Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:21, 13 April 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rosie O'Donnell article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 21 days

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 Mid‑importance 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 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. 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

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Time article

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

Possible source here.

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 ( 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. ):

Given the present references provided for the section the event itself appears to pass WP:GNG, and thus inclusion in this article, as it relates to the notable individual appears to have been met. Present version appears to maintain a neutral POV and is supported by references from reliable sources. Concerns over WP:BLPSTYLE appear to be largely unfounded. Unless one can argue that the way that the way that the response to the event by Asian American groups is done in a way that expands it beyond a non-neutral statement and thus would fall under the Tone sub-heading. If this is the case then perhaps critisms of the subject of this article relating to this event can be merged, rewritten in a manor that is neutral and agreed upon by active editors, and the references kept to support the shorter statement. Please remember WP:CIVIL as well as WP:NPA and WP:AVOIDYOU. This appears to have occurred here, and may have lead to the need for this third party opinion and the inability for the present editors to have reached a consensus on their own. As for WP:UNDUE, this section appears to be no larger, and is even smaller, then other sections regarding other controversies that occurred . Perhaps these events should be listed chronologically? Given the statement made that there are dozens of "controversies", if sufficient reliable source references can be provided for inclusion in this article, especially if they meet WP:EVENT, then perhaps a new article should be spunout from this article that is only about controversies on the show The View with a summary being left on this article written in a neutral manor of those events in the new article which the subject of this article were involved in. This will remove what issues are presently here to an article that will not have WP:BLP issues.—RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks RightCowLeftCoast for offering your perspective. Regarding listing the events chronologically, I have no objection. I've added O'Donnell's general statement about the controversies after leaving the show. Thanks Jnast1 for providing the source. Bagumba (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agree. Unless there is good reason to think that the incident is a major aspect of O'Donnell's career essential to be detailed in any summary of her life years from now, the long section is not warranted. See Misplaced Pages:Recentism. Unless there is good reason to believe that actual hostility and wish to provoke violence was O'Donnell's explicit intention (as opposed to, for example, ignorance, or a moment of passing stupidity), the quotes detailing violent ethnic history are inappropriate (that topic is better treated elsewhere such as the ching chong or Sinophobia article). I have no strong opinion one way or another about a short mention of the incident here, one or two sentences at most, but unless there are additional developments with a major impact on O'Donnell's career, no more. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a long thread, so I wouldn't doubt you missed my comment on recentism in my 21:55, 15 March 2011 comment above. It was a December 2006 event that was referenced in April 2007 in reflecting on her View tenure by NY Times, Washington Post and TIME, and more recently was brought up again in 2011 by Southern California Public Radio, Mediaite, and Gothamist. That seems more than just the usual overblown celebrity recentism that everybody forgets. Bagumba (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Those "recent" mentions are merely in the context of Rush Limbaugh. And appreciation to RightCowLeftCoast for spending the time to look at this. I think you did bring up an interesting point that I apparently didn't express well. There were dozens of "controversies" that churned in a news cycle or two then dropped. None of them including this one persisted over a period of time.

• • "rosie o'donnell" "ching chong" on Google News results in 68 hits.
  • "rosie o'donnell" "donald trump" on Google News results in 2,710 hits.
  • "rosie o'donnell" "elisabeth hasselbeck" on Google News results in 1,370 hits.

Both the Trump and Hasselbeck stories have been discussed but O'Donnell as having impacted her personally whereas the "ching chong" part came and went and I don't think she's ever had to re-apologize or even mentioned it. We'ree making a mountain out of a molehill which I think is still UNDUE.Jnast1 (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Mark Twain had a phrase cautioning the use of statistics. First, the comparison is inconsistent comparing one specific phrase used in one event versus the people involved in the other events. There is another phrase regarding different types of fruit. A fairer comparison would be to use other phrases in the other events, but such a statistic alone would not filter out matches that have nothing to do with specific event we are interested in. If we were to compare against people involved, the affected parties would be Chinese, Asians, Danny Devito, etc. Secondly, some caveats about Google news are that companies have to register to show up on Goggle News and they can restrict access to articles from Google News but allow for Google Web. For example, the three sources that are cited from 2011 in my 22:57, 16 March 2011 post are listed in Google Web but not under Google News. More fine print, Google News counts as a hit any article whether it is original or syndicated, "At this time, Google News will not make any changes to article ranking based on this tag. We think it is a promising method for detecting originality among a diverse set of news articles, but we won't know for sure until we've seen a lot of data." This is similar to your earlier point about news "recycled and repeated ad nauseam by FOX News." Finally, why not to blindly trust everything Google finds in a search is that the "rosie o'donnell" "donald trump" search on Google News leads to psychic predictions about "Leaving their wives, Donald Trump and Rosie ODonnell elope" and websites whose names dont hide their (lack) of reliability Bagumba (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is an article on Google caveats that would have saved me some writing.

Jnast1, can we get your agreement to form a consensus with RightCowLeftCoast, Infrogmation, and myself that some mention of O'Donnell's Chinese parody belongs in the article. If we can get a consensus on that point, I would suggest to the community that we start new sections in the talk page to continue to discuss any other other open issues as this thread is becoming too large and divergent. Bagumba (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You've already wedged the entire thing (with voluminous and unneeded quote notes) into ching chong, where it's presented out of context but at least it makes sense in that article. The section is still bigger than most of the prior sections of this person's life. You have still not met the burden that this blip of a "controversy" should be given any space at all, sources exist for many controversies which also have had no meaningful impact on this subject's life. The Trump incidents certainly did as did the Hasselbeck ones. This is evident from reliable sources asking O'Donnell about them specifically and her talking about how they affected her. Those incidents were huge, the ching chong was not. We have reliable sources that Rosie was called fat and ugly. Do those belong because we can source them? Howabout that she was a horrible mother? etc etc? No, we don't write to appease Donald Trump or Fox News. What you have is a brief incident that was loudly complained abou by groups that are paid to do so. O'Donnell made the remarks, found out that they were offensive and she apologize on the very next show she was on. She (and the other co-hosts) have all put their feet in the mouths at some point, we don't compile a hitlist of complaints and mistakes, we cover how article's subject was impacted. Again This probably shouldn't be mentioned at all because as soon as you do you have to explain how insignificant it was then defend why this insignificant mistake was included and none of the other ones were. Leave them all out unless the rise to the level of the far more notable ones.Jnast1 (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

While I understand your concerns, there is no consensus on removal with RightCowLeftCoast, Infrogmation and myself.

For the repeated point that other comparable incidents do not exist in the article and therefore this incident should not exist, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST recommeds that since "articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they are missing before they are created, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should." RightCowLeftCoast had suggested already that these incidents should be used to expand the article and possibly be spun out to a new article if it was voluminous. There are expansion templates that you can add to the article to invite others to add the missing information.

For the repeated point that O'Donnell does not talk about this issue, that is not a requirement in WP:GNG and WP:WELLKNOWN says "it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

I suggest for a second time that we close this thread and if needed continue in new sections that are more focused in content. Bagumba (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate you are very passionate about ensuring as much "ching chong" content is stuffed into the article. I can also empathize with again wanting to cite rules for entire articles when WP:Undue is the issue here. I simply disagree with you even if I don't know which rule to pull out. This was a insignificant event in that compared to the other main ones (Trump, Hasselbeck) this was done and over with, kaput. These others raged for weeks and actually impacted her life. This one did not and no sourcing supports that it did. Sources technically exist for lots of things that are true and have happened in people's lives but that does not mean they belong in the article. Jnast1 (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the "ching chong" controversy was not notable enough to be included in this article. Mixaphone (talk) 06:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I will leave a longer note at Bagumba that although i believe the information is not suitable here it can be very helpful at the ching chong article, O'Donnell made a mistake scene over but the comments about the mistake speaks towards the impact and significance of the phrase itself and peeled into a paragraph minus the blaming could be very good and benefit all concerned. Jnast1 (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Mixaphone(talk) Only saying its not notable without providing reasons is not sufficient. Please elaborate with reasons below at #Imitation chinese. —Bagumba (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Murtha Ireland

On Friday, March 18th, I watched Who Do You Think You are? and found your family history extremely interesting. Our family now lives in Albuquerque and Rio Rancho, New Mexico. My mother was Margaret Alwill and she married my father, Clemente Valencia, after World War II. Her father was Michael Alwill. His mother was Margaret Murtha married to James Alwill of Old Castle, Ireland. Old Castle is not too far from Dublin, Ireland (West Meathe County)and pretty close to Kildare. My mother's family currently lives mostly in England. My aunt said Murtha is not a very common name. She said Margaret Murtha had three sisters that immigrated from Ireland and Margaret stayed there to care for her parents. She later married at age 36 to James Alwill who was 21. They had four children: Michael (my grandfather), Matt, Lilly, and James. Lilly married an Irishman named Joe Grumble. Michael, Matt and James married three Baker sisters: Mary (my grandmother), Norah and Alice. They are all deceased. Alice died about 2 years ago. Their children are all my mother's first cousins and live in England, and a few in Wales and Australia. Their names are similar and resemble each other because they are all from the same gene pool. I do not know for a fact that there is any relationship to your mother's family, but anything is possible. I am very sorry for your loss of your mother at such an early age. Our mother passed away in 1977, my brother, Brian in 1975, father in 1999 and brother, Joe in 2002. My sister, Maureen and my brother, Michael and their families live here in New Mexico with me and my family. Thank you for allowing me to share this information with you. Sincerely, Sheila Montano —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.164.68 (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Recirculated by other media outlets

O'Donnell's outspokeness and spontaneousness sometimes led to her views being recirculated by other media outlets, often surprising The View co-hosts including O'Donnell.

I was not able to find support for this in the cited references. Did I miss the relevant sections? Bagumba (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Claim about portrayal by conservative

Frequently portrayed unfavorably by conservative media outlets and what she deemed as Republican pundits ...

Need to cite a source for this, and likely will need to be attributed with "XYZ said ...." since it sounds like an opinion. Bagumba (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Imitation chinese ("ching chong" controversy)

This is a summary of the long #Restoring "Chinese parody" section discussion.

Points for inclusion

• The incident is described neutrally with perspectives from both O'Donnell and her detractors (WP:NPOV).
• The incident was notable based on 13 reliable sources. The incident was over a two week span in December 2006, but sources reported on the the event again in April 2007. One of the sources is a book published by a PhD scholar that discussed the impact of the event in 2008, and O'Donnell herself discusses the event in an autobiography in 2007. The number of reliable independent sources over an extended period plus the mention in O'Donnell's autobiography point to the notability both in the media and by the subject herself (WP:GNG, WP:INDEPTH)
• The incident is notable and based only on reliable sources (WP:RS), which is supported by WP:WELLKNOWN with regards to reporting on events that might portray negatively on the subject.

Points for deletion

• WP:BLPSTYLE was raised as a concern. A third opinion said it was largely unfounded, but recommended that consensus be reached if any content should be reworded or shortened, with the existing references to remain to support any shortened statement.
• WP:UNDUE was not observed by the third opinion. "This section appears to be no larger, and is even smaller, then other sections regarding other controversies that occurred" It is now six sentences.
• 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.
• Raw results from Google to establish non-notability was unfounded based on incorrect assumptions that could be drawn from looking at the results without examining the actual sources (Misplaced Pages:GOOGLETEST).
• Quotes from critics that could be deemed hostile were recommended to be summarized and not used verbatim. This has been done.
• There was concern that O'Donnell did not consider the event significant. Even if the text is negative for the subject, WP:WELLKNOWN says it should be included if it is notable and reliably sourced. In any event, this has since been sourced to her autobiogrphy as well.
• It has been proposed multiple times that since O'Donnell immediately apologized so the incident should not be reported. However, an apology did not take place until nine days later. Reliable sources called that apology disingenuous. O'Donnell herself later said in her autobiography that she regretted her apology was not more sincere. The notability and number of reliable sources reporting on this over time is what should be considered, not a moral judgment on how one should receive her apology.
• Mixaphone(talk) solicited a vote that this was not notable, but consensus needs to be established, using reasons based in policy and sources.
• There was concern that using the quote parameter in citation templates was inappropriate for online references. However, this parameter is expressly for use for online sources in case the link should die in the future (WP:LINKROT#Alternate_methods) —Bagumba (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yet another repeated and I would say very biased reading of all the great reasons this content should weigh prominently in the article but yet fails to meet this content to be presented so poorly. You didn't like my compromise so you re-wedged in quotes, needless other items and every source possible. Again, what happens on the ching chong article is pretty much out of my hands, I've tried to address the issues so wherever that article goes from here is wherever it goes. As for the quote parameter you might also note that it is merely an optional one, what you do on the ching chong article is no longer of my concern but I refuse to let the O'Donnell article serve as the cursed goat sent to sacrifice to make a point. I have a feeling it shouldn't be in the article at all and others have agreed and disagreed but if it must be there in needs to be kept at a minimum. On the ching chong article the O'Donnell content is certainly a notable and appropriate example even if presented poorly. On the O'Donnell article it simply did not figure greatly into her life as the two main controversies certainly did. I think WP:Undue on a WP:BLP is the salient guides. And since quotes help define the focus a bit this may help - BLP's must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages'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.
You also seem to be misrepresenting the context that that third party source commented when The View section was still sprawling out of control. After I trimmed it down there were two editors who want to remove it altogether and yourself but I will let you express your own views. If we can't reach a compromise then a neutral solicitation of opinions can certainly be done. Jnast1 (talk) 10:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This was my compromise version allowing the narrative to remain but paring it down to only the most salient points and as part of the sections arc:

Actor Danny Devito appeared drunk for his interview and 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.".

This is your version re-inserting voluminous unneeded quote parameters, sources which are unneeded and extra POV commentary alluding that her apology was forced and hollow:

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."

(—unsigned edit by Jnast1 10:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC))

I find the edits confusing. Your edits on March 23–24 removed subsections "Donald Trump incident", "Accusations of anti-Catholicism", and "O'Donnell/Hasselbeck argument" from under "The View" and chose to collapse and form a larger section in "The View" instead. But you duplicate the Chinese incident both in the larger "The View" section while leaving a more detailed subsection. This is inconsistent. Please describe incidents either in subsections or include them as part of the larger section. You have reverted my edits to keep this consistent on March 24. It is misleading for your edit on April 3 to place the text inconsistently into a separate subsection and then inappropriately calling it "my version" on this talk page when it was clearly your edit to repeat mention of the incident.

Writing BLP's conservatively means relying on reliable sources and not unsourced rumors or original research. Your repeated argument of WP:UNDUE is unfounded.

I'm not sure why you are arguing against using an optional parameter in citations to prevent linkrot. If you find it inconsistent that not all citations use them and have bad faith about my intentions, I have no objection if anyone wants to add them for other citations if there is a thought a point of view is being advanced by this. —Bagumba (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2011 (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 a 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, Misplaced Pages 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). Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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)

1. Chung, L.A. (16 December 2006). "'Ching-chong' joke spreads ignorance". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 28 August 2010.
2. ^ Cite error: The named reference nytimes_april2007 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. Silverman, Stephen M. (14 December 2006). "Rosie Apologizes for Asian Joke on The View". People. Retrieved 28 August 2010.
4. Chung, L.A. (16 December 2006). "'Ching-chong' joke spreads ignorance". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 28 August 2010.
5. Del Signore, John (January 28, 2011). "Death Threats For Objecting To Limbaugh's Hu Jintao Rant". Gothamist.com. Gothamist LLC. Retrieved March 15, 2011.
6. Berestein Rojas, Leslie (January 21, 2011). "Reactions to Limbaugh's 'ching chong' mockery". SCPR.org. Southern California Public Radio. Retrieved March 15, 2011.
7. Astudillo, Rene M. (December 8, 2006). "AAJA Responds to Rosie O'Donnell's Offensive Mimic". Asian American Journalists Association. Retrieved August 28 2010. We feel strongly that it is our responsibility to call attention to what we consider a mockery of the Chinese language and, in effect, a perpetuation of stereotypes of Asian Americans as foreigners or second-class citizens. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
8. Ono, Kent A.; Pham, Vincent (2008). Asian Americans and the Media. Polity. pp. 104–107. ISBN 9780745642734. Retrieved March 23, 2011.
9. Kelly, Liz (April 25, 2007). "Timeline: A Brief Compendium of Rosie Quotes". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 15, 2011.
10. ^ Hua, Vanessa (December 15, 2006). "O'Donnell apologizes for Chinese parody / But comedian warns she is likely to spoof languages again". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved August 28, 2010. Spoofing a language belittles the people who speak it, her critics said. It also was disappointing to hear such insensitivity from O'Donnell, who has championed gay and lesbian rights and attacked others for being homophobic, they said.
11. Bershad, John (January 19, 2011). "Will Limbaugh Be Held To The Same Standard As Rosie O'Donnell For Impersonating Chinese?". Mediaite.com. Mediaite, LLC. Retrieved March 15, 2011.
12. Bonisteel, Sara (11 December 2006). "Asian Leaders Angered by Rosie O'Donnell's 'Ching Chong' Comments". Fox News. Retrieved 28 August 2010. "The View" co-host is in hot water for using the expression "ching chong" to describe Chinese people talking about Danny DeVito's drunken appearance on her show.
13. Silverman, Stephen M. (14 December 2006). "Rosie Apologizes for Asian Joke on The View". People. Retrieved 28 August 2010.
14. "Apologies: a Great Tradition". Time.com. 2007. Retrieved March 15, 2011.
15. O'Donnell, Rosie (2007). Celebrity Detox: (The Fame Game). Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 9780446582247. Retrieved March 23, 2011.
16. "Whoopi kicks off 11th season of 'View'", UPI Entertainment News, Sept. 4, 2007.
17. David Kiley, "Vick Loses a Sneaker. DeVito Gets a Booze Deal.", Bloomberg Businessweek July 20, 2007
18. Chung, L.A. (16 December 2006). "'Ching-chong' joke spreads ignorance". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 28 August 2010.
19. Silverman, Stephen M. (14 December 2006). "Rosie Apologizes for Asian Joke on The View". People. Retrieved 28 August 2010.
20. Chung, L.A. (16 December 2006). "'Ching-chong' joke spreads ignorance". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 28 August 2010.
21. Del Signore, John (January 28, 2011). "Death Threats For Objecting To Limbaugh's Hu Jintao Rant". Gothamist.com. Gothamist LLC. Retrieved March 15, 2011.
22. Berestein Rojas, Leslie (January 21, 2011). "Reactions to Limbaugh's 'ching chong' mockery". SCPR.org. Southern California Public Radio. Retrieved March 15, 2011.
23. Astudillo, Rene M. (December 8, 2006). "AAJA Responds to Rosie O'Donnell's Offensive Mimic". Asian American Journalists Association. Retrieved August 28 2010. We feel strongly that it is our responsibility to call attention to what we consider a mockery of the Chinese language and, in effect, a perpetuation of stereotypes of Asian Americans as foreigners or second-class citizens. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
24. Ono, Kent A.; Pham, Vincent (2008). Asian Americans and the Media. Polity. pp. 104–107. ISBN 9780745642734. Retrieved March 23, 2011.
25. Kelly, Liz (April 25, 2007). "Timeline: A Brief Compendium of Rosie Quotes". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 15, 2011.
26. Bershad, John (January 19, 2011). "Will Limbaugh Be Held To The Same Standard As Rosie O'Donnell For Impersonating Chinese?". Mediaite.com. Mediaite, LLC. Retrieved March 15, 2011.
27. Bonisteel, Sara (11 December 2006). "Asian Leaders Angered by Rosie O'Donnell's 'Ching Chong' Comments". Fox News. Retrieved 28 August 2010. "The View" co-host is in hot water for using the expression "ching chong" to describe Chinese people talking about Danny DeVito's drunken appearance on her show.
28. Silverman, Stephen M. (14 December 2006). "Rosie Apologizes for Asian Joke on The View". People. Retrieved 28 August 2010.
29. "Apologies: a Great Tradition". Time.com. 2007. Retrieved March 15, 2011.
30. O'Donnell, Rosie (2007). Celebrity Detox: (The Fame Game). Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 9780446582247. Retrieved March 23, 2011.

• 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
• Mid-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• B-Class Comedy articles
• High-importance Comedy articles
• WikiProject Comedy articles