Talk:Rosie O'Donnell/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

11-time award winning lesbian?

Perhaps a rewrite for the first sentence is in order. 68.38.51.154 23:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)pkmilitia

Article clearly covers the subject's sexuality.Benjiboi 23:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic section

Okay, Benjiboi, in reply to your message on my talk page. I didn't see the removal discussed so I didn't feel compelled to do so myself, though it would have been better to do so.

You argue that Donahue's view doesn't qualify - well, first of all, the section is termed "accusations of anti-Catholicism" and these accusations are fact, Donahue is a notable voice. Secondly, when you ask for Rosie's anti-Catholic quotes I suggest you read the removed article. It is right there: "You know what concerns me? How many Supreme Court judges are Catholic?" is already anti-Catholic bigotry, as a) it practically negates full civic rights to Catholics (such as serving as judges), b) plays on the stereotype of Catholics being remote controlled, c) would never pass if she said this about Mrs Bader-Ginbsburg. I suggest you read Philip Jenkins on this issue.

Removing this issue smells like hiding an inconvenient fact to me, hence POV pushing. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Donahue's press release seems quite un-encyclopedic as well as pushing POV. Mine was hardly the first opinion to state that. Agreed that simply saying "How many Supreme Court judges are Catholic" could be grounds but upon further investiagtion does not seem to stand up. If this article were "potential anti-Catholic pop culture references" then no problem. If there was mainstream (non-Catholic media) attention to her being anti-Catholic then perhaps this would hold up. Also any other quotes would also be good. As pointed out previously O'Donnell herself is, at least, a former Catholic and very outspoken n issues so if she is anti-Catholic there should be ample evidence besides one comment and a press release. Even so that one comment was kept, below is the current paragraph in the intro to the View section.

On April 19, the all-woman panel discussed the US Supreme Court ruling on Gonzales v. Carhart decision upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. O"Donnell stated "Everyone agrees partial birth abortion is horrific. It’s horrific for anyone who has to decide it." She went on to quote Gloria Steinem, "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." After a lengthy discussion she added, "You know what concerns me? How many Supreme Court judges are Catholic?"[24], adding "How about separation of church and state in America?" View founder and co-host Barbara Walters confirmed during the discussion that only the five Catholic Supreme Court Justices had upheld the ban. Benjiboi 06:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed what she says is bigotry. We are not to hide "good bigotry" (because it's only Catholics that are attacked).

The addition about "Barbara Walters confirmed it" is also POV pushing as it a) fakes a appearance of Rosie's point as being mere statistics, b) selectively uses a corolation - it was the Catholic Kennedy that voted differently the other way around. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's quite a stretch to label her comment as bigotry and even if you think that is true is it verifiable? The article is about Rosie O'Donnell not a comment she made in one of hundreds of hours of shows. I find it a reach to say she was attacking any group including Catholics. The Barbara Walters quote was a prt of that very discussion and was the answer to the question O"Donnell asked. I'm not sure what you mean by "selectively uses a corolation - it was the Catholic Kennedy that voted differently the other way around." Benjiboi 08:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself: you say Mr Donahue said but that doesn't matter cause it's wrong. Now you are saying if it were true there is no reference. Well, she has been accused of a-C by Mrs Ingram and Mr Donahue so the question whether the accusation is fact should be settled.

Secondly, her comments clearly are a-C as she insinuated that Catholics are robots that should be allowed in public office and called judges (five of which happened to be Catholic) giving a verdict perfectly in line with the laws and constitution a menace to the separation church and state - calling Mrs Bader a menace to that separation would never be accepted at all. In fact, Rosie is doing the same thing the constitution forbids by introducing a religious test.

The Barbara Walters quote is the worst of all as this suggests that the whole discussion is a matter of relating mere facts. There Justice Kennedy comes into play. He is a Catholic and he has in the past voted to uphold abortion (Casey vs. PP, the state partial birth abotion case) - now he has voted differently. To draw a complete picture of the five judges one would have to look at past record too and not selectively focus on this one case.

For the same reason - that it the altercation at The View was not a discussion of mere facts - it is not proper to discuss this as if it were. And as for redundancy - if we have a separate section on the whole issue it is indeed redundant to cover it before. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(Moved from my talk page) Hi, again please address the issues referenced above and on the talk page of the article before adding back a section that had previously been removed and tagged as NPOV before it was removed. The issues remain the same, Donahue and the Catholic League are not neutral and their press release quote is general innapropriate for an encyclopedia. The only other newsworthy quote I've found related to O'Donnell possibly being anti-catholic is her refering to pedophile priests moving from parish to parish because the Catholic Church was afraid of lawsuits. Benjiboi 09:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you are completely wrong. I did address the issue on the talk page and you replied to it so claiming otherwise is a bit rich.

Now, who says Donahue is not appropriate. There is no such thing as neutrality, especially when it comes to accusations. The ACLU is not neutral, the ADL is not neutral and still they are quotable references in their fields.

Just because you can't see the bigotry in the above statement doesn't mean it's not there (again I suggest reading Philip Jenkins on this). In any case, it has been detected by others (so it's not OR) and only selective quotation can prevent its inclusion.

That she issued other anti-Catholic statements (like the one you quoted) doesn't hurt my case, rather it supports it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

None of the statements quoted here or in the article attack Catholics. They attack the policies and policy-makers of the Catholic Church. I know Donahue's organization considers any criticism of Catholic doctrine "bigotry" but Donahue doesn't get to define words. O'Donnel is definitely opposed to many policies and teachings of the Catholic leadership. That does not make her anti-Catholic. 09:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)thx1138 09:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree: simple opposition doesn't make her an anti-Catholic. But what she said quoted above makes her one. Ever heard of insinuation and implication? Ever heard of the "Know-nothingers"? Ever heard of President Kennedy's speach to the Baptists? Rosie is playing on the same stereotypes JFK had to deal with back then.

Also, in the quote above she doesn't "attack the policies and policy-makers of the Catholic Church", she attacks five supreme court judges, basically implying that Catholics should not be allowed to sit there. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The issues remain the same. This is an artcile about Rosie O'Donnell and in order to add a section into the Controvcersies about her anti-Catholicism you need to quote her as clearly being anti-Catholic or demonstrate mainstream coverage of her being anti-Catholic like all the other "controversies" do. The Catholic League press quote didn't help as it not only is from a Roman Catholic conservative political group but it was vague and talked about both Behar and O'Donnell. So the one good quote has been kept in the article. The only other one I've found is O'Donnell talking about "pedophile priests moving from parish to parish because the Catholic Church was afraid of lawsuits" which might be anti-Catholic but more makes the point that someone ought to be which doesn't seem productive. Benjiboi 21:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's put this simple: this article is about Rosie and that particular section is about controversies caused by her. One of those was that she was accused of anti-Catholic bigotry because of that remarks (rightfully IMHO but that doesn't matter). The accusation is out there and who are apparently trying to hide it. Your trying to disqualify the Catholic League from being a reference is baseless - also, what about criticism by Laura Ingram - is this unimportant too? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That Donahue talks about Mrs Behar too is no reason to disqualify the comment as he clearly talks about Rosie too. Also, last time around I though ABC was mainstream media so there you have your coverage (and ABC even terms it "anti-Catholic backlash").

If you want more of Rosie's bigotry, try this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Laura Ingram is American conservative talk radio host, and the Media Research Center is a conservative media criticism organization devoted to "documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias" so no, not a great source except maybe research. And to that there was an anti-Catholic sounding quote but it seems to relate to the pedophilia scandal. We'd have to know the full context of what was actually said (rather than just the edited quote) and if there was follow-up to the statement (like an explanantion, apology, etc.) = “I really hope the Catholic Church gets sued until the end of time. Maybe, you know, we can melt down some of the gold toilets in the Pope’s Vatican and pay off some of the lawsuits because, you know, frankly, the whole tenet of Christianity, of being pious, of living a Christ-like life, has been lost in Catholicism.” (MSNBC’s Donahue, 2/24/03) Benjiboi 10:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And there you go again trying to disqualify sources - the accusations are out there and they are notable enough for at least ABC to report them. There is a controversy about this

So it doesn't really matter whether you or I think that this or that quote is really a-C.

However, I for my part cannot follow your reluctance to see bigotry where it occurs - hoping for the demise of the Church and announcing that she is devoid of piety is not criticism but bigotry.

So context is fine and dandy but context doesn't turn bigotry into reasoned criticism. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. Again, not trying to disqualify anything, the statements or the media that delivered them. Bigotry is intolerance of ""opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own" and I don't see that in O'Donnell but I am seeing that elsewhere. Wikipedia is not run by my rules but there is a tenet of neutrality and published by reliable sources. Where is the ABC report - perhaps that will help find some neutrality so that the section could be re-added to everyone's satisfaction. Benjiboi 21:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Benji, if you say you don't want to disqualify then I believe you and I hope your actions will conform with your words.

As for the ABC report, it is linked in the article text (after the Ingram bit).

PS. Could you please resume to signing your posts. Thanks, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think my actions have been quite clear as I have tried to help organize the article including researching many of the sections that were lacking and adding context to help the entire article be cohesive as well as documenting references so that future editors had good material to work with. The anti-Catholic section as it was and is again was quite imbalanced and utilized right-wing sources that weren't up to wiki standards. I'm open that O'Donnell might be anti-Catholic but as has been stated by other editors on this talk page the section needs to be vastly improved or removed. I worked hard to research that whole section and made thoughtful edits with references to keep what could be used and weave that into the current article. Thanks for pointing out the ABC article as I either hadn't seen it or forgotten about it. The ABC article does seem good but the press release quote does not. I still think the entire section needs to be reworked to put all the comments from O'Donnell (and Walters) in context, then refer to protest emails and button with any response or outcomes. Apologies for not signing a comment or two, it was a simple oversight and I'll try to do better. Benjiboi 21:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I referred merely to your actions regarding my edits. I don't know about your previous edits and don't have the time or energy to find out about them.

"The anti-Catholic section as it was and is again was quite imbalanced and utilized right-wing sources that weren't up to wiki standards."

That's your opinion and not fact. There is no wiki reason to disqualify these sources, especially if other sources report the same (albeit with a different opinion on it).

Whether it is imbalanced - there is always room for improvement. But to move the coverage of an existing controversy about supposedly bigoted comments to another section is placing an undue weight on the issue (as this is merely one issue discussedaddressed on that show) and also to transform them into a discussion of facts is POV pushing as it endorses the comments (Rosie didn't actually ask for the information about numbers but wanted to drive home a bigoted stereotype of Catholics).

If you are looking for context I still suggest that you inform yourself about stereotypes about Catholics, anti-Catholic bigotry in American history, about rhetorical devices in the abortion debate and then come back and reconsider whether you cannot see the point raised by those decrying anti-Catholicism here.

I will not clutter this talk page with my views on the whole situation regarding my being wrongfully blocked and leave that to my talk page. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. The same anti-Catholic section that you added repeatedly was in question long before I ever showed up and is documented in the talk pages, hence my encouragement for you to at least read them before you made your edits. That same section which I feel is suspect and POV pushing, at least in part, does not hold up compared to all the other "controversial sections" which I had also looked at to improve grammar and references. That section is as it was before I started any work on the article and it remains (I think exactly) as it was with the same issues I've referenced above and others have referenced before me on the talk pages. My intent has never waived from making the article better and _if_ there is merit to Rosie O'Donnell being anti-Catholic then fine. If the section remains _accused_ of being anti-Catholic then seems unencyclopedic as many public figures are regularly accused of being bigoted (your word) (or racist, or homophobic, or classist, etc).Benjiboi 20:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, trying to respectfully disagree as well, regardless of past history.

I grant you that you honestly try to improve the article but would expect that you grant as much to me. As for grammar, I am not aware of any grammar correction of yours I reverted, at least not if they could be disentangled from the larger disagreement.

I have read by now the discussion above but still I see no convinving reason to do away with the section.

As for your reasons "_if_ there is merit to Rosie O'Donnell being anti-Catholic then fine. If the section remains _accused_ of being anti-Catholic then seems unencyclopedic as many public figures are regularly accused ..."

I cannot possibly agree. Accusations are frequent for many things, yes, but that mere fact can be no determiner of whether including them has merit. And I think it has merit here and personally I even think that the accusations regarding her comments (whether that hits her actual views is another matter) is accurate. But WP cannot endorse such a classification, it can only report what others said. Hence a distinction as you seemed to propose between actual a-Cs and those merely accused cannot hold - from WP standpoint there are all merely accused. OTOH, I tend to more care regarding the categorisation of people as a-C (or anti-whatever) and not put Rosie into that category since she is not primarly known for this.

What I specifically opposed is the rejection of sources on flimsy grounds. That doesn't mean that I insist on such a long quote from Donahue.

Also, I don't think the issue should be moved to "the view" section as it is not representative enough for the show and also a separate controversy and mentioning the same thing twice is not good.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

My view was and is that the accusations are notable as they were remarked upon by her own network. However my view is also that as they are accusations they are in dispute and therefore she should not be in Category:Anti-Catholicism, which is for people or organizations partly or largely notable for being related to Anti-Catholicism. I don't think Rosie reaches that level so I'm going to remove her from the Category. (I think she's in so many categories anyway it might be wise to remove a bit of clutter). However I think the accusations section should stand.--T. Anthony 05:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Article text can be nuanced, templates and categories can't so IMHO there should be a higher threshold for inclusion there. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 06:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The section as is still needs work, has been tagged for neutrality in the past before it was split (which has now been reversed) and seems imbalanced against article's subject. Is this really all there is to the accusations of being anti-Catholic? Benjiboi 18:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversy intro

The intro to the controversy section includes the following:

"often surprising The View co-hosts including O'Donnell who often lamented that instead of the Iraq war and the perceived short-comings of the Bush administration that news outlets were focusing on less important subjects like what she had said."

This endorses Rosie's view and pushes the POV that her comments are unimportant. Well, if we have a section on Rosie's controversies these comments are not unimportant but rather of the utmost importance. Any perceived failings of the government are important somewhere else but not in this section. You simply cannot legitimately reply to criticism by saying "I want to talk about something else." Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that this pushes a POV that her views are less important, in fact it states that SHE thinks they should be less important. Not sure why her comments should be considered "of the utmost importance" and dismiss the context of what she was saying in response to media attention of the same. There might be better wording but her sentiment was that she thought it was sad that the media outlets (not just right-wing ones) were focusing on various dust-ups with Donald Trump or her inversion therapy instead of the Iraq War and the many scandals and problems with the war and related Bush policies. I don't see any reference to her responding to criticisms by saying "I want to talk about something else." In each of the "controversial" episodes that I'm aware of she was direct in addressing the issue(s) and discussed them as appropriate before moving ontpo other subjects.

Where else is is part of a discussion of controversies caused by a person that we quote this person trying to move the discussion elsewhere by saying "oh this is not important" or "oh this is more important", which basically is "don't talk about my faults but about someone else's" - there is ample space to discuss Bush ... but this is not the place for it. That's akin to the Rumsfeldian remark when asked about the looting in post-invasion Iraq when he said: "But look at the freedom!"

The thing is, Rosie is not an important figure in the issue of the Iraq war - and many of the controversies (Trump, anti-Catholicism, "ChingChong") have nothing to do with the Iraq war.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

She did talk about all those issues but when her comments became the news she lamented it. She stated many times that she felt it was sad that this wa sthe state of news that instead of talking about the war (and other related issue to the war and the Bush Whitehouse) that the news instead focused on her mini-battle with Trump, or Danny Devito being drunk or her opinions. I don't think she was deflecting away from her "faults" but instead making the point that we are a country at war but instead the news is trivial footage of her comments.Benjiboi 09:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, she did talk about it but it is irrelevant (at least if phrased that way). Of course she was deflecting from her faults (which she probably doesn't see as such) by using the lowest rhetorical trick in the book, trying to talk about something else. She has every right to talk about something else but she cannot dictate what others are talking about. If she decries the lack of a serious discussion on the war and other things, maybe she should not have talked trash but substance. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I see, thank you for making that so clear. Interesting. Benjiboi 09:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. The pleasure has been all yours. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Str1977 clearly has a political agenda. I've seen his posts. He comes on to articles about people he thinks are liberal and tries to add harmful things to them. At the same time removing things from articles about conservatives. All I want to know is why has Str1977 not add the anti-catholic comments to the other co-hosts pages since William Donahue has accused them all of being anti-catholic?

Indent reset. Although I think it's a good thing to look closely at articles for accuracy I admit that this seemingly has been a spin with Str1977 rebuffing any constructive criticisms and simply reverting back to the same message propped up by the same right-wing organizations. I had hoped by inviting the user to this talk page they would respect this process but that hope seems lost. I did learn a little which is nice but the article is worse not better for those edits and that is unfortunate. I also feel that a lot of this behavior is simply disruptive so will do my part to keep the discussion to simply being about making the article better. Benjiboi 18:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming good faith and thanks for slandering me, dear unsigned. Because I have done nothing of the sort. I can't even remember a handful of "liberals" whose articles I have edited recently and I am quite confident that I could defend my edits.

So far I have not seen any constructive criticism but only exlamations why I am wrong, why the accusations should not be covered, why this not a-C, why we should endorse her deflecting.

I am all open for constructive criticism. I think Rosie's reply to controversies can be worded so that it does not endorse her deflecting or turn this section into something else. I believe that her anti-Catholicism can be better sourced and that we needn't necessarily have to repeat all Donahue wrote. But what I oppose is hiding this all in the sand.

As for simply reverting, I could say the same about you, Benjiboi - you also reverted me time and again. And, for that matter, I did follow your invation to the talk page. Here I am now. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

So far there is very little reliable sourcing of her being anti-Catholic or of anyone besides some right-wing/conservatives accusing her of such. As has been repeatedly expressed you need actual quotes from her if she is indeed anti-Catholic. You mentioned ABC's response, where is it, maybe it will help. Also almost everytime I edited I did look at the language and tried to make constructive edits. I appreciate you having dialog here on the talk page but that dialog should have happenned _before_ you added the section - especially once you knew other editors strongly disagreed with it's inclusion. Perhaps this is a good opportunity for you to reverse your own edits and constructively work to see if there is more to her possibly being anti-Catholic. Benjiboi 20:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You apparently still don't get it. The accusations are fact and it doesn't matter much who the accuser is as long as the accusations attains notability. And there are actual (at least perceived) anti-Catholic quotes out there.

Thanks for your appreciation and I agree that I should have explained from the get-go. However, don't look to me for having "added the section" - my first edits were different and I reverted a deletion of it, if I am not mistaken.

The issue is not whether I think her a-C (note: so far I have talked about her quotes - just as with the terrorist/soldier quote, she might be not be thinking in earnest what she says) but that she has been accused of such acts. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of not getting "it," I understand your position but it's hard to accept what you're stating when you've erased other editor's work and reverted back to a flawed section removing everything with it. I'm still not seeing this as quite controversial as the other ones but once the research has been done maybe there is some merit to it. Benjiboi 21:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually I haven't. I have carefully looked whether there were any in-between edits and at least tried to retain them. Of course, sometimes errors do happen. But in any case, the actual topic (intro to the controversy section, her reaction) is solved if you accept my addition in my last edit before I was wrongfully blocked. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If someone cares to add a link to the Kelly Ripa/Clay Aiken section, I thought it was best to note the benefit of the doubt about Clay Aiken's sexuality (following Rosie's remarks about him). To my knowledge, he's never come out. I've seen a few reliable news articles/interviews, but I'm not concerned enough about it to work on an update. Here's one if someone else would care to: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215159,00.html Yobbo14 01:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

After some back and forth edits a compromise was found using dogged about rumors of his sexuality that was sourced and seemed acceptable for WP:BIO purposes. Benjiboi 13:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

British navy/Gulf of Tonkin section

I'm not seeing the section about the British navy as that controversial (probably because the situation was resolved without incident) and I think it should be removed. Is there more to this story or was it added just in case the US invaded Iran? Benjiboi 09:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Cut it for sure. I don't think you need to describe how the World Trade Center buildings were constructed in detail either. I think you could cut a lot fairly easily. Rosie gets entertainment news coverage, but a lot of the issues are ephemeral. They're built up by the press to sensationalize, and they disappear fast too. The Trump thing went on and on and on, and he fed it by making appearances to talk about it, but eliminating gossipy stuff like the gory details of the young lady's offenses isn't censorship, it's "who cares", for me anyway. Not critical to the core of the story. There's too much about the View in the article. It's just a year out of her career. When someone is in the media a lot, for as long as Rosie has been, not everything she's ever done needs to be covered, and some things that are covered can be done so quite briefly. Things can be lumped together, four or five things in a paragraph, with most of the extraneous details left out. Synthesize, cut, focus. You've done a great job of sourcing every statement, but a lot of your sources are from pretty gossipy sorts of media. Yes, she gets talked about in that kind of media a lot, but if you take an encyclopedic approach, you might discover a real and genuinely interesting person behind all that media hype.

Thanks for the feedback, agree that "Synthesize, cut, focus" could be applied generously and, as time allows, will work towards it. The history of this article is that it gets a lot of edits whenever she's in the news so I predict a gradual process as editor's passion ebbs and flows and potentially gravitates towards more fulfilling expression elsewhere. Also agree about gossipy sources, they are the accessible ones and reflect, in part, what is being expressed in heavy rotation in mainstream and tabloid-style TV news so we use what we have until better sources help tell a better story. Not too long ago there was an edit war about removing another section so I would like a few more editors to express opinion on cutting the "British navy/Gulf of Tonkin" section so we can avoid that situation. Benjiboi 20:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedic value

What is the encyclopedic value of having all these controveries? I looked at the other View co-hosts' pages and they barely mention any controversies. Why are all of Rosie O'Donnell's controveries documented and the others not? Is it because she is a lesbian? That's the only thing I could think of that differs from her and the other co-hosts. How come this article mentions the fight between Elisabeth Hassleback and Rosie yet it's not even mentioned on Hassleback's page.

The brief answer is that O"Donnell is highly-visible, out-spoken liberal lesbian and seemingly a magnet for the culture wars in America because she is outspoken about her disdain for President Bush. In time I imagine the section will shrink a bit but even the smallest changes have been met with angst so it might take a little more time. Benjiboi 09:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What about her racist attitude? Is that unnecessary? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.252.224.133 (talk) 16:51, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Please cite sources or references to support that assertion. Benjiboi 13:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Confirm a statement

Is this correct: "State law won't let them adopt because Florida bans gay or bisexual people from adopting.[29]"

Do they let individuals adopt? What about bisexuals in heterosexual marriages, e.g. Billie Joe Armstrong (no adopted kids; bisexual in a heterosexual marriage). 69.12.143.197 04:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe all states let individuals adopt. Bisexuality, in my experience, is simply not addressed. If you are perceived as being hetero then no issues are raised. If you are single they would probably follow up with other questions including sexuality, income, background, etc. to rightfully ensure a child's well-being. Benjiboi 16:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate

The article skips a great deal about the video blog and about Rosie's reaction to the argument with Hasselbeck.

The information on the video blog tour is inaccurate, based solely on Rosie's opinions and a fantasy that people were interested in the video blog. She has appeared drunk on the blog, ranting about her time on The View. The section still states a possible "summer 2007" tour, which never happened.

In addition, the article fails to mention Rosie's rants against Hasselbeck while Rosie performed on a cruise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.218.101 (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's best to reference an outside source that sees these actions as noteworthy before they are included. As is the article is a bit rambly and now that the View chapter seems to have finished is likely to be trimmed anyway. If there is something in particular that should be addressed feel free to refernece it and add it but know that others can simply delete it if it seems to not be valid or offer anything to making the article better. Benjiboi 23:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Gay Rights Activist

Rosie O'Donnell is possibly the most prominent gay rights activist, yet that term appears no where in this bio. It should be added.

Matt Sanchez 15:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree she is the most prominent although she is certainly is very prominent. I see you've added to the lede which seems appropriate. Benjiboi 16:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Rosie Controversy

The controversies listed don't adequately portray the outrage Rosie often caused, or was accused of calling. She was basically fired from the View. Matt Sanchez 16:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually there has been some talk of trimming down all the controversies sections now that she is no longer on the show as 1. controversy sections by their nature are POV 2. it gives undue weight to the subjects. I also don't agree with your assertion She was basically fired as the facts simply don't support that statement. Benjiboi 16:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Waffle iron?

Information about O'Donnell being injured by a waffle iron was recently removed from the Nip/Tuck article [1]. I don't mean to raise the issue of whether it should have been removed, I just wondered if it was true and, if it is, whether people feel it should be put in this article. I will research it further myself, but just wanted to raise it here. F Mita 11:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if it's true and the reference given was on Flicker photo site which I don't think is considered a reliable ref. Even if it is true doesn't seem terribly encyclopedic: was it covered by mainstream press as anything other than trivial, was there a lawsuit that got coverage because of the incident, etc. I would think it would have a short life on this article and only a passing mention on the nip/tuck article. Benjiboi 19:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see it is a hoax. Looks like somebody has been circulating shots of her in make-up from the Nip/Tuck and attaching a hoax story about the injury being real. Thanks for the reply. F Mita 21:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)