Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:59, 4 October 2009

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers B‑class

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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.

Comedy B‑class Mid‑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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

General Talk

Misplaced Pages:Profanitysays:If you are including some famous person's exact quote, don't censor -- tell us what he actually said, as long as the quote itself is relevant to the article. There's no point in ever turning an instance of "fuck" into "f***" or "the f word"; if you wish to do that you should paraphrase rather than quoting. Thats why I made the change.Saul Taylor 20:24, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I find the article to be POV against Garofalo, there are many unsupported statments of opinion. I'm not going to tag it as such, however it smacks of it and I'll get back to it when time allows. Calicocat 00:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The oddest thing is the line "Garofalo's politics are self admittedly to the left", which reminds me of the old Peter Cook routine viz. the Jeremy Thorpe trial, "(Normal Scott is...) a self-confessed player of the pink oboe, a man or woman who by his or her own admission chews pillows". I think a better opener would be 'Garofalo describes her politics as left-wing / Democrat / whatever (link to interview), saying that QUOTE (pithy quote) QUOTE. She is particularly concerned with (most prominent issue) (source), for which she has (founded charity / set up non-profit organisation / become an activist)' would be much better. The Iconophile has the best, most sustained demolition of her career and appeal inside the little number one in square brackets that appears here yes, just there.-Ashley Pomeroy 22:10, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Saying this entry smacks of POV against Garofalo is laughable. JG, if anything, is anti-political correctness. She probably would say we're going too easy on her. ZachsMind 19:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ashley Pomeroy. The article says,"prompted her famously self-loathing acerbic persona to begin to blossom," but no support is given, I think the writer might be doing a little weasel-wordish editorializing. I do not think that is accurate and it's not sourced, no examples are given, it makes her sound rather one dimensional... I don't see her that way at all, quite the opposite in fact... The tone of this piece has a bit of a way to go and if one can't be neutral about her, maybe move on to other topics. See what wikipedia is not for more inforamtion. Janeane has complex views, if you're here to "get her" you're not doing a good service to the spirit of wikipedia. (these comments are not addressed to .-Ashley Pomeroy ...just saying that since these follow hers.) Calicocat 15:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Politics vs Comic/Actress

Jtalledo m (rv edits by OldRight to last version by Ricky81682 - Garofalo's politics take a backstage to her success as a non-political comic)

Not anymore. The article should be made current to her activities and notoriety on political issues. - RoyBoy 06:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. But that doesn't belong in the lead. We're probably going to remember her more for her non-political comedy than her political efforts. Further details about her political activity are mentioned elsewhere in the article. Air America is even mentioned in the lead - that should be sufficient. At any rate, there's still some debate regarding the placement of her politics in this article, so that's why I removed it. Thanks for the comments. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've seen Janeane's films and TV shows, but I know her more as a radio host and political activist. I listen to her radio show and like it very much, so I don't see where her political views should take some kind of back seat and predictions about what we will remember seem rather speculative. That said, the phrase "self-admittedly" sounds weasel-word-ish to me. I also removed hollywood before actress, in a previous edit. I could almost hear the voice of Mrs. Betty Bowerscalling her a "nasty hollywood commie poinko anti-amerian, un-christian actress." I think it would be easy to find good quotes and sourced information demonstrating Janeane's politlcal views, of which she proud and outspoken...also her temporary blacklisting might given a bit more "ink." ...Lastly (for now), the photo of her is very dated and where's it from?...maybe we can get a new one going...a more recent one. I'd have no objections to seeing her then and now...Calicocat 15:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, I think the link to Air America should suffice, but you can definitely add info about her political activism to the lead. I think it is very appropriate to separate the political activist efforts from her comedy work. OldRight added the political tag to her description as a comedian, which is my primary objection. Again, feel free to add more political info to the first paragraph, but I believe it should be separate from her comedy - they're two distinct aspects that define her career. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Even when she was 'just' a stand up comedian, she wore her political views on her sleeve, so her political interests should never take a backseat. It's as important as her success as a comedic actress. ZachsMind 02:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Where to put the dog named 'Doo' ?

In her comedy routine circa 1997, Garofalo admitted to becoming a dog person. She used to make fun of dog people and still views them as crazy. Then one day she was working in Deweyville Utah on location, and she heard whimpering coming from underneath a house. There, she discovered a lost, stray, four-week-old labrador retriever puppy. Naturally she couldn't just leave it there so despite her misgivings she reluctantly realized she was at that moment a dog person. She named the dog 'Doo' after the city where she found him and the Tommy Lee Jones character in her favorite movie Coal Miner's Daughter. "I named it Doo so I can say Doo." Although she calls the dog 'Doo' to other people, when referring to the dog directly she calls it "a little piece of angel food cake" and "a member of the tail waggers' club," "belly boy," "Bay," and anything but the dog's actual name, so the poor thing doesn't even know his own name. Then some unspecified time later she was in a pet shop and came across a sickly looking dog that she couldn't bare to part with. Again, she named the dog Mercer, but more readily refers to it directly as "Stinkdoodle" because in her opinion, it is.

I'm saying all this here in Talk, because I have no idea where I could actually put this in the article itself. Do I put it after the mention of her standup comedy work in the early 1990s but before the article starts mentioning her movies? Do I put it at the end? Does it belong at all? Having once been a reluctant dog owner myself, I feel while not important, it's relevant to describing who she is to mention her reluctant dog-person-ness. I'm also unable to determine whether or not she still has the dogs, or the actual fate of the dogs. Furthermore, this was a comedy routine. It's probable that she didn't make any of it up, but just as Bill Cosby purposefully mixed actual facts with blatant exagerations for purposes of comedy, Garofalo was certainly not under oath at any time during her standup routines.

So any input in this area would be appreciated. How might it best be worded, should it be worded, and where would we put it in the already established article? Thanks.

ZachsMind 14:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I have an idea of how to do it, but I'd like a reference prior to inserting it into the article. - RoyBoy 05:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Garofalo described her relationship with her dogs in her standup routine, circa mid-1900s. See Wikiquotes. ZachsMind 19:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Drive through wedding in Vegas links

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=janeane+garofalo+married+in+Vegas+drive+through

http://www.anecdotage.com/index.php?aid=13300

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0169712/bio

Need I go on?

--Jason Gastrich 06:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Tattoo

I think she has a tattoo with the word Think. Is this notable enough to deserve a mention? Eiler7 17:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you source that? got a photo? --8bitJake 18:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a web page which mentions it. She also made, in that interview, the claim that the Bush administration was not democratically elected which may be worth mentioning too. Eiler7 16:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is she an american atheist

I am simply curious to know and to be informed on what her own underlying internal specific reasons are for being an american atheist as is shown on the bottom of the article. Cuyahoga County, Cleveland, Ohio, 2006-06-30 at 12:04 am

"He just seems very man-made to me. There are so many theories, and not everyone can be right. It's human nature to need a religious crutch, and I don't begrudge anyone that. I just don't need one." - Showbiz, 1995-08.

The bible is "a marvelous work of fiction" - Feel this book, page 209.

Via . -- Jeandré, 2006-06-30t18:37z

That is load of crap. She is NOT an atheist. She is a Scientologist, just like the nutballs as Tom Cruise and John Travolta. No, it is not Christianity, but sure as heck does not make her a atheist.--Getaway 16:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like a source to Getaway's comment. I did some searching, and all I found was that she went easy on a Scientology project aimed at 911 victims. That doesn't necessarily make her a scientologist.--Eddie Parker 17:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

See the link referenced by Jeandré above. It has SEVERAL references to her stating, verbally and in writing, that she is an atheist, or agnostic at the least. Slavlin 19:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Filmography

Looks like the filmography is getting too big. Any suggestions on trimming it or eliminating the section? --Jtalledo (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

question on new edit

<<<Janeane Garofalo is of Italian/Irish descent (some biographers may found Native American ancestors, but fans said Garofalo has the features), the child of Carmine Garofalo, a former oil executive, and Joan Garofalo, a secretary who died of cancer when Janeane was 24. She grew up in various places like Houston, Texas and Ontario, California as her father is in the oil business.>>>

Can some of you help me to verify my additions to Garofalo's background. I'm not trying to vandalize or fabricate anything about her. It's known by her fans and followers, what's cool is Janeane Garofalo is both an actress and political commentator. I always thought she grew up in New Jersey and went to college in Rhode Island, then Garofalo's father was in the oil business that required him to move around every few years. Texas and southern California is no doubt a large part of the oil industry, but don't know Garofalo can claim American Indian in her, Garofalo is an "ethnic" last name, then she is white and about the "Indian features", may indicate more Irish or Italian than the otherwise "native" American genes in her family tree. + 207.200.116.73 13:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Last name sounds Greek to me, similar to Garofallou.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.203.109 (talk) 04:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"Garofalo" is an Italian name. She is mostly Italian & Irish, but she has also mentioned Portuguese relatives.Brian Westley (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional Comments

I believe someone should make a comment about Janeane's large eye-brows which she had whilst on the west-wing. Am I the only person here who was mystified by their size? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.54.76 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 3 September 2006

They were large, but I don't think they were necesarily worthy of comment except possibly in the trivia section of the character article. I thought it was quite clear that her appearance, including the untamed eyebrows and running shoes paired with a pantsuit were part of the image she was portraying in Lou. -- Melissa Della 01:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture?

Why is there no pix of this actor?Chivista 18:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't she in a Sopranos episode?

The one where Christopher goes to new york to pitch his script and he sees janeane on the set of some movie shoot... I think so. i would check and see exactly the episode etc. but im too lazy. just writing this is enough a burden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inanimous (talk • contribs) 06:40, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

A mess

Why is this a B-class article? It seems like a nasty mess to me. It's not well written and more than one controversial section is entirely unreferenced in violation of WP:BLP. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree. Heck, the Personal Life section is outrageously scanty. One would think, for instance, that her high profile fling with Ben Stiller (referenced and sourced in Stiller's own article) would rate a mention.  RGTraynor  09:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Role in GTA San Andreas

I can't seem to find any reference anywhere of her doing anything with this game. Does she perform in it under a pseudonym, or is it just wrong? Jawsper (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree; the IMDB credit list does not show her: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0383385/ Brian Westley (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the GTA:SA credit.Brian Westley (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"Jane Anne"

I can't find ANY reference to her name ever being "Jane Anne"; she sometimes refers to herself that way as a joke, as some people try to pronounce her name that way, but I don't think there's any support that it's her name. Brian Westley (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

With no references forthcoming, I have removed "Jane Anne".Brian Westley (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Also changed the "birth name" to matchBrian Westley (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Majority Report Weblog

Doesn't seem like the inclusion of the "Majority Report Weblog" in the external link section is providing much value. Thoughts? BigBrightStars (talk) 01:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

lead

I suggest removing (or at least rewording) the sentence "Despite her celebrity status, Garofalo continues to circulate regularly within New York City's local comedy and performance art scene". The text (with the word "Despite") implies that it's somehow unusual for celebs to perform to local NYC audiences. --Rob (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Racism Generalizations

I love how the comments added to her page about her comments that the tea party protesters are all racists keeps getting removed. This noteworthy piece of information (and YES it is noteworthy--it has been played and reported on numerous television and print media giants--don't know how much MORE noteworthiness you expect seeing as this is probably the first time I've seen anything about her in a LONG time) should be included. And as for WP: SOAP assertions, soapbox has nothing to do with it. I could care less what side of the political spectrum she is on, I don't have any agenda or propaganda to push--these were all things SHE said from her OWN MOUTH. None of this was taken out of context or misconstrued. She actually stated as a fact that conservatives/tea party protesters are racist. This is a definitely controversy that has stirred up strong condemnation from all sides and should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwplumley (talk • contribs) 20:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I second this! The comments she made on Keith Olbermann's show need to put in this article! I'm not taking positions, but it did offend many people and was discussed throught the blogosphere and on the news. Any attempt to silence this matter would clearly be an aggressive partisan effort to misinform the readers of Misplaced Pages. Find out who is undoing the additions, and bring them to justice: It is vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberal00Q1 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Enough with your fake outrage, children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.174.187 (talk) 04:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I have re-added a section on her recent appearance on Countdown with Keith Olbermann. I have attempted to be as neutral as possible and simply quoted as much of her comments as seemed relevant. No comment on her comment was included, her words and the context in which they were made speak for themselves. DanD (talk) 06:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Better, but may still be a problem by giving undue weight to the matter. In a few weeks whether this merits mention at all should be clearer. It is not at all clear (to me at least) that this rises to the level of an actual controversy outside the blogosphere, though obviously some folks are worked up. Some reliable sources (i.e. not blogs) showing that this is worthy of note would help. CAVincent (talk) 07:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There were still severe POV and WP:OR problems with this, but more to the point, it's not notable enough for inclusion in the biography. Blogs of a certain political slant are all abuzz over her comments this week, but we write these articles with the long view. Remember, Misplaced Pages is not news. In six months nobody will remember or care about whatever random punditry occurred this week. To add it now would be undue weight. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You are wasting your time. Misplaced Pages is biased. Take a look at Imus's page, there is stuff all over it about the comments he made. What is the difference? The facts in this case are clear, words out of her own mouth. I will start putting the information out on the internet about Misplaced Pages's severe bias. What a bunch of hypocrites! From your statement above, then why did you let Imus' page have all those "news" items added. You don't even lie well. But again, Wiki is crap anyway. No real security....

To the anonymous poster above - bias is a part of human nature, see List of cognitive biases. Create an account, sharpen your pen and join the fray. DanD (talk)

Loonymonkey et. al. - what I added was NPOV, although later edits seem to have changed this. Ms. Garofalo appearing on a national and highly viewed program and expressing views definitely contributes to who she is as a person, and in this respect is most worthy of inclusion in a biographic article. While this is not news, it most certainly is a very clear part of the picture of who Garofalo is today. The fact that search terms relating to her interviews are now trackable on Google Insight supports the assertion that people are interested in this aspect of who she is. You are correct in that nobody will remember or care about this interview - especially if it is deleted or censored. Either the complete picture of this person should be presented (weighted appropriately), or perhaps the entire article should be nominated for deletion, if, as you say, "noone will remember". I suggest a pairing down of the quote and listing under a section of Interview Appearances to address your valid concern of undue weight. As for the youtube reference, it can be replaced with this one directly from MSNBC.DanD (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that your edits were a little more neutral and were made much worse by other editors, but really the question is whether this has anything to do with her biography. Frankly, it doesn't. She commented about a notable event, but that doesn't make the comments themselves notable, as the event has nothing to do with her life. She's a pundit, and so she is going to be making comments on lots of things in the news in any given week. But, like every other pundit article, we don't rush to add those comments to the biography as they happen. As I said, nobody is going to remember or care about her comments about those rallies in six months. So why should we add them now? I respect your opinion, but claiming that this is "censorship" is just absurd and the argument that the choice is between including the quote or deleting the entire article is a little bizarre. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, let this germinate a little bit and see if there are multiple reliable sources that indicate this incident has sustained significance instead of just another mini-flash in the pan of partisan rhetoric. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I put in proof on garaflo maing racial charged statements latest Bill Maher on HBO, her own words, that the Tea Party people were promoting white power and were against Obama because he is black. This is a talk page, Blaxthos you should not be removing posts hereSolarsheen (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann

This keeps getting deleted when I and other users add it. I was told to add this here to the discussion area so we could discuss how it should be added to her page. We feel that it is important as it brought her into the spotlight recently. The first part quotes her statements on the Olbermann show, and then there is a source for the entire interview on video. Then the second part discusses the opposing view on these comments, and intertwines them with prior statements on the Olbermann show from 2003. There is another sourced video from the previous interview as well. Here is the segment that was put on Wiki:

Appearances on Countdown with Keith Olbermann Garofalo appeared on Countdown with Keith Olbermann on April 17, 2009 where she made the following remarks regarding the recent Tea Party protests and President Obama: “There is nothing more instant than seeing a bunch of racist become confused and angry at a speech they're not quite certain what he's saying. It sounds right to them, and then, and then it doesn't make sense. which... let's be very honest about what this is about. It's not about bashing democrats, its not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don't know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the whitehouse. This is racism straight-up. That is nothing but a bunch of tea-bagging rednecks. And there is no way around that. And, you know, you can tell these type of right-wingers anything and they'll believe it except the truth. You tell them the truth and they become, its like showing Frankenstein's monster fire, they become confused and angry and highly volatile. That guy, causing them killings they don't know, because their limbic brain, we've discussed this before. The limbic brain inside a right-winger or a republican or conservative or your average white-power activist, the limbic brain is much larger in their, in their head space than in a reasonable person and it's pushing against their frontal lobe, so their synapses are misfiring...” The argument that some have stated about this interview in 2009 dealt with her previous comments given on Keith Olberman in August 2003 where she stated, "I am in favor of any citizen talking" and "...the most appropriate response is dissent which is the most patriotic thing you can do and the First Amendment guarantees everyone's right to speak out."

The reason why it keeps getting deleted is because Misplaced Pages is biased.

Sources: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAAHMDpk7Ik http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZaR19xDDUk —Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtCheeseNOLS (talk • contribs) 15:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

For starters, these are not reliable third-party sources (we don't use Youtube clips as refs). But that's not really the point. It is undue weight for something that really has nothing to do with this biographical article. Further, juxtaposing these two quotes is synthesis, a form of original research which apparently is being done strictly for POV reasons. This addition would add absolutely nothing to the biographical details in the article, but would serve only to foster the opinion that the subject is hypocritical. That may be your opinion, which is perfectly valid, but Misplaced Pages is not the place to push that point of view. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it looks like that this has spread to other citable news sources, so your feeble opposition based on WP:RS no longer should stand. Secondly, if it was pared down to one or two sentences, then that would take care of WP:WEIGHT. Written correctly, there should be no trouble with a mention of a statement that she has made a point of not retracting. Leave it to the reader to judge what it means. If another editor wanted to do this, I would back their edits. Nodekeeper (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I am confused then as to how YouTube is not a proper source. If there is a video on YouTube, how is it not seen as having credit and merit? YouTube is a place where videos are uploaded, in this case, a video that is very wide spread. Also, why can't her comments just be mentioned. Other celebrities and people have quotes and moments in their history mentioned...just look at Don Imus's page. It has EVERY comment he has ever made that has sparked outrage. Why can't Janeane Garofolo's page have her Keith Olbermann interview on it? Is Misplaced Pages's biography page not to talk about the person, give facts on them, and then let the reader make their own opinion on the person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtCheeseNOLS (talk • contribs) 09:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple reasons that YouTube links are not acceptable as reliable sourceson Misplaced Pages. They are self-published, they are not verifiable in any way and they tend to violate copyright. If the comments can not be found in a reliable third-party source, then they definitely aren't notable. Which gets to the main point. I don't edit Don Imus's page so I can't speak specifically about it, but many of his comments are a significant part of his biography (the Rutgers thing was a major news story that lasted weeks and eventually cost him his job). These comments on the other hand are non-notable. Maybe it was mentioned in a few right-wing blogs that day, but I doubt there was even one reliable third-party source that did a story about it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I find it funny that Youtube isnt "realiable" for wikepiedia...lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.46.89 (talk) 04:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Beyond WP:COPYVIO, the lack of reliable independent secondary sourcing indicates a lack of encyclopedic notability. It's all original research. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a transcript of Garofalo's Olbermann interview on FoxNews.com. I am not sure, but I think it qualifies as a reliable third-party source. Lpetrazickis (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for letting me know about that 3rd party. Now will Fox News not be considered proper because of "copyright issues" as well? Because I thought citing it was enough for "copyright" issues... —Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtCheeseNOLS (talk • contribs) 23:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

A transcript alone is a primary source -- Misplaced Pages requires coverage in multiple (independent) secondary sources. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. There are single-sourced transcripts and other sources all over Misplaced Pages. Every media outlet provides a transcript and they're perfectly valid source material - except of course when it negates the narrative, right? 08:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.188.141 (talk)

Movie section needs cleaned up

1: "Garofalo's best work is in Reality Bites but her first critically-acclaimed starring role in film was in 1996 in The Truth About Cats & Dogs" should obviously be changed.

2: I'm not sure how her NOT getting a part in Jerry Maguire is noteworthy, especially as it isn't cited. //Zhirzzh 13 May 09

Serious POV issues

While on Fox News' program 'The Pulse', Bill O'Reilly asked Garofalo what she would do if her predictions that the Iraq war would be a disaster were to turn out wrong. Garofalo stated "I would be so willing to say I'm sorry, I hope to God that I can be made a buffoon of, that people will say you were wrong, you were a fatalist, and I will go to the White House on my knees on cut glass and say, hey, you were right, I shouldn't have doubted you."

Notice she didn't need to apologise, folks.

In April 2009, Garofalo drew criticism when she denounced the Tea Party protests, saying: "Let's be very honest about what this is about. This is not about bashing Democrats. It's not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston Tea Party was about. They don't know their history at all. It's about hating a black man in the White House. That is racism straight up. This is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks."

This is all rather silly, and citations from Faux and Doughy Pantload? Surely Misplaced Pages is better than this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.174.187 (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this whole page needs a rewrite.--The lorax (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the flagrant WP:BLP violation, wherein "teabagging" was a wikilink to the sexual act. Adding a wikilink inside a quote is obviously adding information that she didn't say. MichaelLNorth (talk) 02:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

While I'm glad to see Garofalo's personal clean-up squad is still on-duty - this is valid criticism, and she invites it by speaking out on political issues. What is tiresome is her fans' insistence on removing verifiable content, such as the fact that her attack on the Tea Parties was criticized by people of different ideological standings; refusing to allow the actual nature of the Tea Parties to be stated to offset how offensive and ridiculous her comments are (and thus explaining why they are 'controversial'); pretending that she wasn't talking about teabagging when she said ... teabagging; and so forth. Can't wait to see what Misplaced Pages's like when you folks have to permit edits of any kind. Should be real 'fair and balanced'. 08:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.188.141 (talk)

I believe that this article, as it is currently written, does reflect Misplaced Pages's policy of Neutral Point of View (NPoV.) Therefore, I see no reason for a rewrite. My vote is to leave as is.

Happy Trails!!! Dr. Entropy (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

While this quote appears to be accurate, I'm not sure why, out of the dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of things she's said publicly, this is important enough to be in the article. Is this trying to imply that she was right? That she was wrong? I can't tell. In any case, shouldn't this section be attempting to summarize her viewpoints instead of including (seemingly) random quotes? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Actors and filmmakers work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Comedy articles
• Mid-importance Comedy articles
• WikiProject Comedy articles