestling fans. We will find out in the near future.

209.247.23.143 03:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Why not create a Wikigossip or something like that? I agree that in the large scheme of things, this spat is pointless. But it's still interesting to a lot of people and there's energy to be tapped in documenting this celebrity feud. The Trump controversy section in her biography is lengthy right now, and when this happens usually a separate article is created. This can be done, but I think a lot of Wikipedians would oppose this. I do understand the need to keep Wikipedia professional. But I also see the worth in collecting and documenting in an objective manner any and all human events. Like THIS one. Isn't this the beauty of free content projects? Why suppress what so many people want to do? If they can create an impressive, comprehensive, objective account of this feud between Rosie and Trump, why stop them? Rollo44 09:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In the spirit of free content and good faith, I vote to create a separate article to document this celebrity feud. It may not be of interest or importance to YOU, but the attention and sheer volume of comments in this discussion show that there is an interest, energy, and desire to cover this issue. For Wikipedians, I am amazed at the closed-mindedness and elitism that so many exhibit. Rollo44 10:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that we should reduce the controversy down into one sentence with a link that connects to a "Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump Controversy" article. Most people here don't think this controversy is noteworthy. They do, however, allow a whole section about it to develop and exist on her biography page. And yet most would probably be opposed to reducing that to one sentence which connects to a separate article. Anyone notice the problem with that? Those who think it's stupid and pointless do not have to click the link to the article!!! Those who do find it interesting should be allowed to click such a link and view an objective and well-documented account of the controversy. Rollo44 13:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and carried it out. Go to Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump Controversy to view, edit, and add to the new article. And to those who don't approve of its existence, please don't follow its progress and evolution. Rollo44 13:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Gah! As much as this entire situation irks me I am refusing to edit it because people keep adding useless shit. But, I just had to take out the WWE comment for gods sake. There is no way either of them would appear on that program. But, otherwise I am counting the days until this whole thing disappears and we can confidently remove thie whole mess from Wikipedia. KrewBay 23:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • While the press trumpets this imbroglio as a "feud," it is so much more than that. I'm fascinated with how this is playing out, not only from a celebrity gossip point of view, but from an actual business and societal point of view. The controversy is interesting precisely because Donald Trump was so stung by the reference to bankruptcy. His two-pronged response has been to blast Rosie repeatedly and to protest on talk shows that he "never went bankrupt." First, as to the derogatory attacks on the widely beloved Rosie, even the CNN talking heads were stunned enough to comment the other day that one would expect a successful, wealthy executive to act in a "more refined manner." Second, as to Trump's disingenuous insistence that he never went bankrupt, the Wikipedia article on him clearly details several business bankruptcies and notes that he also narrowly avoided personal bankruptcy at one point. I think Trump's vigorous denials may actually prompt people to examine and appreciate that he has shed debt through at least three business bankruptcies. Why the heck would Trump want to draw attention to this financial history? Why can't he just take the high road and ignore Rosie's comments? It's a head-scratcher. When it comes to manipulating the press to protect or promote a business enterprise, this really seems to me to be a stark example of what not to do. It's an object lesson in how reacting badly, and stubbornly insisting on "gotcha last," can hurt a person's public image, and I could even see it becoming a case study in business schools someday if Trump insists on keeping it going. And for those who would pooh-pooh the possible negative business effect of this controversy, remember that Trump shot to popular fame and cemented his can-do reputation in the business world when he famously renovated a Central Park ice skating rink that the City had been working on for years without usable results, in just three months flat (and at no charge to the City). Despite all his big real estate projects, it was this one stellar performance on a dinky little ice rink that caught the public's fancy. Well, the public's fancy has been caught again, but the actions this time around are distinctly less than stellar. As I see it, Trump is shooting himself in the foot regarding his [formerly] carefully cultivated and controlled public image. Just imagine this on Saturday Night Live's "Coffee Talk": "Is the beloved golden boy still either beloved or golden? Discuss amongst yourselves." Wikipedia is, in part, a record of social history as it occurs, and giant business titan vs. giant celebrity {SORRY, SORRY, I just couldn't resist the pun!} is just unique enough to qualify. I'm dying to see how this Rosie/Trump controversy turns out, and look to Wikipedia for the (unbiased presentation of the) salient details of significant new developments.

One editing note: Since somebody deleted the description of how Trump threatened to send one of his people to pick up Rosie's partner, Kelly, the reference to Trump's subsequent letter ending with a greeting to Kelly just hangs in the air without proper foundation, so that sentence should be deleted as well. FirthFan1 07:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

    • Wow, I like your comments. Those are my sentiments exactly. I created a separate page for the feud, but some editor deleted it. Now there's barely a mention in Wikipedia of this feud's existence. It's a shame that Wikipedia is run by elitists who know what is and isn't important for inclusion. Anyway, I'm just venting a little. By the way, your Coffee Talk idea is hilarious! - Rollo44 10:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Trump didn't get where he is by being civilized. It reminds me of this twist on the old saying: "If you're so rich, how come you're not smart?" Wahkeenah 14:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I am annoyed that the entry was summarily deleted, allegedly because it needed citation, when it already had a citation added by somebody else that verified all of the quotes. Because somebody still stubbornly insisted on placing a notation on it about needing citations, I was in the process of researching the quotes and adding more citations when somebody abruptly dumped the article. Please restore it so that I can clean it up and dual cite everything, since that seems to be what it will take to satisfy that particular objector. I'm not a fan of this wholesale dumping when so many have worked so hard to get a readable article on what is truly a historic first - major business titan takes on major comedian. Dumping it and then announcing that others will just have to rewrite it from scratch if they want to add citations is uncalled for, IMO. Although some of these Yahoo, Fox, CNN and People articles disappear after a few days (so that the links we place in the article may come up empty), some of us actually print them out to assure accuracy when editing the article and they are certainly valid as of the date accessed and printed. I don't see any rule that requires citation only to print media, if permanency is the objection. Kindly restore it WITH EXISTING CITATIONS. FirthFan1 22:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • as to the question of whether the Trump controversy article should be added back in at all, I think it should. The biographical article right now is notable for its absence. Rosie will forever be famous for having stirred up the ire of The Donald. She and Barbara Walters will also be remembered for teaming up together to put a cork in his rants. He has abruptly backed down and, at the Golden Globes, declared it finished -- a testimony to the power of these two women. How can you include something as inane as the one-day controversy about where Clay Aiken's hand might have been (which, by the way, was more notable for Rosie's outing of Aiken rather than for Ripa's unintended double meaning) but not a huge, well-covered and electrifying month-long war of words with one of the biggest, most media savvy titans of industry? Criminy. FirthFan1 23:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleting any mention of the Trump controversy goes against the entire purpose of this Wiki. The first place I go to get an inkling about something someone famous did or said that was newsworthy is here for a user generated encapsulated summary. If I find nothing I then check online new sources to at least get an idea of what is going on.

[edit] Mistake in charity section

the numbering... "...confirmed that $50,000 million dollars from..."

The source needs checked and the number needs fixed.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

  • 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)

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)

  • 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. [2]: "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:

[edit] 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. [1]

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)

[edit] Awards section is upside-down

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 911 truth

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&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.—The preceding unsigned comment was 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:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. From the latter, I quote, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Beyond that, I'd just say that the answer to your question is debated with every addition and removal of information on Wikipedia every editor makes. Aleta 02:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
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 [3]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 —The preceding unsigned comment was 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 —The preceding unsigned comment was 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 —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

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." - Johnson, Richard (2007). H'wood's 9/11 Idiot Brigade. The New York Post. NYP Holdings, Inc.. Retrieved on 2007-03-30.
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." - Blair, Tim. "Ultimate treachery of a flawed, fickle, fatty", The Daily Telegraph (Australia), Nationwide News Pty Limited, 2007-03-31, p. 29. Retrieved on 2007-03-31. 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." - "Transcript, 8 WGBA Green Bay-Appleton, WI", NBC 26 News at 6 6:00 PM NBC, inewsnetwork Inc., 2007-03-29. Retrieved on 2007-03-30. 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)
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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/s/Talk%7ERosie_O%27Donnell_2b22.html"