Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:10, 16 March 2011

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Interfaith This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Actors and Filmmakers This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Template:WikiProject Nickelodeon Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Television Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Comedy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Time article

Good overview with some information we are missing. Article here. Benjiboi 01:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Photos Unflattering

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

Better photos should be found.

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

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

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

Possible source

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

Winner of 2007 Blogger's Choice Award needs updating

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

Currently it only says she's a front runner.

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

This thing has weasel words

O'Donnell added that because of threats, she and her family need protection, which she attributes, ironically, to her "tough gun-control rhetoric". -7:35 New Yawk Time, october the first, 2000 and eiyght

Ironically removed, and the rest trimmed. -- Banjeboi 23:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Other television work

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

Variety show

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

911 again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

etc.. etc...

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

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

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

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

We would have to have strong reliable sourcing to suggest she was fired for her views. -- Banjeboi 23:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Missing Television Credit

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

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

"Citation needed.... or not"

In the section about Selleck and O'Donnell's debate over the NRA, this sentence claims a need for citation:

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

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

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

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

Thanks for catching this, I've removed both sentences as simply unneeded. -- Banjeboi 23:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Rosie radio show

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

Let me know what you think or if it needs tweaking. Rosie was on the Stern show this morning talking about the new show on Sirius/XM if you need verification. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.236.240.138 (talk • contribs) 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice that even though today is 26 October, you refer to November 2 in the past tense... Intelligentsium 22:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

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

If no objection I'll add it in. -- Banjeboi 23:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No real objection, but your first sentence is a fragment. Intelligentsium 00:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll fix it, thanks! -- Banjeboi 22:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: addition

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

Whom are you addressing? Intelligentsium 23:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I was addressing you intelligentsium. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.236.240.138 (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It should be fine now. FWIW I mess up in all manner grammar regularly. It's not a strength but mistakes are easy to correct. Also we've added two refs so I feel this is covered for now. Let's see is anything comes of her show there, since it's subscription-only I imagine it won't be terribly newsworthy. -- Banjeboi 22:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Photographs

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

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

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

Occupation

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

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

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

Split with Spouse

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

Controversy

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

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

Name

No explanation for the title of this article - why not Rosie O'Donnell? --Robinson weijman (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It was Rosie O'Donnell. Requesting deletion of redirect to allow moving page back to Rosie O'Donnell. Page was moved today without explanation from Rosie O'Donnell to Joe Gogoj. — Becksguy (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I see there is already a request on WarioLoaf's page. --Robinson weijman (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

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

The following request appears on that page:

Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article.

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

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

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

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

Restoring "Chinese parody" section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bagumba (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing this again as it remains unnotable (and incredibly brief (one-day) episode in Rosie O'Donnell's life. I feel your ching chong article is also a minefield of BLP problems but you seem to be guarding that one from any changes so we'll start here. Only two "controversies" are talked about by O'Donnell and the majority of reliable sources since her departure. One is the feud with Donald Trump the other being her final arguments with Hasselbeck. The "ching chong" episode (which is really part of the Lemonchello/Danny Devito story) and the follow-up next live show when she apologized were completely unremarkable. There were dozens of incidents more impacting than this and they too are nothing compared to the two main dust-ups. In the world of the ching chong article this may be a big deal but in no way is it needed or appropriate here. None of them actually seem to be that important to O'Donnell herself who (i) no longer seems to be blogging on these issues - which would still be just ... her blog; (ii) no longer has her POV reported on daily by other media likely because she's not on a daily gabfest TV show, (iii) has pretty much not talked about any of these things on her appearances since leaving the show; (iv) is not known for being a political commentator or extolling political correctness on others, (v) her initial comment was to be funny and no one disputes that, as soon as she was made aware she apologized the following show -mistake made, understood, apologized (vi) she has also stated she was paid to be opinionated on The View and admits she said things she likely should not have. All this amounts to WP:Undue on a BLP.Jnast1 (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no ownership of articles, so please do not use "your" or "my" in relation to articles.

You did not respond to the original points. Your arguments have morphed from generally labeling the text in question a "smear", "POV", "BLP problems" and now it is "undue" with no specific violations provided. Undue is giving unnecessary weight to a view based on number of available sources. Certainly you are not disputing that there are multiple reliable sources on this subject?

If your concern is Misplaced Pages:Recentism (I am guessing as you did not say), I have added additional sources since the event on December 2006 with references from April 2007 and more recently in 2011.

WP:UNDUE that you noted says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." While the current count of 11 references doesn't discount that there might still be POVs missing (you have yet to offer reliable sources), undue weight does not imply that there should be no weight at all as implied by your persistent full deletion of content. I would suggest you add to the article the POVs from reliable sources to add neutrality on your claims that reliably sourced events "were completely unremarkable."

Feel free to get other's assistance or posting a request for mediation. Bagumba (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You're still missing the point and perhaps WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:WELLKNOWN could help? The fact remains that dozens upon dozens of "controversies" could be wedged in here but this is a biography of a very accomplished person and this blip of a mistake is non-notable by almost every standard. Technically there are some sources but there are sources for dozens of "controversies" all of which are rather meaningless. The two biggies that she herself acknowledge are the Hasselbeck argument and the feud with Donald Trump. I recognized that building and documenting notable cases of ching chong is important to you but that doesn't mean we should wedge in an inflated account here at all. O'Donnell made a mistake, she was informed of it and she apologized, case closed. This biography of a living person isn't the place to allege she is/was racist or insensitive or anything else. Even the sources we have simply acknowledge she made a mistake but corrected it. The non-primary sources mostly cover the apology (actually the same story recirculated as most of her "controversies" were recycled and repeated ad nauseam by FOX News. In no way does this rise to the level of Trump or Hasselbeck issues.Jnast1 (talk) 04:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No it doesnt help as you are still not talking about specific text in the article or specific rules being violated. It seems like you only content with constant reversions without any good faith attempt to incorporate in any form 11 reliable sources on a reliable sourced event in 2007 that is still making the news with reliably cited sources in 2011. WP:WELLKNOWN that you cite says, "If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." Are you implying there are not reliable sources? I'm not sure how your comment about Fox is relevant, it is but one of 11 sources. All I can gather is that you believe since she apologized (which TIME says was a "pseudo-apology", an example of neutrality to not mention it) we should all pretend it never happened. I must have missed that morality policy somewhere while thinking verifiability, not truth. I'll flag this as a neutrality issue in the article and seek outside assistance. And it is convenient for you to claim that there are other more notable events while you are making no effort to enumerate reliable sources on what those are. Bagumba (talk) 06:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Giving some more thought to WP:UNDUE, it states that "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." I have only found her publicist, Cindi Berger, and O'Donnell herself, and both the explanation that it was a joke and the subsequent apology are already included in the article. Is there something else you would like to add? WP also notes that "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public." I believe this is a key point of contention, but IMO WP is quite clear about this. Bagumba (talk) 07:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you are still missing the point. This was a blip of an incident 4/5 years ago. Other media outlets (FOX News et al), Entertainment reporters and advocacy groups (who are paid to complain about such things) had a vested interest in arm-flailing and loudly complaining, each with their own agenda. This is how the media works. O'Donnell was the poster child of speaking her mind and frankly she said some dumb things. But to inflate this non-notable incident as to being so important is the very UNDUE that BLPs shouldn't have.

• O'Donnell controversies also not covered; whatever she said about Rupert Murdock, calling Oprah a little gay, radical Christians are as bad as radical Islamists, Paula Abdul, Kelly Ripa, Fox Network, "American Idol", etc etc.
• O'Donnell regarding the controversies - "a lot of it was due to the fact that I was on a program which encouraged you to speak your feelings — and I did. And some of those, at the time I spoke them, were controversial.".

If there had been any long drawn out controversy we would have it, instead on the very next date she was there she explained what she had done wrong, apologized and moved on. So should we.Jnast1 (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request ( wait ):

I have taken a third opinion request ( Dispute over deletion of a reliably-sourced event in BLP that subject has since apologized but none the less remains in the news. There is also concern of undue weight of same event relative to events not documented in the article. 06:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC) ) for this page and am currently reviewing the issues. I shall replace this text shortly with my reply. I have made no previous edits on Rosie O'Donnell and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.—RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.34.85.100, 20 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

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

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

Judith Mary Smith Barber69.34.85.100 (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Article is Largely Fluff

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

1. Outspoken Rosie O'Donnell gets serious about radio show Ann Oldenburg, USA Today, 26 October 2009.

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Unknown-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Mid-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Actors and filmmakers work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• B-Class television articles
• Mid-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles
• B-Class New York City articles
• Unknown-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• B-Class Comedy articles
• High-importance Comedy articles
• WikiProject Comedy articles