Talk:Rosie O'Donnell/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Bush

Resolved.

This [1] is an interesting piece written by Rosie that could possibly go in the article. Claiming Bush somehow led to her cutting herself and almost killed her is mildly entertaining/completely pathetic. (note: this user is no fan of Bush, but thinks people claiming such things is absurd) The reason I'm not adding it is because I see there has been alot of arguing when it comes to edits. I don't need the wikistress. So feel free to add it or leave it out.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize it as pathetic so much as sad however the piece cleary covers her take on the Bush administration and her views o what led the US into the Iraq war so it's certainly useful for that. Benjiboi 18:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It is rather pathetic for her to blame Bush for an injury caused by herself. Political ideology aside, if she had said that about anyone other than Bush, almost everyone would agree she's insane to say that. (example: I watch the Superbowl and don't like that the Patriots lost. I get in my car to go 7-Eleven and on my way, I get in a car accident. Therefore, it's the Patriots fault. That's her reasoning.) But anyway, I'm hopping off my soapbox. Your addition of the reference doesn't include any mention of her blaming Bush for a personal injury.(unless I missed it) It seems rather imporant to me, considering that's a good portion of the article.AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Benjiboi 18:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mention it as it doesn't seem terribly noteworthy and it's not clear how the two are connected because she didn't make it very clear. It would also seem to do nothing but make her look foolish in some way and that's not our job. If a reliable source picks up on it and reports O'Donnell blames Bush blah blah blah...cutting herself then maybe but frankly the piece is a great overview on her take of Bush administration and why she's currently reticent to jump into politics. It's not a great piece explaining what happened and why as to the cutting of her finger. If that subject becomes significant then it can be revisited. Benjiboi 19:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

We'll agree to disagree on this one. Reliable source reporting O'Donnell blah blah blah'ing again: [2]AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI that source simply quotes the original and is a conservative blog so I wouldn't put too much weight on it. Now that O'Donnell doesn't have a national forum and is below the radar I doubt she's a priority target but we'll see. Benjiboi 21:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Shouldn't there be a separate section on her political beliefs/political activism considering how much she talks about it?AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Arguably the entire controversy section is already that but her political leanings are already sprinkled throughout so I don't see a need to reiterate what seems pretty clear. Benjiboi 21:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

ROD vs. Elizabeth Hasselbeck

Okay, let's have a look into this before it plunges into another absurdity:

From http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek1K6TYssa4, starting at 2 min 05 sec.

ROD: Do you believe I think our troops are terrorists, Elizabeth?

EH: I don't think that you ... (cut short by ROD)

ROD: Yes or No?

EH: I don't think that you ... (again cut short)

ROD: Do you believe it, yes or no?

EH: Excuse me, let me speak!

ROD: You're gonna double speak. It's just a yes or a no!

EH: I am not a double speaker and I don't put suggestions out there that lead people to think things and then not answer my own question. Okay?

ROD: I had a question for you and you didn't answer.

EH: I don't believe that you believe that troops are terrorists. I have said that before but when you say something like …

Benjiboi claims that EH only replied once in the negative when the transcript of that short segment shows at least two if not three times. The first time and second time she got cut short but even then the sentence was still a grammatically complete negative answer. The third time (probably the only one that Benji recognizes) finally was not cut short. Also, it is a bit dishonest to highlight the (supposed) "fact" that EH replied only once when this was due to ROD constant interruptions or to gloss over the personal attacks issue by ROD at the same time.

Now, as for the other rewording:

• co-hosts and guest hosts? How many hosts does that show have? Does it consists solely of hosts? Who are the guests?
• The names of the two women that also sat there are not important, especially Sherri Shepherd.
• It is nonsense to say a debate got "argumentative".

Finally, Benji, please do not twist supposed recommendations to you. Nothing in this world frees you from engaging on talk page in the case of disagreement over editing this article. You cannot simply revert without discussing things.

Str1977 ^(talk) 09:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Benji, do not hide behind a supposed ruling to avoid making your case on the talk page. I am beginning to consider this another way by which you claim WP:OWNership of this article.

Furthermore, my edits are no more OR than yours. The video link is a source and I am not deducing any synthesis from it, rather just presenting the contents. Oh, and where is your source that states that EH replied to the question "once"?

Str1977 ^(talk) 11:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Both versions of this are relatively OR, or at least primary source, IMHO. Can either of you find a source that discusses RO'D's politics and/or this debate with Hasselback? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I am all for reducing needless detail. It doesn't really matter how often EH replied in the negative to a repeatedly asked question - only we should not include false or misleading information. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Great - can we summarize the whole thing - the important part about that whole argument isn't their exact words, but rather that it lead to O'Donnell leaving the show. Can the section be rewritten to focus on that? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think youtube videos ought to be used as sources on articles about living persons.Bless sins (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi BS, what brough you here. We also have a transcript of the clash - however, seeing and hearing for yourself is even more reliable. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Are youtube videos allowed as references on WP? I'm not just talking about this article, but I had seen the same thing on other articles and have been wondering about that.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not consulted any policies or guidelines, but I'd say that as long as it is used simply to report a certain event it is admissible - just as we would admit a transcript. Or as an illustration. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Family Ancestry/Heritage?

i am just curious, what is rosies heritage? there is no mention of her family history. her birth name sounds, on the surface, to be fairly irish-catholic in origin. however this reference to a line in her blog, makes me wonder if she is (or considers herself?) jewish -- "bashert—as we say, And on we go." (my emphasis on "we".) i think any info on family ancestry is pretty standard in biographical entries on wikipedia, so might be nice to have added here. thanks! Jon Lon Sito 18:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell she's mostly just Irish. This link shows that her father's ancestry goes back to County Tyrone in Ireland. (Also that she's distantly related to Bridget Moynahan) Her mother was "Roseann Teresa MURTHA" and most Murthas are Irish as well, see the last names on Kings of Breifne, going by what I've found. Hebrew or Yiddish words are used by many people raised in the Long Island/NYC area so don't necessarily indicate a person's Jewish. She may have converted to Judaism for all I know as I'm not knowledgeable about this person. I just hear her mentioned on the news on occasion and Googled her geneology.--T. Anthony 12:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

She wrote in her blog that she sometimes "feels Jewish" as a state of mind only - love of family etc. Her roots are Irish Catholic, but she is not particularly religious. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

References

Though brought about by a particular reference, I have a general question: why are author's name in references sometimes given as "Surname firstname", sometimes as "Firstname surname" and sometimes not given at all. Shouldn't this be uniform. Personally I prefer the "Firstname surname" option in footnotes (as opposed to a bibliographical list). Str1977 ^(talk) 11:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

7 World Trade Center collapse

arching a version so material and sources can be found

“ And still, we’re the only nation that’s ever used nuclear atomic weapons on human beings. We did it twice. Hiroshima, Nagasaki. ” — Rosie O'Donnell

On March 26, 2007, in a conversation about the Bush administration's rationale for the invasion of Iraq, O'Donnell stated that 7 World Trade Center had been imploded, in line with 9/11 conspiracy theories. When asked by Hasselbeck who she thought was responsible, she commented that she had no idea, but according to the Miami Herald she suggested in her blog that it was done to destroy evidence of the corporate financial scandals at Enron and WorldCom. The building housed the offices of government agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Popular Mechanics posted a response on its website and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is still investigating the collapse.

Dating Alanis Morissette

is it true that she used to be dating Alanis Morissette? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parapazzi (talk • contribs) 02:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, but if you find a reliable source it may be worth including. Banjeboi 07:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional Book

Resolved. book added. Banjeboi 07:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

She has authored an additional book called Crafty U that needs to be added to the two book sections in this article. Thanks, bob BlueLint (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

done. Banjeboi 07:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Pejorative word used as adjective in article

Resolved

 – done. -- Banjeboi 21:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the word "dyke" being used, even in quotes, and even if it's part of a parsed out of context statement by the subject. This word is a pejorative and derogatory slang for lesbian or homosexual person. Such language has no place in Wikipedia. You do not see articles saying Whoopi Goldberg is an "N-word" now do we? It's the same thing. If Mrs. O'Donnel said she is one, then the QUOTE should be in the article, in quotation, not the word dyke as if an adjective describing a trait.

bawwwwww, cry more. Wikipedia's about the truth, not being politically correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.5.18 (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I an no opposition to quotes, however someone needs to replace the word Dyke for what she came out as with Lesbian or Homosexual.--72.224.93.8 (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't censor. If she had said 'I'm a lezzie' or 'I'm a homosexual' we would as that instead. But we;'re using her self-descriptor in this case. -- Banjeboi 21:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a conscious choice to be offensive. It has been brought to your attention that "dyke" is a pejorative term and you not only haven't edited it but you have attempted to claim to not be censoring. In reality, if you were truly not censoring it, you would include the quote in it's entirety. You're either intentionally trying to be offensive, or just a very poor writer. All that would have to be done to make it accurate would be to say "...came out by stating "I'm a dyke..." or whatever the exact quote she used was. Do you understand? She didn't stand there and say "Dyke". Don't preach about "we don't censor" when you have in fact selectively edited it in a way that is offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.146.227 (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Rosie's Broadway Kids

Resolved

 – done. -- Banjeboi 21:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you add the link to Rosie's Broadway Kids on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karasalg (talk • contribs) 18:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "buzz" :
  • [http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/view/192276 "The Future of The View"] TV Guide, June 3, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-06-05.
  • [http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/view/192276 "The Future of The View"] TV Guide, [[June 3]], [[2006]]. Retrieved on [[2007-06-05]].

DumZiBoT (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Democrat?

Nothing in the article says so. An editor added a GLBT-Democrat category to the list. I deleted, with an edit summary. He re-added, with an edit summary referencing a different Democrat category. I'm stroking my beard, quizzically. Can one category serve as a reliable source for another? Methinks no. That shouldn't stand.

I don't doubt Ms. O'Donnell supports causes that might lead one to guess she's a Democrat. Here at Wikipedia, when things are asserted, there's supposed to be a source. Is there, in fact, a newspaper profile or magazine story that says she's a registered Democrat? Has she ever been quoted identifying herself as a Democrat? If there's a source, it should be inserted. Until then, both categories should be deleted.

Groucho Marks famously refused to be a member of any club that would have him. Might Rosie have a similar comedic take? We dunno. Until we do, the categories should go. David in DC (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Categories must be supported by content in the article. I would feel more comforatble if we found a reliable source taht stated she was one and weave that into the article content as well. Banjeboi 02:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The closest HOLY SHIT SHE IS A FUCKING WHALE ~~BUBBLE94 I'm seeing is that she's been called a liberal and her brother is a democratic politician. Not conclusive quite yet. Maybe one of her books shares this? Banjeboi 02:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've looked for several hours and can find nothing. I can find articles calling her liberal. I can find articles calling her progressive. I can find articles calling her devil-spawn. I can even find articles calling her worse. But I can't find her calling herself a Democrat and I can't find anyone else calling her a Democrat. I've deleted the two categories with a request in the edit summary not to re-insert them without first inserting text and a source. David in DC (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No prob. Thank you for checking into it all. Banjeboi 04:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed

“ And still, we’re the only nation that’s ever used nuclear atomic weapons on human beings. We did it twice. Hiroshima, Nagasaki. ” — Rosie O'Donnell

In March 2007, in a conversation about the Bush administration's rationale for the invasion of Iraq, O'Donnell stated that 7 World Trade Center had been imploded, in line with 9/11 conspiracy theories. When asked by Elisabeth Hasselbeck who she thought was responsible, O'Donnell commented that she had no idea, but according to the Miami Herald she suggested in her blog that it was done to destroy evidence of the corporate financial scandals at Enron and WorldCom. Popular Mechanics posted a response on its website disputing the claims.

Discussion

I've removed this section as it certainly seems undue and, at this point, serves only to disparage a BLP. If O'Donnell were still on the View or even had another daytime talkfest where she was regularly talking about 9/11 conspiracies then maybe this would make sense. but this really was a blip and can be shelved as yet another contentious news topic she discussed with four other chatty women to get ratings for The View - which was her job. -- Banjeboi 23:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

These statements were made—I didn't just invent this. And those statements were responded to by reliable sources. It's not disparaging at all—it's cited, factual information. And the same goes for the "ching-chong" incident. Now maybe it doesn't deserve its own section. It can go under a more general category, but does deleting it entirely maintain what you correctly cite in BLP as a neutral article? -- Veggy (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No one is denying these things were said but the article is about O'Donnell though so we have to put weight on how does this information/content impact on her life story - so far - and what needs to be reported here to benefit our readers' understanding of the subject. If she were still on a national TV show spouting 9/11 info - fringe theories or not - it would be a more compelling case. Instead this, similar to her many interests regarding New York were fed by her close proximity, which makes sense. She regularly covered all sorts of 9/11 subjects but were only focussed on this one that discredits her. She was also hardly alone in this field at the time and the final reports of whatever agency was doing teh review was still out. If we discussed, at length, her passionate zeal to discuss the deadly diseases of first-responders I would also feel it needed context and due weight. In fact, I think she discussed that more. I appreciate that she had a lot of critics and detractors but they were largely tied to her being on the View. Now she doesn't have her own soapbox so the dramas have all seemed to melt away. as time goes on this section will shrink in hindsight as she keeps doing new projects. -- Banjeboi 16:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You continue to ignore that third-party sources widely covered the controversy. Her discussion of 9/11 first responder health problems was not reprinted and discussed by the media as widely as her comments on 9/11. Further, her comments on 9/11 contributed, in part, to her getting booted from The View.[3] Now I didn't write the passages above, so that plus the "ching-chong" nonsense and her insinuations that the 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel was pre-planned. -- Veggy (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't ignored anything here, this just doesn't seem to be that notable. Every time O'Donnell stated something that either social conservatives or her critics - most notably Fox News - could seize upon they acted like she had kicked puppies. They likely did this to 1. get ratings themselves because, at the time, O'Donnell was one of the most loud-mouthed liberals on daytime talk and her statements could be spun into OMG news clips. better than showing Paris, Britney or Lindsey behaving badly; 2. Because O'Donnell was highly visible and an easy target and 3. Because The View airing early gave the news producers and bloggers plenty of time to rail against her before their commentary had to go live. That Fox news commentary is not a reliable source for why she ended her contract which is discussed and sourced in the article already. The whole View section needs to be trimmed down and I still see little value in adding that - oh yeah, she got this wrong too. Her remarks about all manner of subjects was regularly rebroadcast. Maybe she planned it so we should avoid feeding into it. I don't know but trying to hang a weight around her neck that she too though there was a conspiracy in play at the time just doesn't seem that important. If we endlessly discussed her relationship to New York City, maybe but her love of Broadway musicals would far outweigh this stuff. -- Banjeboi 05:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I brain-farted the last sentence of my previous comment and didn't correct it. What I was going to finish saying was: when talking about undue-weight, the length and breadth of coverage on a particular subject has the most to do with it. I don't think the Rosie O'Donnell article should have a laundry list of every shocking thing she's said, but as many of the things she has said have been subject to third-party criticisms, either they should be condensed into: "O'Donnell has been the subject of various criticisms including her views on the 9/11 attacks, her supposed "mocking" of the Chinese language, and her promotion of conspiracy theories. That or a Criticism of Rosie O'Donnell article much like the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) article. You're advocating a complete wipe of some of her more controversial statements. I won't have that. -- Veggy (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha, Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator), BTW, is pretty bad but given his career it makes sense that an article similar to that is warranted. O'Donnell, however, isn't a political commentator, never had a bully pulpit show of her own to discuss contentious views; only briefly was even commenting on hard news (6 months?) subjects in this manner and instead focussed on entertainment and pop culture. We could look to including a sentence but we also need to consider which statements actually deserve inclusion. The Hot topics portion of The View, usually the first 5-10 minutes of the show, covered a handful of subjects each day with her critics cherry-picking statements - likely to make her look like an opinionated loudmouth - and contrasted them with Hasslebeck, a social conservative. Many of them were pure recentism and simply weren't that notable at the time and even less so now. The ching chong bit was minor, she apologized on air and it seemed the next news cycle kicked in and it was forgotten. The 9/11 bit were magnified by her regular detractors and the Science website reposted their initial report but added her name to it. Why? Um, it just may have been to make themselves a part of that cycle of news. I'm not sure if there are any promotions of conspiracy theories instead of the 911 building collapse - which, in hindsight - she was wrong. If she was still on the air and still was insisting the report was flawed and it's a conspiracy then it would likely be picked up and recycled again. It would be more helpful to look at neutral sources that have reported on her time there and see how they cover it. In a quick look, the list has shrunk to focus on "outbursts" regarding Trump and co-host Hasslebeck who is now arguing with Behar instead. The list is likely several dozen bits long, like this gem apparently as a statement against war. In looking as well, I see she's holding off blogging this year so her life is likely centered on her family, foundation and teh R Vacation business. -- Banjeboi 08:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• O'Donnell controversies also not covered; whatever she said about Rupert Murdock, calling Oprah a little gay, radical Christians are as bad as radical Islamists[4], Paula Abdul, Kelly Ripa, Fox Network, "American Idol"[5]. -- Banjeboi 08:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• O'Donnell regarding the controversies - "a lot of it was due to the fact that I was on a program which encouraged you to speak your feelings — and I did. And some of those, at the time I spoke them, were controversial."[6]. -- Banjeboi 08:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is this POV?

On the top of the page it says "Spouse(s) Kelli Carpenter". This in itself is POV because marriage is a union between men and women, but let's put that aside for a second... Later in the article it says "All the same-sex marriage licenses were later voided by the California Supreme Court." So, 1. she isn't married because her partner is a woman, and 2. she isn't married because the legal license was void ... am I missing something? Why is she listed as having a spouse?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.11.147.184 (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The information is outdated, I believe, there is a pending California case - I think a couple were bundled together - in regards to the voter proposition that passed. O'Donnell and Carpenter identify as spouses so that seems the least controversial way of presenting it. -- Banjeboi 16:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A fact tag was added so I found a source to support it. -- Banjeboi 18:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Too POV

"Pedophile, as in this instance, is commonly misused to describe all sexual offenders of children."

How can someone commit an act of sexual violence upon a child and - not - be a pedophile?

An instance of child abuse may only be one example of the numerous manifestations of a complex aberration like pedophilia but it still constitutes pedophilia.

Whoever thought it wise to contribute this disclaimer needs to articulate how child abuse is not pedophiliac or remove this sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.18.34.5 (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, where is this in the article so I can check it out? Thanks, --Tom 22:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This is in context to the massive priest sexual abuse scandal(s) that O'Donnell commented on. IMHO, it's nitpicking because the media widely called all the abuse pedophilia even if technically or legally it might be called something similar or even very different sounding. You might want to take these very real concerns though to the actual pedophilia so they can be accurately addressed. -- Banjeboi 20:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Conspiracy theorists

Huh? 18.244.7.149 (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, we need to be careful on BLPs. -- Banjeboi 04:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

An American Carol....

Rosie wasn't in An American Carol, according to imdb.Maryland157 (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

IMDB is generally not a good source but looking at the movie's website she's not listed so i think we can remove it. -- Banjeboi 17:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a typo

"In 2008 O'Donnell stared in and executive produced a Lifetime original movie called America..." I would hope she did something besides stare. I would fix it but it's protected. Destlund (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 Done - Fixed, thank you! -- Banjeboi 01:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward please

Instead of getting sidetracked explaining each and every step to the current state let me point out it seems we have three choices:

• 1. Leave it out of the article altogether; (two editors (since the reorganization) have expressed support for this option, one opposed)
• 2. Compromise version (present version) allowing the narrative to remain but paring it down to only the most salient points: (no one seems terribly happy with the compromise but I can live with it)

Actor Danny Devito appeared drunk for his interview and later admitted he had been up all night, the following day after the segment had been widely reported as a scandal, O'Donnell used ching chong while comically describing newscasters worldwide covering the non-news event. She then had to apologize the following show to "those who felt hurt" saying "Some people have told me it's as bad as the n-word. I was like, really? I didn't know that."

• 3. Expanded version; (1 editor (since the reorganization) supports this choice, two are opposed)

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

I think this fairly summarizes things as of now, do you agree that this is an accurate summary, if so we can work our way to build consensus, if not what needs to change? Jnast1 (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:REFACTOR, I undid the collapsing of the discussion by Jnast1 as the discussion is ongoing and talking points have continually been missed and needed repeating. Collapsing those points in my opinion is not in our best interest. As explained previously, Wikipedia is not a democracy decided by votes (WP:DEMOCRACY), and consensus needs to be established using reasons based in policy and sources (WP:CONS). Your edits have been attempting to remove the content since September 2010, when your unsupported content removal was reverted by Str1977. That was the consensus until March 2011 when you removed content with unsupported claims of NPOV and BLP violations. Thus, your removing content again on April 5, 2011 with edit comment of "re-removing contested material, please gain consensus to re-add" is misguided. There needs to be a new consensus to remove content that was in place for the previous six months. The "compromise version" you proposed has factual inaccuracies, such as the fact that the initial apology was 9 days later and not the next show, a point which was previously made as part of the talk text that you previously collapsed. There still has been no acceptable reason why sourced text needs to be removed, especially since you have been insisting on a source from O'Donnell herself and then information from her autobiography was found and incorporated. Your edits and explanations also have ignored the input given in WP:3o. As you have continued to revert and not built upon my good-faith attempts to WP:IMPROVE the article even though the section was already tagged for neutrality concerns with Template:POV-section, I invite you to edit the disputed content instead on my user subpage at User:Bagumba/Rosie_O'Donnell while providing explanations here at the article talk page. —Bagumba (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You have an interesting view but I must simply disagree. Since the opinions of some others have occurred the article has been updated to remove and fix quite a few sections. When that was done it became blindingly obvious that the ching chong bit was simply WP:Undue. you seem to favor counting heads when it is in your favor but now are opposed that it is not. As for the "nine days" verses "next show she was on" well that's awfully quibbly but OMG nine days sounds horrible as if she never acknowledged the issue when she did so at the top of the next show she was on. I feel it's unfortunate to have any mention at all as this event is so very insignificant on this article, as has been repeated there were many dust-ups just as 'important' as this but as far as O'Donnell was concerned only the Hasselbeck and Trump ones actually impacted her. So again, in interest of not repeating the same discussion yet again can you look at the three options listed above and confirm this is an accurate view of the present situation? If not how can it be more accurate to make clear exactly what are the choices going forward. Jnast1 (talk) 09:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Your argument of WP:UNDUE is again repeated and has been unfounded per summary at above at 07:09, 3 April 2011. It is not acceptable to repeatedly mention a policy without supporting how it is applicable (WP:JUSTAPOLICY). Wikipedia is operated by consensus based in policy and sources and not votes (WP:CONS). Merely "counting heads", as you put it, is less important than the reasons being discussed, Wikipedia is not "quibbly"—as you stated it—about facts. Unless a reliable source is found, the argument that you have used since 20:17, 4 September 2010 that "as soon as she was told how offensive she was she apologized explaining she didn't know" needs to stop being repeated. Nine days did pass before the apology, even if as you say it "sounds horrible" (WP:WELLKNOWN). Your argument to suppress mention of the incident as insignificant is again a repeated on your part and ignores the previous consensus, "There was concern that other similar controversies were not included (WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST). It was recommended to include any missing events if they meet WP:EVENT. Others can be invited to help expand by use of expansion requests." In the interest of not repeating the same discussions, please provide any new applicable concerns on why fully sourced and neutral content (available at User:Bagumba/Rosie_O'Donnell) needs to be deleted. (WP:PRESERVE) —Bagumba (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I never stated Wikipedia was quibbly, just one point of contention between you and I which I believe is irrelevant but you likely do not. I think WP:Undue says it all but here is an excerpt;

Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.

In WP:BLP we have;

[they] must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.

I have explained exactly why I believe this content is unneeded and undue but I'll try it one more time to see if we can move forward. There were numerous 'scandals' attributed to O'Donnell during her months at the View, we even have reliable sourcing to prove it, yet none of these really are a part of O'Donnell's life story except Trump's protracted blitz and O'Donnell's ongoing disagreement with Hasselbeck over the Iraq War which ended O'Donnell's co-hosting the show early. A separate article about scandals would be even worse. I ask you again; Do you agree with the above three option summary? That is, do these seem like the most likely outcomes? If so let's move forward, if not what needs to change to make the summary accurate? Jnast1 (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Undue: 11 sources including O'Donnell's own autobio where she discusses this is hardly minority. This has been discussed before.

BLP: This has been discussed repeatedly. The text is all reliably sourced.

WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Please read it.

Proposed text still remains at User:Bagumba/Rosie_O'Donnell —Bagumba (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with your options. However, I alternatively propose to analyze/edit what is currently at User:Bagumba/Rosie_O'Donnell word by word until there is a consensus. Having it on a user page instead of the article will hopefully make this more constructive. One difference I see is that the apology was not the next day, nor the next show. It was nine days later. Also, the initial apology was not a whole-hearted apology, as critics and later O'Donnell herself admitted. This is the impact on O'Donnell's life you had been requesting, and it covers a few pages in her autobio. I do not believe she needed to acknowledge it to establish notability; nonetheless, this was important to you and now it has been established. I think the delay of the apology and the reception of the initial apology merit inclusion, as they are all reliably sourced. For neutrality, O'Donnell's full apology from her autobio need mentioning. I am willing to summarize any of O'Donnell's quotes to shorten this, if length is your concern. Frankly, I am willing to leave her quotes to avoid a potential dispute over neutrality of the summary, even though the critics' quotes have already been removed. —Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Does the "Chinese language parody" merit inclusion or not?

During her seven months as moderator on The View O'Donnell had two main disputes; the media blitz waged by Donald Trump and the Hasselbeck/O'Donnell argument; both have been shown to markedly impact her life and are brought up by her often. There were numerous other incidents that are not included. Does the "Chinese language parody" merit inclusion or not? If so, what should be included to adhere to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV? Jnast1 (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Do not include any of it.
2. Keep a brief-as-possible mention. (this is presently in the article)

Actor Danny Devito appeared drunk for his interview and later admitted he had been up all night, the following day after the segment had been widely reported as a scandal, O'Donnell used ching chong while comically describing newscasters worldwide covering the non-news event. She then had to apologize the following show to "those who felt hurt" saying "Some people have told me it's as bad as the n-word. I was like, really? I didn't know that."

3. Use a full version.

[Actor Danny Devito appeared drunk for his interview and later admitted he had been up all night]. On December 5, after the segment had been widely reported as a scandal, O'Donnell used ching chong while describing newscasters worldwide covering the non-news event. She was criticized for her use of the term, and there was disappointment of her perceived insensitivity when she had fought for gay and lesbian rights and spoken out against homophobia. On December 14, O'Donnell apologized to "those who felt hurt" explaining that "Some people have told me it's as bad as the n-word. I was like, really? I didn't know that." O'Donnell warned that "there's a good chance I'll do something like that again, probably in the next week, not on purpose. Only 'cause it's how my brain works." Time called it a "pseudo-apology". O'Donnell later wrote in Celebrity Detox that "I wish I had been a bit more pure in my public apology."

4. Create a new article devoted to all the controversies while O'Donnell was on the View.

Reference list

Comments from new (non-involved) editors

• Use a full version. I don't see any reason to hide the material that exists with citation. Seeing the uproar that it caused, I think that makes it notable. I don't see how this relates to WP:NPOV, as the events speak for themselves. It seems that WP:BLP is met if the material is referenced by a reliable source. Niluop (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The NPOV issues are that this was just not that notable event in O'Donnell's life, it happened and was over, unlike the main two issues. "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively…" It is a BLP issue in that Wikipedia is endorsing that she is in some way racist toward Asian people and insincere with her apology - so a liar as well as a bigot. That really doesn't belong on a biography unless numerous sources site those charges about her as a person, over a lifetime. In the context of one event it's undue which is also a NPOV issue. Can we write 'some in the Asian-American community feel she is a racist'? Of course not, a review of the situation demonstrates that. Neither should we imply such a thing. Jnast1 (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Are you arguing that 13 reliable sources is not "significant coverage"? The quote of WP:BLP is out of context, the full sentence is "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Wikipedia is not the "primary vehicle" when it uses reliable sources. WP:WELLKNOWN says, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Option #3 does not use the words "racist", "liar", or "bigot" that Jnast1 alleged, so it is confusing to what Jnast1 is referring. With regards to Jnast1's claim of WP:UNDUE, please explain based on policy how it is applicable. Don't just mention a policy (WP:JUSTAPOLICY). —Bagumba (talk) 06:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The event appears to be notable and meet WP:N. Niluop (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

We all know that some sources exist to confirm this incident, was it that notable - no, it will never have its own article. Is it notable enough to be mentioned anywhere, well in the ching chong article surely but it's borderline at best on this article. Compared to the hundreds of sources covering the two main incidents this one has to work hard to scrape together a handful, only a couple of the non-primary ones actually say much. Jnast1 (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears that there is a number of individual editors who have a consensus that the event is considered notable (of course consensus can change) Yet, it appears that there continues to be a disagreement as to the size of the content, and what size would be appropriate while not violating WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This RfC has just started and I don't think there is a consensus nor even enough objective opinions to start making conclusions. Perhaps we can wait until other editors offer their insight? Jnast1 (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Use the short version. Peace to the WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST crowd, but identical behavior by Rush Limbaugh is not even mentioned in the list of controversies in his article. Both the Limbaugh and O'Donnell incidents are covered in Ching Chong. Best compromise here is a one sentence mention and link to that article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment It is, however, written in Shaquille O'Neal's article. I'm not arguing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it's just to illustrate that the merits of the sources relative to the subject are what need to be discussed along with Wikipedia principles and guidelines, and not high level comparisons as to what does or doesn't exist in another article. —Bagumba (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Use a short-version, no longer than a sentence or two. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time for contributing to this RfC. However, can you add an explanation for your vote, as article development does not usually rely merely on votes but instead uses consensus. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I know how dispute resolution works. In any case, Jonathanwallace has already posted my reasons why it should be limited. The full version, I fear, may violate NPOV by placing too much emphasis on it. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments from involved editors

• Option3: Use full version

As a background, Talk:Rosie_O'Donnell/Archive_4#Imitation_chinese_.28.22ching_chong.22_controversy.29 contains a summary of the discussions preceding the RfC.

WP:WELLKNOWN says to include notable controversies in BLPs if they are reliably sourced "even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". They do not require that they be "brought up by her often." In any event, O'Donnell has also written about the event in her autobiography, Celebrity Detox, which is used as a source in option #3.

Regarding the claim that "numerous other incidents that are not included", WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a reason not to include material if it is reliably sourced. The other stuff should be added as well, or another article created with a summary of that article included.

WP:PRESERVE would encourage rephrasing material with significant reliable coverage as opposed to option #1's, "Do not include any of it."

Mention of Danny Devito is irrelevant IMO, unless it was Devito's fault that a racial slur was used. Also, she apologized nine days later as stated in option 3 and not "the following show" as stated unsupported in option 2.

The initial apology was not genuine, as multiple sources reported, and as acknowledged later in O'Donnell's autobiogrphy. That seems to have "markedly impact her life" if she spent a few pages discussing it.

As option #3 is the superset of all choices, I would suggest discussion on that option with suggestions for improvement based on policy and reliable sources as to which words or sentences need modification or removal. Please feel free to edit my user page at User:Bagumba/Rosie_O'Donnell to build consensus. —Bagumba (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a far from neutral summary of discussion but we can let other editors decide for themselves. Jnast1 (talk) 05:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Creating an article only about controversies relating to the the show, The View, (such as exist regarding Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and regarding notable events relating to public individuals (such as the Monica Lewinsky Scandal)) and leaving a NPOV summary here would solve a lot of the issues. Furthermore, content in the new article would not be under BLP constraints, but still fall under NPOV policies. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that would be content forking. If the information is inappropriate here then creating a whole article devoted to even more of it would probably not be an improvement. And BLP applies to all living people in all articles.Jnast1 (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The content is appropriate here, IMHO; the question is how much is to much thus creating a possible WP:UNDUE situation.

It would be relevant as much to the content of the show The View, as much as it is here as the subject of this article who was directly related to the notable event in question. Moving it away from this article into its own separate article, or under an article about controversial events that occurred on the show, could be seen as appropriate under WP:SPINOUT, and again avoid BLP constraints allowing for further expansion (as long as it is supported by reliable sources) while still having to follow NPOV policy. Furthermore, as the event(s) are notable enough on their own to warrant their own articles, one can always make an article regardless of consensus, or lack their of, that occurs here.

An additional reason why I proposed the spinout, is to avoid any possible conflicts regarding this subject, and allowing for it to be more focused on the event itself, rather than the participants of the event. A summary can be left here that is very brief and therefore would retain some information while avoiding Undue.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You bring up an excellent point, the only incident in The View article is the Hasselbeck argument which led to O'Donnell leaving her contract early, thus having an impact on the show itself. The two main events impacting O'Donnell herself are discussed at length in dozens of reliable sources where this one is not, and no signs that it had any impact on her life at all. In fact it comes off as WP:Advocacy of sorts to sully a LGBT rights spokesperson for being less than aware about Asian-American issues. In any case the event is already in the article and an extended version with undue editorializing and unneeded quotes is already in ching chong. And just to be clear WP:BLP applies to all articles, not just actual biographies. Jnast1 (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree with the assessment that this event that is in discussion is NOT discussed in reliable sources; if anything it has been well established that it has been, and is mentioned, by MULTIPLE reliable sources. The question on length is a valid discussion, however I believe that to question the notability of the event is not in question, and has been well proven to this point. As far as the subject of this article, it should not matter whether the person is an advocate of ABC or D. If we are to adhere to WP:NPOV, then that shouldn't matter as to what and why we, as editors, edit. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope in bringing up WP:ADVOCACY that other users here are not accusing other users of this, as this can be seen (rightly or wrongly) as not adhering to WP:AGF, and I don't think that that would be beneficial to the civil discussion that has so far been occurring. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Keeping with Wikipedia:CANVASS#Appropriate notification I am notifying all users that I have used the please see template multiple times, including WikiProjects and subjects related to the article Ching chong, to inform possible interested users of the present discussion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually you rather violated WP:Canvass by purposely inviting comments from Wikiprojects of the ching chong article while conveniently avoiding the Wikiprojects for this article. I think this is part of the leap of logic problem being made. No one disputes that the content is important to and can remain in some form at the ching chong article, as I stated previously I tried to address what I saw was extreme POV editing but I was reverted by the same editor who is championing the re-insertion of the full content here. As to the misreading of my other comments, I did not say that there were no reliable sources just not many at all, and compared to the two actual controversies it's no doubt at all how insignificant this episode was on Rosie O'Donnell's life - which is the subject of this article. Jnast1 (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Warning Jnast1, please stop the personal attacks of RightCowLeftCoast "you rather violated", "purposely inviting comments" and "conveniently avoiding the Wikiprojects". —Bagumba (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

As requested, I have invited possible interested editors from wikiprojects related to the subject of this article.

Please see WP:AVOIDYOU & WP:AGF. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Bagumba, please knock off the repeated warnings and such, WP:Canvass is pretty clear this is a case of vote-staking. I AGF it wasn't intentional. Jnast1 (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I would kindly ask that other editors not accuse me of vote-staking. I see that other editors have posted please see templates, while I was doing so as well. I would like to thank those other editors. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast provided a notification in this talk page. I would assume he is not canvassing if he was being upfront. Also, I assume that all projects notified as a collective whole are neutral even if individual editors in the project have a particular viewpoint. There does not appear to be notification of individual users. —Bagumba (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment A point of dispute is the length and neutrality of the full version. Here is a breakdown of option 3 above. Sentence 1: Statement on Devito's sobriety. This is trivia and can be removed. Sentence 2: Statement on start of incident Calling it a "non-news event" is not neutral and needs to be sourced and attributed or removed. Sentence 3: Statement on initial criticism Fully sourced statement. Individuals/groups that hold the opinion can be attributed but was earlier contested and removed. Sentence 4&5: Apology by O'Donnell nine days later Fully sourced with attributed quotations. Sentence 6: Response to apology Fully sourced and attributed statement. Sentence 7: O'Donnell statement one year later Sourced and attributed with quotations.
  If the first sentence is in fact removed, this is six sentences summarized from 11 sources, which I see as acceptable, not undue, relative to the amount of notable sources cited for an incident spanning one year. Regarding neutrality, the sentences alternate between O'Donnell's statements and her critic's. Quotes have remained for O'Donnell's text, even though quotes have been removed for her critics. Length could be shortened further if consensus can agree to a suitable summary of O'Donnell's quotes. —Bagumba (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Respectfully disagree, Devito's appearing inebriated is what started the entire "non-news" event (that's what the co-hosts called it). The co-hosts were surprised that his appearance got international coverage. She was criticized for the use of the phrase, we know that and can give credit to readers of having common sense. Nine days later! OMG!!! that sounds horrible until you know she wasn't on air all nine days, in fact the show she was on after she realized it was offensive, she discussed the issue and apologized that it wasn't meant to offend. We have the one quote already - "Some people have told me it's as bad as the n-word. I was like, really? I didn't know that." This encapsulates how not a big deal it was. She said something that came off as offensive, learned it was offensive and apologized. Insinuating the apology wasn't good enough or soon enough feels like a form of soapboxing against O'Donnell to me. Jnast1 (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment Please provide a source to verify "that sounds horrible until you know she wasn't on air all nine days" —Bagumba (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
      • The show is usually taped four or five days a week so no one one was taping for nine days in a row, that's the point. It is inferring O'Donnell didn't apologize soon enough but that's false if she did so on the next show she was on. Jnast1 (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Please provide a source as requested per WP:V. —Bagumba (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Let's just wait and allow the RfC to run its course so other editors can take part. If this content is kept at all, drilling down for specific wording can ensue at that point. Jnast1 (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• No, leave it out completely, more trouble that it's worth, This has taken up a phenomenal amount of energy and time and if Ms. O'Donnell weren't alive (WP:BLP!), I probably wouldn't care. Instead we should look at the subject of this article - O'Donnell - and see what impact on her life story these three incidents have had as noted in sources;
  ** In news hits we have 3570 for Trump, 74 for ching chong, and 1780 for Hasselbeck;
  ** The Trump feud was waged in the media, mainly by Trump and went on for weeks and remained a top entertainment news story; We have roughly 9 lines in the article addressing this issue;
  ** The Hasselbeck / Iraq War debates had gone on for months and was again mainly covered in the media, as a result O'Donnell left the show and her contract early, this argument ended her stay at The View. We have roughly 18 lines in the article addressing this.
  ** All other "controversies", I believe there were over two dozen episodes that someone was trying to make into a controversy, none of which have had a lasting effect. We have roughly 4 lines addressing these.
  ** The ching chong episode was one of these controversies, and I certainly agree that even though not intentional it was in fact hurtful. Lasted at best nine days and IMHO only because she wasn't on air to make the apology sooner. We have roughly 2.5/3 lines addressing this now, with an effort to double that.
  Additionally the innuendos that would be added is that she was an insincere and only pseudo-apologetic racist which is incredibly poor judgement for a living person's biography. Jnast1 (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Your argument ignores WP:GOOGLETEST, which has been discussed multiple times with you on this talk page about the dangers in simply looking at the number of hits. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is another repeated argument. Reagarding you comment that it "Lasted at best nine days and IMHO only because she wasn't on air to make the apology sooner." Nine days was not "at best", it is exact for her initial apology and is supported by sources. The entire incident was in fact longer, as O'Donnell issued another apology in her autobiogrphy a year later. Please provide reliable sources for "she wasn't on air to make the apology sooner" so it can be verified and incorporated into the article. —Bagumba (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Bagumba, I am rather frustrated in having you repeatedly arguing the same points over and over, it should be quite obvious that not only have I changed my position from keep some to keep none. In my statement above I'm expressing my opinion. Do I expect you to change your views, not really, but I do expect other editors to at least see the issues were raised in this RfC. If any of the content is to be kept a neutral wording of ho soon the apology came after she knew she offended someone can be dealt with. Let's just agree to disagree on all the other points you and I have discussed, I'd rather get fresh eyes on this to get a better perspective. Jnast1 (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Summary

Jnast1's comments are discounted as the user is a sockpuppet of Benjiboi. Benjiboi previously "trimmed" and "cleaned" notable and reliably sourced content until finally deleting all mention in October 2008 saying "these aren't very notable in retrospect". Similar unsupported deletions by Jnast1 have been reverted by the community since September 2010.

Outside of Jnast1, Jonathanwallace and Sceptre cited WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST using Rush Limbaugh as an example where their use of ching chong was not mentioned. However, a similar incident exists in Shaquille_O'Neal. In either case, stronger justification is needed besides non-existence of similar content in other articles to suppress reliable sourced content from 13 different sources. Niluop and Bagumba (myself) feel the content in the article is notable, reliably sourced and neutral. RightCowLeftCoast suggests spinning out an article of O'Donnell and The View if there are concerns with weight of the show relative to her BLP.

Accounting for the sockpuppets, there is no new consensus to revert the previous consensus for the content for the incident. If needed, please start a new section for any further discussion. —Bagumba (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of templates from Wikiprojects

User:Jnast1 had removed Wikiproject templates from this talk page. These templates are placed in articles by projects per Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual/Collaborating_with_Other_Editors/WikiProjects_and_Other_Group_Efforts#Recruitment. Unless there is agreement from the respective projects, it does not seem appropriate to question their interest in an article. Editing of other's contributions to the talk page without their permission is generally not acceptable.. As part of WP:BRD, please do not revert again without discussing and reaching consensus. —Bagumba (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please desist with the personalizing of edits. You might also want to consider looking at the spirit or underlying principles rather than the 'letter of the law'. The Wikiproject tags were removed because neither of those projects seem to be appropriate:

WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. This is not a religion-related article.
WikiProject United States is dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the United States, with an emphasis on subjects with regional and national significance. This is not an article that would seem to be of any interest. You might also look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Archive 6#Scope of WikiProject United States. Jnast1 (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Although there is an emphasis on regional and national subjects, this subject of this article IMHO is related to the United States.

Regarding the religion WikiProject, its scope is "The scope of this project is all articles in the Category:Religion. Specifically, this project hopes to deal with all articles relating to the religious observances, rituals, and practices, the histories of such practices, and related biographical articles." It appears that due to criticism of the subject of this article about certain religions, that this article was seen as a "related biography article". The WikiProject Religion was added sometime in February 2008, and has remained in this article until recently. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

A lot of stuff lingers until it is edited. Let's just ask someone from the Wikiprojects to decide for themselves. Jnast1 (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with her being part of the United States wikiproject, since she is a United States citizen. However, I am not sure why WikiProject Religion would apply here. She is not a religious figure or representative at the forefront, and while she may or may not subscribe to a religion or set of religious beliefs (as she was raised Catholic), she is not widely known as such; she is notable, at the forefront, for her comedy, acting, TV appearances, and her stances on LGBT and AIDS stances. From a religious standpoint, though? I don't know if I'm missing anything here, but I'm just not seeing it. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 01:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There was a subsection named "Accusations of anti-Catholicism" on the left side of the diff before the editor decided to take the subsections under the The View and collapse instead to a monolithic The View section. —Bagumba (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, just like there was a subsection just for the Chinese parody. The View was how many months of her life? And is how much of the article? IMHO, all the other sections need to greatly expand to put this one section into proper perspective. Jnast1 (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment I saw the posting at the Religion Wikiproject and I have removed that project from this entry as it clearly does not belong. This entry is very far from being within the scope of that project. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I further suggest someone remove Wikiproject United States. The subject is not of any particular significance to the nation she is a citizen of. Also note that the New York project is there as well, which should be enough.Griswaldo (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Wikiproject banner OK'd

Asked and answered.[7] Jnast1 (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually the conversation continued and the consensus now seems the opposite. See -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States#Should_Rosie_O.27Donnell_be_a_part_of_this_Wikiproject.3F. I note that the project banner has been removed.Griswaldo (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

First Movie

Rosie's first movie was with Fran Drescher. Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QHVRDUeNB4&feature=related I can't make out the name though. Entertainer91 (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Picture

The current picture isn't very flattering. Are there any other options? Cktt13 (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I switched it with one from further down the article. Rendinan (talk) 06:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Desmoid tumors

Hi,Mrs O'Donnell My name is Hattie,I saw you when you were on The Dr OZ Show and you shared some imformation on your foundation about Desmoid Tumors.Right now my daughter is suffering from this rare disease.I would like to know if you could provide me with more imformation about your foundation.the tumor is really growing and before i let anyone do sugery on her I would like more imformation.my e-mail is (email address deleted). I look foward to hearing from you.because I really dont know where to go from here it's not a lot of Dr'S that have delt with this disease and I dont want to make the wronge decision. THANK YOU PLEASE PLEASE RESPOND. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.31.63 (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that you thought we are affiliated in some way with Rose O'Donnell. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We have no special knowledge about Rosie O'Donnell. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Cresix (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Death

Reports are coming in that she died in the Sasago tunnel collapse in Japan due to her large girth. Can this be added to the aritcle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.48.193 (talk) 09:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Time article

Good overview with some information we are missing. Article here. Benjiboi

Possible source here.

Rosie O’Donnell selling anti-Israel artwork with photos — of Syria

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/11/rosie-odonnell-selling-anti-israel-artwork-with-ph/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.206.41 (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing here about her controversies?

There's nothing in here about her advocacy of 9/11 conspiracy theories or multiple other statements she's made. J390 (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"controversy" sections make bad encyclopedias. Particularly articles about living people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Explain why Trump, Beck, and others have controversy sections then, will you? And why they're called conspiracy theorists, but she's not? J390 (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Because they are all batshit crazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.2.43 (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

And she's not?24.6.40.199 (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)