Talk:Rosie O'Donnell/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Please 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 4 |
Archive 5
| Archive 6 →


Contents


Bush

Resolved.

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

I wouldn't characterize it as pathetic so much as sad however the piece cleary covers her take on the Bush administration and her views o what led the US into the Iraq war so it's certainly useful for that. Benjiboi 18:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It is rather pathetic for her to blame Bush for an injury caused by herself. Political ideology aside, if she had said that about anyone other than Bush, almost everyone would agree she's insane to say that. (example: I watch the Superbowl and don't like that the Patriots lost. I get in my car to go 7-Eleven and on my way, I get in a car accident. Therefore, it's the Patriots fault. That's her reasoning.) But anyway, I'm hopping off my soapbox. Your addition of the reference doesn't include any mention of her blaming Bush for a personal injury.(unless I missed it) It seems rather imporant to me, considering that's a good portion of the article.AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. Benjiboi 18:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mention it as it doesn't seem terribly noteworthy and it's not clear how the two are connected because she didn't make it very clear. It would also seem to do nothing but make her look foolish in some way and that's not our job. If a reliable source picks up on it and reports O'Donnell blames Bush blah blah blah...cutting herself then maybe but frankly the piece is a great overview on her take of Bush administration and why she's currently reticent to jump into politics. It's not a great piece explaining what happened and why as to the cutting of her finger. If that subject becomes significant then it can be revisited. Benjiboi 19:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
We'll agree to disagree on this one. Reliable source reporting O'Donnell blah blah blah'ing again: [2]AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI that source simply quotes the original and is a conservative blog so I wouldn't put too much weight on it. Now that O'Donnell doesn't have a national forum and is below the radar I doubt she's a priority target but we'll see. Benjiboi 21:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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


ROD vs. Elizabeth Hasselbeck

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

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

ROD: Do you believe I think our troops are terrorists, Elizabeth?
EH: I don't think that you ... (cut short by ROD)
ROD: Yes or No?
EH: I don't think that you ... (again cut short)
ROD: Do you believe it, yes or no?
EH: Excuse me, let me speak!
ROD: You're gonna double speak. It's just a yes or a no!
EH: I am not a double speaker and I don't put suggestions out there that lead people to think things and then not answer my own question. Okay?
ROD: I had a question for you and you didn't answer.
EH: I don't believe that you believe that troops are terrorists. I have said that before but when you say something like …

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

Now, as for the other rewording:

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

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

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

Benji, do not hide behind a supposed ruling to avoid making your case on the talk page. I am beginning to consider this another way by which you claim WP:OWNership of this article.
Furthermore, my edits are no more OR than yours. The video link is a source and I am not deducing any synthesis from it, rather just presenting the contents. Oh, and where is your source that states that EH replied to the question "once"?
Str1977 (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Both versions of this are relatively OR, or at least primary source, IMHO. Can either of you find a source that discusses RO'D's politics and/or this debate with Hasselback? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I am all for reducing needless detail. It doesn't really matter how often EH replied in the negative to a repeatedly asked question - only we should not include false or misleading information. Str1977 (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Great - can we summarize the whole thing - the important part about that whole argument isn't their exact words, but rather that it lead to O'Donnell leaving the show. Can the section be rewritten to focus on that? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think youtube videos ought to be used as sources on articles about living persons.Bless sins (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi BS, what brough you here. We also have a transcript of the clash - however, seeing and hearing for yourself is even more reliable. Str1977 (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Are youtube videos allowed as references on WP? I'm not just talking about this article, but I had seen the same thing on other articles and have been wondering about that.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I have not consulted any policies or guidelines, but I'd say that as long as it is used simply to report a certain event it is admissible - just as we would admit a transcript. Or as an illustration. Str1977 (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. --AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)