Talk:Rosie O'Donnell/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Photo legend

Anyone care to better legend the photo ? I've no idea who is who between Mrs. O'Donnell and her wife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.23.239.242 (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Kasei-jin 12:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Kelli

Why is Kelly Carpenter redirected to Rosie O'Donnell? I realize they're married but I think Kelly deserves her own page. Rosie's bio is complicated with her works and whatnot since she is an actress. Just a thought. Batman6 06:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I just created a stub article for her instead of the redirect. Feel free to expand it. WikiGnome 16:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Edited because I felt previous edition was extremely biased and not NPOV. It seemed very slanted against her, it's still not perfect NPOV, but is significantly better now. ArthurDent 04:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I removed the line "However, as O'Donnell only supports of control of private ownership of guns," because it didn't seem necesary and additionally, it's not supported in either of the source citations for that paragraph, and no additional sources were added. Bigj 01:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

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.— Preceding unsigned comment 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)
This whole article is such an incredible joke. It is so obvious that it has been whitewashed and massaged to portray her in a favorable light, it is hilarious. One word of advice to the people who are trying to bring a NPOV to this article: Give up! Your efforts only mask the truly outrageous censoring for the innocent and ignorant (in the denotation of the word) people who do not know the facts. From a cursory reading of this article, you would think that the "legal union" was not struck down, that her image change was "sleight," etc., etc. Let them go whole hog, then a reasonable person can see easily that it is skewed. 75.3.227.149 07:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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!!!—Preceding unsigned comment 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)

Lesbian defines her neatly, it'd be too hard to type "Bitter, fat, man-hating dyke" all the time..it is...her essence

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

She has used the Virginia Tech shootings to make another whiney plea for "resonable gun control", which is just code for "take the guns away from conservatives".Lowellt 03:09, 21 April 2007 (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)

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.

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)

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".

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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.126.123 (talk)
      • That was already taken care of, 7 hours ago. Wahkeenah 23:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Statements needing citation

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.

Mistake in charity section

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

The source needs checked and the number needs fixed.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Rosie O'Donnell/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Unfortunately there seems to be intent to include celebrity gossip in this article. I can't see featured article status as being attainable until that aspect of the article is discussed and mitigated. Alan.ca 10:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 10:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 22:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rosie_O%27Donnell/Archive_1&oldid=1137164022"