Talk:Rosie O'Donnell/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 |
Archive 4
| Archive 5 →


Contents

The article is huge!

Compared to other celebrity / actor pages anyway.
I suppose that reflects the American bias of this place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.144.44.47 (talk) - please sign your comments with ~~~~

would agree, she is also an outspoken activist and one of the world's most visible lesbians making her even more popular for attracting interest and "controversy." Benjiboi 10:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


I think it's easier to be outraged in America than where I'm from, in England. Over here, for example, Marilyn Manson would be seen as rather sweet and even quaint. Anyway, after a very brief look at the article, saw this sentence: "(Anti-Iraq War comments): O'Donnell has been very outspoken about her disdain for the Bush administration's policies and the war in Iraq, although public support for withdrawing the troops has steadily increased, the timetable for withdrawing troops is, as of yet, a point of disagreement." which does not scan somehow. It's like a list of facts, and the grammar is weird. It seems the bit after Iraq is unconnected. Judging by all the fuss in the article, I think I'll let someone else edit it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.144.44.47 (talk)
Thanks for the heads up, I'll try to address it now. Benjiboi 21:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Getting back to 86.144.44.47's original point: yes, the article is huge. Too huge. Unwieldy. To the point of incoherence. There's so much detail, the reader loses sight of the big picture. NickBurns, in his Changes, and a plea (see /Archive 2), makes the excellent point that the article contains way too much stuff that it shouldn't.
The section on The View is quite long; it should be merged into The View, and this article should have one paragraph containing a link to the other article. The magazine section likewise should be merged to Rosie_(magazine). The section on controversies is enormous. Some of it (and the separate gun control section) should be split off, perhaps into articles about the issues or other people involved. If R Family Vacations is notable enough to belong here, it's notable enough to have its own article.
Ok, you ask, why don't I do all that, then? Well, I will, rather than let this article remain as it is. But I don't know jack about Rosie O'Donnell, nor do I particularly care about her, so someone who does would be able to edit this thing better than I would. Hope someone does. Tualha (Talk) 03:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with some of the points you make but not all. Yes, the article is large but this is a living person's whose story is still being written and has been, at least over the last several years, a lightening rod for the culture wars in America. I don't agree the article is overly incoherent as it's not a finished piece either and there are some who have an agenda to include or delete materials so, with time, an emerging article is forming and the extra material will sluff off. The View section can be trimmed a bit and all the "controversies" need to be re-examined now that she's no longer on the show. I think the gun control section is valid and would be included in any biography about the subject. R Family Vacations probably will have it's own article but a section here is fine for now and they are synonymous with O'Donnell. The magazine section might be trimmed a bit but I think we would still have at least a paragraph summarizing the highlights of that chapter. Benjiboi 20:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Golden Raspberry Awards

Resolved.

I've removed the "Raspberry Awards" content from the infobox as I feel it gives them too much weight and the should be referenced anyway. Not sure how, where or even if it should be included so anyone have ideas or comments? Worst Supporting Actress - 1994 Car 54, Where Are You?, Exit to Eden, & The Flintstones. I'm thinking should g right near where the films are mentioned as critic commentary. Benjiboi 02:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC) In checking the articles on the dishonor it seems it is, in fact, considered an insult and is based largely on the hype of a film, if the info is included, which I'm on the fence still, it should be reffed as well as qualified so there's no confusion of the nature of the awards. Benjiboi 03:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

How about we make a hate Rosie page for all the ANTI-GAY BIGOTS? Anti-gay bigots are the ones editing this page and I'm really sick of it. The controversies section is too large and NONE of the other people that were involved in the controversies has single thing mentioned on their page because they are straight. STOP THE BIGOTRY!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.147.134 (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
In time they will all be trimmed, she was amongst the most highly visible and outspoken "leftists" and LGBT activists so she has been the target of much activity. At least the information is somewhat accurate but agree that it gives a bit too much undue weight compared to the rest of the article. Benjiboi 21:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect fact.

Resolved.

The following is poorly sourced or completely made up:

Donald Trump threatened to take away her partner Kelli[1],

  1. ^ Silverman, Stephen (December 21, 2006). Rosie Speaks Out on The View. People (magazine). Retrieved on 2007-07-13.

-- this is incorrect and fails WP:BLP for Trump. Nowhere in the article does that say that as a straight fact. It was sarcasm. Guroadrunner 13:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference has been added to address this. Benjiboi 08:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


Birth name

Resolved.

On her appearance on Inside the Actors Studio, O'Donnell stated that the name on her birth certificate is simply "Roseann O'Donnell" (wasn't clear to me if "Roseanne" or "Roseann"). Is there any objection to my removing the middle name from the article, then? Her own statement is probably the most definitive source. Page 13 of the book biography, "Rosie: The Rosie O'Donnell Story" (Parish, James Robert (1998). Rosie: The Rosie O'Donnell Story. Carroll & Graf, pg. 13. ISBN-100786705426) also states that she has no middle name. To the question above, although O'Donnell is of fully Irish descent, she stated in that Actors Studio appearance that she loves Jewish culture and because of that "feels Jewish" (or something like that) and grew up with many Jewish friends in Queens, etc. In this interview she says something along the same lines. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Where did the Teresa come from? We should consider addressing that as it was added from somewhere. Benjiboi 08:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
It may have been a result of the fact that her mother's name was Roseann Theresa. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Gotcha, I saw the hidden text which should keep it from being introduced again. Benjiboi 12:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

R Family Vacations

Resolved.

I've spun off R Family Vacations to it's own and will trim this section here with link to main. Benjiboi 09:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

British Royal Navy personnel seized by Iran section removed

Resolved.

I've removed this section as it seems to have almost no notability except to show O'Donnell as wrongly assessing a current event; unless we are going to start listing every event all the hosts of the got wrong (which I don't recommend) this should go. Benjiboi 10:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

On March 26, 2007 O'Donnell discussed the Iranian seizure of British Royal Navy personnel comparing it to the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident that escalated the Vietnam War, implying Britain was provoking war with Iran stating:[1]

“ There were 15 British sailors and marines who apparently went in to Iranian waters and they were seized by the Iranians. And I have one thing to say. Gulf of Tonkin. Google it. ”

She stood by the statement on March 28, 2007, stating on her weblog that the British had intentionally sent forces into Iranian waters, triggering the hostage crisis as part of a false flag operation intended to precipitate the invasion of Iran, writing:[2]

“ The British did it on purpose. [They went] into Iranian waters as the U.S. military builds up on the Iranian border. We will be in Iran before summer as planned. ”

WTC 7 tower collapse section

With all respect to those who are more involved in the 9/11 and twin towers attacks, etc. this section is probably ripe for conversion as O'Donnell has no national forum with which to build much of a groundswell on the issue. Were she still doing daytime talk I have little doubt the subject would be brought up and we would indeed have much more to document but I think it's smarter to convert this to her New York City-centric POV which fostered her love of Broadway and, in part, prompted her to bring on 9/11 rescue workers and to bring up sensitive 9/11 subjects even if her point of view wasn't shared by all. Benjiboi 08:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Catholicism

I am Catholic and at times concerned about the depiction of the faith or community here. However I think we have to be restrictive on these prejudice categories when it comes to living people. It's not entirely clear that she's associated enough with Anti-Catholicism to merit categorization. She is not a leader of an Anti-Catholic group or a historian of the subject. So I removed it in the past, and now, in order to make the category more valid. I mean it lost a deletion vote once and only survived due to a review.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Past remarks have also pointed out that this article may already be over-categorized (not my area of knowledge so I don't know) but the main reason i oppose that category, and others have as well, is that she's simply not known for this only "accused" of saying anti-Catholic things. The entire section still reeks of POV-pushing but if it must stay I'll see if I can source content to support the section. Benjiboi 20:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
With regard to the anti-Catholicism section and tag, it is not necessary that she be "proven" to have engaged in anti-Catholicism for the tag to apply. The tag is appropriate for notable topics relating to the subject of anti-Catholicism. The repeated accusations of anti-Catholicism have been reported scores of times in reliable sources. Including that someone has been notably accused of Antisemitism, for example, or anti-Catholicism, as reported in reliable sources, does not violate WP:BIO or WP:LIVING. In fact, policy states "views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources". See for example the discussion of accusations of anti-Semitism in the Mel Gibson article and the tag attached to it. Mamalujo (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I think your interpretation and characterization of O'Donnell as anti-Catholic is far over-reaching but since you've now provided some sources we should let them speak for themselves. Also the category is for those notable for being anti-Catholic which still is inaccurate. She's simply not known for this. Benjiboi 23:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I take a different view than Benjiboi. I think the accusations are real and worth having in the article. However they don't rise to the point where she is notable to the topic or for her views on Catholicism. The category should be restrictive on living people otherwise we end up with just a mess of people who maybe said stuff once in awhile. If it makes you feel better I'll add Tony Auth.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


Update. Per biographies, reliable sources we need to verify the sources in this section. For the record I think all the content is accurate however it's obviously controversial material and I'm unable to see a few of the sources to verify them although versions of them are online. Can anyone help so we don't have to remove them? Benjiboi 06:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


WP:LEAD

Resolved.

I tagged this article with {{tooshort}} template, since its lead section is way too short compared to the size of the article. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree, I believe I've summarized sufficiently. Benjiboi 00:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti Catholicism

I do not mean disrespect to either side, but clearly neither sides seems capable of writing a neutral point of view. Might I suggest that an impartial editor be brought in to handle this section. No matter how cleverly nuanced the words are constructed, its editorialized to the hilt. From content to formatting, this section is thinly veiled opinions. Wikipedia is not a court of law, nor a court of public opinion, so editors should try a bit harder to avoid rendering verdicts (pro or con). I don't doubt the sincerity of the editors, and that they actually think they are being neutral, but clearly this is far from neutral (nor were previous side's edits and tagging). I hope both sides will take a time out and call in for outside help on this matter. Again, I mean not to offend. GptVestal (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not offended and I appreciate you stating those concerns. I've made another pass to trim and tone it all down a bit. And going through the various research I keep coming back to either she had personal experience with molestation or abuse of some sort and/or she has maternal rage for children who are victimized and related indignation in relation to the abortion issues. My main concerns with prior content was that neither The Catholic League or the conservative talk show host making statements and calling for protest seemed very newsworthy (and they still don't) so hanging the section on those two means by extrapolation we'd have "controversy" sections popping up almost weekly on everyone they deemed anti-whatever which seems pretty unencyclopedic. Now that we have more sources to work with (even though some don't seem to be verifiable online) I feel the section at least has moved beyond the tabloid realm. If anyone can find online versions of references that would help a bit. This particular section has been a source of conflict for a while and I hoped it would die down now that she's not on the air but we'll see if the current version can be vetted and stabilized. Benjiboi 04:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

correction

Resolved.

Under R Family Vacations the date is listed as 6 April 6 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.21.136 (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC) {{editprotected}} Please correct the date in the Rosie O'Donnell#R Family Vacations section from "6 April 6 2006" to 6 April 2006. Benjiboi 05:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Stifle (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism section

Resolved.

Problems with that section:

  • the scandal was about child abuse, not about pedophilia. Child abuse is the widely used term anyway.
  • what kind of settlement was reached is irrelevant to the topic of Rosie O'Donnel.
  • Also we should not endorse any of Rosie's shrill statements, especially if they are false.

Finally, Benjiboi is repeatedly saying "don't change quotes" in edit summaries. Thus far I haven't found any quote that has been changed. Present them here or drop the claim. Str1977 (talk) 10:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"pedophile scandal" and O'Donnell said "the most interesting thing about Deliver Us from Evil (is) that the person who was in charge of investigating all the allegations of pedophilia in the Catholic church from the ‘80s until just recently was guess who? The current pope." are both direct quotes that you have now altered four times. Please stop. And as the subject of the article is about O'Donnell, her comments, ideals and values, whether you characterize them as shrill or not, are certainly relative to her biography. Her issues with the Catholic church have remained focused on pedophilia as she has expressed numerous times. The talk pages reflect that if she is to be saddled repeatedly as an anti-Catholic, which many editors have disagreed, then a fuller accounting of why that section is in there is certainly more balanced than simply the calling of such by the Catholic League.
"Archdiocese later settled most claims for $86 million by selling property" is quite short and concise although if you feel it's too WP:UNDUE I'm happy to find an even shorter way than the 11 words presently used. Benjiboi 11:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Benjiboi, you are wrong as

  • The scandal is not a pedophile scandal but a child abuse scandal
  • The quotes are no quotes. I don't see no quotes around them and we are not obliged to quote in verbatim, especially if the content is badly wrong.
  • I never said we should not cover her shrill views - but we cannot endorse them.
  • You still have not argued why the settlement is in anyway relevant to Rosie. The only thing I can think of is an attempt to vindicate her view, which would mean endorsing it. Not that she actually got it right, as none of the fictitious golden toilets were involved. And not that it makes a difference: even if she were right, the accusation of a-C would still stand.
  • We report what she said and report that this has been labeled a-C. Let the reader decide. Str1977 (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, thank you for engaging the talk page. "pedophile scandal" is a quote and has been presently in quote marks just as I have now printed it. Another quote is "the most interesting thing about Deliver Us from Evil (is) that the person who was in charge of investigating all the allegations of pedophilia in the Catholic church from the ‘80s until just recently was guess who? The current pope." You'll notice there is indeed quote marks there as well. I could see further expanding the section to explain that many don't believe the issue was about pedophilia but instead child abuse if we have a good reliable source that explains the distinction or clearly shows that O'Donnell got it wrong. I think it would need to confirm to the exception claims require exceptional sourcing caveat.
I apologize if I misinterpreted "we should not endorse any of Rosie's shrill statements", I think you're tying this to the inclusion of "Archdiocese later settled most claims for $86 million by selling property" which indeed seems to support that there was a "widespread "pedophile scandal" and was in the midst of a lawsuit with 552 victims."
I don't disagree that she has been accused of anti-Catholicism just that that category isn't justified. She indeed seems more anti-pedophilia then anythingBenjiboi 11:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for engaging here too.
However, the things you claim as quotes are not quotes. Yes, we are relating what she said and yes, we could quote her verbatim. But neither version does so (a mere word is not a quote, these might as well be scare quotes). A reason for that might be that her comments are not accurate. So instead of quoting her verbatim and then going to great lenghts pointing out the inaccuracy we relate her comments more neutrally. When Rosie says "pedophile" (which is in no way accurate) she means child abuse.
Our job here is to relate what Josie said and why it is deemed controversial by some, not to explain the extent of the child abuse scandal. There is no justification for including the settlement as Josie's comments were just as controversial and IMHO bigotted no matter what the settlement was.
We are not talking about categorisation here but about the wording of a single section. Also, how is it anti-pedophilia to mock the Eucharist? Is it anti-pedophilia to claim the Pope has golden toilets? Is it anti-pedophilia to issue false allegations against the then-Cardinal Ratzinger? I could go on as Rosie bashes Catholics and other Christians even if the child abuse (still the correct term) is nowhere near. But you'd probably say she is anti-(this-)war and pro-abortion and not anti-Catholic or anti-Christian. Well, there are some anti-Semites that would describe themselves more as being anti-Captilist. But that doesn't condone their bigotry. Neither does it here.
PS. You were violating wikirules when you dropped the tag I placed. I think that was unintentional as it had been removed by another editor who removed the problematic bits but still, you should be careful not to semi-revert to your disputed version without also reverting back to the tag. I am AGF here this time. Str1977 (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I agree with the section being called "accused of" a-C as that is accurate enough for now and I don't see this article going for A status anytime soon. What I meant was that the category, to me, and many others, has never seemed appropriate and frankly does a disservice to Catholics who actually have some a-C foes. The should be documented if notable enough. In O'Donnell's case it almost seems laughable as she is still, I believe a Catholic. She is more against pedophilia by Catholic priests and anyone else and her actions and words bear this out. Is she known for mocking the Eucharist? Perhaps by some, largely because the work of those informing them of such. I think her a-C is most known within the US Catholic universe and many of them also brush it off as not that noteworthy. And certainly a lower priority than ... you guessed it ... pedophilic priests. I will again state that I fully support qualifying these statements with a WP:RS that asserts that there was no pedophilia involved by Catholic priests. And it would also be good to introduce other WP:RS to dispute Ratzinger's involvement as Mamalujo has suggested he couldn't have been involved. In fact, it would serve the purpose to clearly show she didn't have her facts correct and incorrectly asserted his involvement although we cannot infer why she said it. Also I apologize if i dropped the tag, I fully support its use as it seems to concisely convey the major problems with the section presently. Benjiboi 12:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It is not laughable at all, Mr Benjiboi. I don't care in anyway about the category or whether it is a disservice to Catholics. Her bigotry (or the allegation thereof) neither be censored by you because you think it laughable nor should it be continued by this article through endorsing her views. She simply got her facts wrong as Cardinal Ratzinger was only in charge of the whole issue since 2002. That she cannot distinuish between pedophilia (a sexual disorientation) and child abuse (a crime) is her problem and shouldn't be parroted he.
Thanks for apologizing that you dropped the tag.
Thanks for trying to work out a way (I haven't looked at it yet but will do so in a minute)
Thanks NOT for claiming [[WP:OWN]ership of this article and for reverting six times. I have reported you for that and regardless of what I will think of your latest version: rules apply to you to, my dear.
Str1977 (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
No, your rewrite obviously doesn't cut it at all:
  • It still contains the irrelevant settlement.
  • It still wrongly calls the scandal a pedophilia scandal.
  • It still unashamedly contains the false claim that Ratzinger was in charge since the 80s. And while I think many sources can be added, we already have one source disputing it and that's good enough for WP not to spread falsehoods.
  • Hiding behind generalisations is no solution: Rosie attacked not some anonymous church figures who covered things up but the Pope. And since you asked about sources: statements of Rosie cannot be references by articles about the film but only by articles about her statements.
Stop the slander. Str1977 (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent). Hi, to me the easiest solution would be to add a reliable source that disputes that Ratzinger was "in charge of investigating all the allegations of pedophilia in the Catholic church from the ‘80s until just recently". We know that's what O'Donnell stated but we don't have a reliable source to show it isn't true. And, we further don't don't know if O'Donnell got it wrong, the filmmaker reported it wrong or a combination of the two. Benjiboi 17:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC) This seems to suggest he may have been involved on some level.

  • Pope 'obstructed' sex abuse inquiry: Confidential letter reveals Ratzinger ordered bishops to keep allegations secret by Jamie Doward, religious affairs correspondent

Sunday April 24, 2005, Guardian Observer

“ Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had 'obstructed justice' after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church's investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret.

The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001.

It asserted the church's right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II's successor last week.

 ”

Benjiboi 17:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So the slander enters a new round. This report is of no consequence as a) at best/worst it moves the time Ratzinger was concerned to 2001 but not to, if I may quote Rosie, "the 80s", b) it doesn't put Ratzinger in charge of the entire affair, c) it is completely abusing the letter which did concern only internal church procedures and does NOT tell anyone not to inform the relevant secular authorities. True, the allegations are there but as I said, this is irrelevant to the case of Rosie O'Bigot. Also, you seem to think by levelling personal attacks against me and my religion, by dumping filth on mine or anyone's church that this somehow excuses Rosie's bigotry. It's clear why you don't see her comments as outrageous. You seem to think that somehow I have more of a problem with the existence of pedophile priest than you have! You seem to think that demands for a source that says that no priests were ever involved in pedophilia serves any purpose! It is a nonsensical claim and serves only one purpose: to keep up the slander.
There is already a RS saying that he wasn't in change, namely the source that says he was put in charge in 2002. Str1977 (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
You could start by correctly attributing your accusations of slander to O'Donnell or the film producer and the quote says he was in charge of investigating case from the 1980s util recently which can be interpreted that the Pope was in charge of that process starting in the 1980s and can also be read that he was in charge of investigating cases from the 1980s until recently. Again we can ntroduce a reliable source to clarify the difference but as it's obviously a sensitive subject we should avoid OR inferring what was meant. It would also help this process if you could refrain from labeling O'Donnell as "Rosie O'Bigot". I also regard your accusation that I've personally attacked you or Catholicism as I've tried to be dispassionate about all the priest scandals and simply reported this is what was said, in what context and what the Catholic League stated in response to her statements. I would do the same if this were a called a pedophile scandal at Greenpeace, in the Red Cross, The Whitehouse or The Mormon Church. We don't censor, we simply state the facts and let the reader draw their own conclusions. My asking for a reliable source perhaps should have been more clear. We have a statement that it was a "pedophile scandal" within the Catholic Church, if we have another reliable source stating that actually it was not a pedophile scandal then that would help balance that statement you think is incorrect. To simply assert that it couldn't be that as we don't know that all those priests are pedophiliacs or not would be OR on our part. If you have a reliable source that shows they aren't then please post it so others can see it and figure out how to reconcile the two. Benjiboi 05:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I did find Vatican 'protecting paedophile priests' (BBC News, 18 October, 2002) we can use if no other sources appear to show that he was actively addressing the issue and was also trying to protect priests accused.
“ Supporters of the Vatican said the Holy See was simply trying to develop a policy that protected children while also preserving the rights of accused priests. ”
Also here's another possible source. Pope denounces 'evil' sex priests (BBC News 21 March, 2002)
“ In his annual letter to priests, the Pope denounced the "sins of our brothers" which brought scandal upon the Church and made the laity suspicious of even the "finest" priests. ”

Hey Benji, there is no use for such a mudslinging discussion. It has no bearing on the actual issues. Stop it. In any case, if things were as they should be on WP you wouldn't be editing now. Str1977 (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reload

Let's try to get back to content issues. Here's a proposal:
  • We retain the word "pedophile scandal". Even though the wording is inaccurate it is a common mistake. However, I suggest changing the wikilinks to [[Bernard Francis Law|archbishop]] and [[Roman Catholic sex abuse cases|pedophile scandal]] because this archbishop and this scandal are referred to. Let me state again that I never changed a quote, I changed from a quote to an indirect rendering.
  • We concetrate on the Rosie-relevant facts, thus removing the settlement.
  • Stylistic change:
    >>... she compared the Republican Party cover-up of the Mark Foley scandal to the cover-up by Catholic Church officials who actively took steps to conceal the perpetrators by moving them from parish to parish in Amy Berg's film about pedophilia in the Catholic church.<< to
    >>... she compared the Republican Party cover-up of the Mark Foley scandal to Catholic Church officials' cover-up child abuse by moving the perpetrators from parish to parish.<<
  • Change of the content and how it's organized:
    >>O'Donnell said "the most interesting thing about Deliver Us from Evil (is) that the person who was in charge of investigating all the allegations of pedophilia in the Catholic church from the ‘80s until just recently was guess who? The current pope."[86] to
    >>O'Donnell said, in reference to Amy Berg's film about pedophilia in the Church, "the most interesting thing about Deliver Us from Evil (is) that the person who was in charge of investigating all the allegations of pedophilia in the Catholic church from the ‘80s until just recently was guess who? The current pope."[86], a claim that has been disputed.[83]<<
The last change ensures that Rosie's sentence is presented undiluted (something I never intended to change) but also makes clear that it is not an undisputed factual statement. Note 86 can be amplified by other references about the Cardinal's involvement. I moved the Amy Berg thingy over to this sentence so to clarify what "Deliver Us From Evil" is. The "has been disputed" sentence is already very much toned down.
Please reply. Str1977 (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate your effort, there are still things not right with the current version.

  • It still contains the settlement which is irrelevant to the ROD issue here.
  • It newly introduces facts about her being raised Catholic and being abused. Abused by whom? This belongs into a biographical section and not into this controversy. I understand that being a victim of course makes her more sensitive towards the issue but a) that is never made explicite anywhere (simply placing an undisputed fact next to this issue without drawing any link is not good writing) b) she actually does argue against this in the linked interview, c) there is no indication that she was abused by a priest, d) is there no indication that this was brought up during the controversy about her comments.
  • The explanation about the misnomer should also be placed into a footnote. IMHO it hurts the flow of the text and is also too detached from the actual occurence of the word.
  • I do not understand the "but" in "On The View O'Donnell has joked about communion rituals (alongside Behar's drunk priest comments)[89] but on 2 October 2006 she compared ..." Actually, I do not understand at all why the "drunk priests" are placed between one instance of child absuse scandal an another. Maybe chronology? It seems more reasonable to state that she also "has joked about communion rituals".

The rest seems acceptable enough. Please respond. Str1977 (talk) 10:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't followed all this, and I'm afraid I didn't properly examine the talk page before editing. I have now, though.

  • Str1977 says s/he "never changed a quote". Is that a reference to the "pedophile scandal"? If so, I've changed the direct quotation "pedophile scandal" to the indirect reference "sex abuse scandal", without quotation marks, and linked to Roman Catholic sex abuse cases. I think that's acceptable, especially since it's correct that many of these case involved post-pubescent victims.
  • I removed "raised Catholic", because it's in the Early life section. I removed "was abused as a child" because the source is an interview which says that she mentions it in her book "as an aside". There are lots of people who say that they were abused. I'm not suggesting that she's lying, but we need something stronger, like a conviction, if we're to state it on our own authority.
  • The pedophile versus ephebophile thing probably doesn't belong in that section. If it does, it should be put immediately after a misuse of pedophile. It was out of place where it was.
  • The bit which says that responsibility to investigate sexual abuse only started in 2001 needs to be worded better. I presume it means that that Congregation was officially given that task in 2001?

Wikitumnus (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Wikitumnus, it is good to have independent (apart from the two main "combatants") view getting involved.
I am afraid Benji will take issue with your move as I did exactly the same thing. I did exchange the quoted word "pedophile scandal" with the more accurate "child abuse scandal" and Benji called this changing a quote. Obviously I agree with your change which at the same time removes any need for the pedo-/ephebophilia/child abuse clarification. We'll see what Benji will say.
Regarding the biographical information, I believe it belongs in the "early life" section if it can be reliably sourced.
Actually, the responsibility was given in 2002. Benji's 2001 probably dates back from the letter quoted above.
Str1977 (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Benjiboi, I am asking you to engage on the talk page and to be more careful in your reverts, distinguishing things editors can disagree about from clearly false information:
  • ROD was not on the "Phil Donahue show" in 2002 - that show was cancelled in 1996 - but on a shortlived show called "Doonahue" - my link was very exact: to the section in PD's article covering that show. Until there is an article on the 2002 show this is the most exact thing we can do. I will therefore revert on this point.
  • Also, you may argue that the drunk priests should be in chronological order. Though I'd prefer a topical order, your point is not unreasonable. However the "but" is not a proper link between the two sentence. I will therefore redelete the "but".
  • I removed William Donahue's name only to avoid confusion with the show and host Donahue (adding his name is not feasible unless we change it to Phil Donahue's show - referring to it indirectly instead of by the actual title.) and because WD is acting as the spokesperson of the Catholic League, making the two de facto interschangeable. I will not redelete it but in a second edit introduce the solution proposed above.
  • I will also put the pedo/ephebophilia information back into a footnote so that it can be placed right next to the inaccurate word.
  • Also, please explain the purpose of the word "widespread". I don't think it's necessary to identify the scandal (as Boston Archidiocesis is mentioned immediately afterwards), making it a vague designation.
Str1977 (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I am content with the gist of the asterisk solution to the "pedophile misnomer issue" and will only make some tweaks.
Can you again explain why we are including the word "widespread" if it is not needed (as you admit?) I think it is quite parallel to the word "falsely" that another editor included and which has been removed. We should stick to the facts needed to understand the controversy.
Finally, I think the passage "the current pope ..." is overlinked, containing three links to the same man and article. I will reduce it to one. Str1977 (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)