Talk:Janeane Garofalo

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)

It's the same with Star Trek: Voyager. I put up a citation needed, but it was reverted. DerM (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2013 (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)

Why are there references showing her supposedly true birth name, like "Born" section of Janeane Garofalo at IMDb and page 83 of 2011 book Disney Voice Actors: A Biographical Dictionary by Thomas S. Hischak? Santiago Claudio (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2015 (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)

So she said teaparty folks are racist? I don't understand what's controversial about that - it seems a pretty straightforward statement of fact to me. The article would make a lot more sense if it said something like "in response to extremist criticisms" rather than "in response to the controversy". Though it sounds more like she simply does not dignify such nonsense with a response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.104.62 (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2010 (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 Wikipedia. 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, Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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) She is a upper class white racist. She hides it by attacking Black Conservatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.115.191 (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding her being criticized by the Washington Times for her comments about the Tea Party: the Washington Times is an ultra-conservative "newspaper" founded by Reverend Sung Myung Moon, the cult leader of the Moonies, and it is still owned by a subsidiary of the Unification Church. This is not a newspaper the stature of the New York Times or the Washington Post though its name evokes both, so why is it noteworthy when a not-credible rag criticizes someone? (Not sure how to sign this but my handle is Hannah955.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannah955 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 29 December 2018 (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...”[13] 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."[14]

The reason why it keeps getting deleted is because Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia. 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 -- Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)

Dude, you may as well quit wasting your time. Everyone on the face of the Earth knows that Wikipedia is biased towards the political left. The explanations that Garofalo's "everyone who disagrees with Obama is racist" comments are being removed because they aren't notable or because there are no reliable sources are absolutely laughable and pathetic and everyone knows it. Garofalo's comments are being removed because they make her look like the horse's ass she is and since she is a hero to those on the left, anything that makes her look bad is expunged from the record.

The problem with this conspiracy theory is that basically every politically informed person except for a few on the far right would agree with Garofalo that tea pariers are racist. Her comments on the Olbermann show are not a significant part of her biography; the fact that they were exploited by right wing pundits for clickbait articles doesn't change that. Ptprs (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The unsigned comment above this includes several claims, of which this is one: "Everyone on the face of the Earth knows that Wikipedia is biased towards the political left." To my way of thinking, the use of such obvious hyperbole negates the hypothesis as one of two things. It could have been be conjured up to put the opponents of Wikipedia in a particular light, or it may be the true opinion of (one of) them. Either way, the statement - and the entire comment - stands on its own merit. But because such opinions also speak volumes about the individuals who publish them, perhaps the commenter was wise to avoid giving even an IP address as an identifier. 184.41.39.44 (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(Annoying sing-song voice) Found him! (or her), the unsigned comment was added by User:74.141.155.184. ConconJondor (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

A discussion about the kinds of games played on Wikipedia

Today I added a sentence saying that some people feel that Janeanne is not funny anymore since she became such an activist. The funny thing is - the link I posted to was a black woman who doesn't feel she's funny anymore because she bashes Obama a little bit. This was reverted as blog-sourced and violation of BLP standards, and it's probably technically correct to revert it.

The funny thing is, someone later added the "atheism" tag to the top of the infobox.

So the fact that people think she ain't funny is newsworthy for the ages. Let that sink in. Janeane Garafalo, a purported comedian, not being funny - let's strike that. But tagging her infobox with Atheism - that sticks. Yep, that's the first thing I want to think about her - that she's an atheist.

I was just pointing out to my wife how this means that you really can't trust what you're seeing here. It's not so much explicit bias as it is a filter in what to cover, a filter of what's considered important versus unimportant to discuss.

Yep, that atheism tag is REAL important to have there. I don't mind so much my edit about her not being funny being removed, but it sure seems that it's a little bit more relevant than atheism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.113.52 (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not certain whether this is the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd most incompetent thing I've ever read. I feel duped that I wasted 30 secs of my life reading through this and trying to piece together what you are trying to say. But to sum it up, you tried to add the opinion of 1 "black woman" from a Blog onto a biography page of an individual and believe it is more relevant than her religion being in said biography? Do I have this correct, or am I comprehending your gibberish incorrectly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.86.230.202 (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The Jerry Maguire role business is rather interesting. She was told that she'd be cast if she lost weight and, if memory serves (I'm remembering this from live stand-up appearances), she went on a diet of primarily bananas, or maybe it was some other similar single food, and rapidly lost the weight only to learn that the part had been cast with a different actress. The film was such a runaway smash hit that it would have vaulted her movie career exponentially. Moreover, this story was told on television and elsewhere for years with the identities of the other principals and the name of the movie left out and everyone wondered about it. Jump Forward Immediately (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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)

I could see removing them all with a link to wikiquote.Cptnono (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems like the POV concerns, such as they were, have been addressed. There is no longer an ongoing dispute. As such, I'm removing the tag. --CAVincent (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Identification of "Redneck" as Racial Slur Constantly Vandalized

Why is this constantly being removed? Is this some sort of conspiracy? Isn't Garofalo proud of the fact that she uses the racist term "redneck" to describe white people?

I think we should be proud. Anyways. Credentials: black, female, muslim & jewish, gay. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.210.96 (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Redneck is not a racial slur, and removing the claim that it is a racial slur is in line with NPOV guidelines. It is enough to use the full quote where she uses the term --CAVincent (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider it vandalism as noted in the recent edit summary. Also looking out for both of your best interests with the caution. Don't let it hurt your feelings.

I'm leaning towards it not being called a "slur". If I was to call her a "dirty hippie" would that be a slur or just mean?Cptnono (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cptnono and CAVincent. It's obvious she used it as a slur (not racial), but it's commonly known as a term. Either way, NPOV lead me to take the described term redneck out. This current format is best, "In April 2009, Garofalo drew criticism when she denounced the Tea Party protests by disparaging the participants, saying: QUOTE."

Let her words speak for themselves. ThinkEnemies (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, ThinkEnemies! (Nice name, BTW!) I agree with your comments 110 per cent. I believe that, in context, the meaning of her words are clear. I certainly won't try to pretend that I knew exactly what she was meaning to say as she was saying it (after all, I wasn't inside her head that day ... or any other day.) I agree to leave as is. Happy Trails!! Dr. Entropy (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. "Dirty hippie" isn't an ethnic slur just as "dirty nigger" isn't a slur. Of course, "nigger" by itself is abominable and is definitely an ethnic slur. Since we can interchange "wetback" for latins as well as whites south of the US-Mexican border, "redneck" can also be used interchangeably on whites as well as latins. Why do evil whites always complain?

This has become ridiculous. The consensus is clear, to include Garofalo's quote and let readers take it as they will. If there is a better solution at this point to just semi-protecting for awhile to get rid of Mr. Anon, I don't know what it is. --CAVincent (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this has become ridiculous. We should also remove the term "redneck" as well as all other "slurs" about whites from the ethnic slur page. White people have absolutely no basis for claiming racial discrimination or disparagement. Will their evil never end? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.250.16.165 (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, now Mr. Anon wants to show that Loud Dobbs criticized Graglalalal for using the racial slur "redneck" and linking it to the part of the ethnic slur page that shows that "redneck" is an ethnic slur? You could cut the hypocrisy with a knife! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.250.17.12 (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You ask "Is this some sort of conspiracy?" YES IT IS WAKOPEDIA IS A LEFT WING RAG That slants everything against Christians & the Right Every time you "Discuss" something & point this Christaphopic Hate Speech out to them they just ban you like the good Marxist that they are! OK leftest Mods quickly erase this & ban me for having a brain.

Daria Morgendorffer

Why is there nothing on her page about Daria Morgendorffer being modeled after her? I always wondered Janeane's opinion on that. Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Provide a source.Cptnono (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It is on both the "Plot and Setting" section of Daria on Wikipedia and on Janeane's bio on IMDb. Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Production section does not have a source. IMDB has questionable reliability (if I recall correctly the release information is vetted but the bio sections may not be see the archived discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If sources are OK, any suggestions on where to put it? I'm thinking the line undr Production at the article under Television here if a reliable source is provided.Cptnono (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought. I personally thought Daria looked like her. Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed! Keep an eye out on sources and we'll stick it in (huh huh) under "Television".Cptnono (talk) 09:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny reference to Butt-head. I'll be on the lookout. By the way, will there ever be a DVD release of the entire series of Daria besides just the two movies? I'm still waiting for a release of the entire set of Beavis and Butt-head. I know there's a box set, but it doesn't include every episode. Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a clip from some MTV documentary where Janeane says that many people think she's the voice of Daria and "[she's] flattered by that, I guess." Tracy Grandstaff refers to herself as the "poor man's Janeane".--The lorax (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The clip didn't come up. Is it anywhere else? Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ugh. I guess you can't direct link without it redirecting...here's the long way to find the clip. Go to http://www.homunculus.com/eikona/garofalo.html , hit movie clips and click up to Gallery 8 and it's filed under “The Poor Man’s Janeane”: the myth of Daria is finally laid to rest.--The lorax (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I would appreciate it if someone would add for balance the remark she made to Tony Snow about protesting Clinton's Iraq policy "It wasn't very hip to" Donald Miller — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.7.223.111 (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOV regaring Ms. Garfalo's political stance

I clarified Ms. Garfalo's liberal POV in the article introduction - this edit was subsequently reverted in extreme haste (fast enough to suggest the edits to this article are being monitored by technical means such as SMS which would bring into question the editors POV):

Ms. Garfalo's political affiliation is inextricably linked to her persona - I feel her political POV is noteworthy in the introduction by the addition of a single, clarifying word.

Comment to the editor of my revision:

--

I am the "anonymous" (IP: 75.225.127.2) editor.

While Ms. Garafalo's political persuasion is indeed made clear near the *middle* of the article, other notable conservative personalities such as Glenn Beck (also a comedian, and television personality, as is Ms. Garafalo), have their political persuasion front-and-center (first sentence) in their respective articles, with nary a complaint or edit.

This edit was reverted in the course of one hour (from 0300 EDT). One can only conclude the American Ms. Garfalo has a large partisan following in Australia, which I find highly unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axatax (talk • contribs) 08:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Please be advised that SOMEONE described Gafofano in the opening as a racist. Perhaps the article should be semi-locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.237.155 (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Loss of role in Jerry Maguire

The article claimed that Garofalo was initially hired for Jerry Maguire by director Cameron Crowe, but the reference doesn't actually say that. I've changed the article from: "Based on the success of this film, director Cameron Crowe then offered her the leading lady role in Jerry Maguire with Tom Cruise if she could lose weight;" to "Based on the success of this film, a producer then offered her the leading lady role in Jerry Maguire[...]". Here's the relevant quote from the referenced source, an interview:

One of the producers wanted me to do it, with the caveat that I lose weight

Katana (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

X doesn't like Y

Yes, someone wrote an editorial and doesn't like Garofalo's opinion on a war. This tells us nothing about Garofalo. How many opinion pieces can we find stating this, that or the other person didn't like Bush's opinion on the same war? Or didn't like Obama's opinion on (whatever). The general principle here is that we do not pull material out of opinion pieces to add to articles unless the opinion piece is covered in independent reliable sources. Yes, person from party A doesn't like person from party B's opinion on an issue the parties don't agree on. Shocking. That's why there are two parties -- they don't agree. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Asexual?

Seriously, she mentioned it in her comedy act. is it possible she was exaggerating, for comedic effect? i think we need more refs. her whole collection of photos at the commons is categorized as "asexual women", and shes the ONLY ONE.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. It is poorly sourced, and could just as well be a punch line for "not having sex very often". Anyone who can come up with a better source for it? Nymf (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I would speculate that she's been involved with enough men over the years to not be regarded as asexual and that it was a joke. An intriguing sidelight, though, is that all of her men, to my knowledge, have been extraordinarily tall, while she's of course the opposite. Veering off the topic a bit, she's also never been given enough credit for her beauty and remains quite appealing up close, so if it wasn't a joke, it would definitely be a waste. Jump Forward Immediately (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this article and thought the same thing. If she said she was asexual during a comedy routine, I don't think we should assume that is how she actually identifies. Given the comments in this section, I am going to remove the category. Further discussion can be continued if needed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

This information has been re-added to the article with what I believe to be two appropriate sources which directly quote her self-identification. Rob T Firefly (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

(Courtesy ping @Rob T Firefly) I have just removed it again because in both sources, she also explictly says that she doesn't identify as asexual (or at least isn't sure). In the cited article, she specifically responds to the question "Do you actually identify as asexual?" with "No, no, I just say that in my life.". In the cited podcast, she says "I didn't always quote unquote identify, I dont even know if I do identify, I don't even know if I'm allowed to say that I'm asexual." (ca. 30s before time stamp in the citation, so like 34:45). Also, in both she goes on to talk about (her) low libido which is technically a separate concept from asexuality afaik. I do see/hear that she uses the word to describe herself / her situation (and the implication of "didn't always" isn't lost on me either) and it's kind of a tricky/borderline case, but I'm on the fence given that she explictly denies it in the article (and expresses doubt about it and whether 'asexual' is the correct term for what she means in the podcast). (Also, a few sentences later in the article, she says "When you're with the same person in a one-bedroom apartment for 17 years, I say asexual." and I don't know what to make of that...) I didn't listen too much around the podcast time stamp, so please let me know if there is something later on (or maybe another source) where she clearly self-identifies. Or if I'm mistaken how "much" self-identification is needed for inclusion or what it means to self-identify, of course. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

New Husband/Wig

Where is the proof she got married again?

Also, can anybody comment on the rumor that she wears a wig. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.64.224 (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

She’s single, okay? She’s literally said getting married, let alone having kids, is not her thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:D702:5900:7546:4CA2:FF22:1890 (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Personal life

IP user 2604:2D80:D702:5900:58CD:694C:D2CA:3AAE wants to include in the Personal life section a quote from Garofalo's 2010 stand up special that 2604 reads as a declaration of Garofalo being asexual. The cited source added with the quote doesn't include the quote or mention asexuality. 2604, instead of edit warring this content in, could you build consensus here for inclusion, or seek out a reliable source that verifies the content? Firefangledfeathers 02:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)