Talk:Rose McGowan: Difference between revisions

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.

The Birth Date issue below is currently disputed.

Close examination of the "about rose" page at rosemcgowanonline.com [http:/www.rosemcgowanonline.com] will show that it states in (her own?) handwriting her birth year is 1975, "(According to some)" This is probably a reference to that fact that it conflicts with the IMDB. Personal interviews mentioning her age correspond to the RMO site. -- Osprey

Oh, I thought IMDb were right :-( But why is there "1973" on the following page: http://www.rosemcgowanonline.com/aboutrose/biography.php

And: If 1975 really is true, the category Born 1973 has to be changed to 1975, too.

RoseMcGowanOnline.com is an unofficial fansite. The birthdate there is most definitely not in her own handwriting. It is a computer font. --Monger 18:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did not see that page before. I stand corrected. Osprey 19:10, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

She was defiantly born in '73. The is no way she was only 20 in the Doom Generation.

This could drive anyone crazy. Take a look at this collection of interviews [1] - some of them say 1973, some 1975, and some even hint at 1974! Short of getting a birth certificate, I don't know how we can confirm this one for sure. JackO'Lantern 04:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll settle on 1974. Yahoo movies is almost never wrong [2], and they say it's 1974. I can see how that middle date would've led to confusion resulting in the other two dates (75 and 73) being used by many sources. JackO'Lantern 05:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the birthdate of 1973-09-05, until you can provide something a little more substantial than faith in Yahoo Movies. Unfortunately the internet is full of bogus and contradictory information about McGowan. As noted, magazines, IMDb, Yahoo Movies, the RoseMcGowanOnline.com fansite and other sources list varying birthdates. Unless you can produce an interview where she states her birthdate, I think it should stay as is. See also the photo of her as a young toddler at http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Rose_McGowan that is dated Spring 1974. That photo was provided to myself and the other editors of xFamily.org by the individual identified as Samech Figtree in this labelled version. More information about the photo is available in the caption here.

I have also removed the mention of her family still being in the Children of God cult until she was 15, as although that information appears in several magazines I believe it to be spurious and I have not seen her personally state it in any interviews. --Monger 18:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, I went over the group of interviews here [3] (and they date back from 1995) and it drove me crazy because some interviews said 1973, some said 1974, and some said 1975. For instance - This one, dated April 2004, calls her a "28 year old" [4] - indicate 1975. This January 2003 interview calls her a "29 year old" [5] - i.e. indicating 1973. This one stays "September 5, 1975" [6]. This one says 1973 [7]. This one says she filmed "Doom Generation" while 20 years old [8], i.e. either 1974 or 1975. And these are just the recent interviews - if you go through the 1990s ones it is basically the same situation. Honestly, I think we should just not list a definite date since there is obviously something odd going on here. JackO'Lantern 20:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of the contradictory information in magazines, etc. However, I have never seen an interview where she gave her date of birth in her own words (I don't believe she does so in any of the articles you linked to). As far as I can tell, those dates and ages are speculative or based on incorrect resources. IMO it's quite likely that Rose herself has been involved with the misinformation about her age to some degree. The closest thing to "proof" of age I've seen is the photo I've linked to above which was taken by a former Children of God member who lived with her and her parents in Italy and claimed the photo was taken in the Spring of 1974. In the photo, Rose is clearly at least several months old. As an editor and administrator of the xFamily.org wiki on the Children of God cult, I have been in contact with this individual, and can vouch for the photo's authenticity (edit: but not specifically for the date). Remove Rose's date of birth (September 5, 1973) if you must, but I am fairly convinced it is accurate, or at least closer than any of the other suggested dates. --Monger 21:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we can leave it as 1973 for now. I'll try and see if I can find something in her own words. JackO'Lantern 21:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good. I don't know why this is, but there seems to be more bogus information about Rose McGowan online and in print than with many other celebrities. I'm generally very skeptical about anything written about her unless she's said it herself in an interview (I've read a fair number of them). I've seen a few cases where she contradicts herself from one interview to the next, but this is much less common and usually about minor issues. --Monger 22:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Odd. I would place the blame on McGowan herself here, I have to say. JackO'Lantern 00:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a fan of Rose for ten years now, and I can completely say, without a doubt, that she was born in 1975. If you watch, or read a transcript from her Feb 1999 appearence on Howard Stern, she states "I'm 23..." when Stern asks her age.[9] This again, is from Feb '99 when she appeared on the talk show promoting "Jawbreaker". Being that it was still only February, Rose would not yet be 24 until September, since she was born in 1975.--Hurley86 20:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is the best information yet to confirm her birth date. I went and changed the other date reference near the bottom. We can leave the {{dubious}} tag there as other people may disagree, and that will lead them here. Too bad the transcript link you referenced doesn't carry a show date as well. --Joe Christl 00:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks. I have read that transcript before, but had not recalled her stating her age. (It would be nice, however, to have an official transcript, as the one on that site is riddled with typos and other transcription errors.) I do think though that we should keep the {{dubious}} tag in place next to her date of birth in the article, as although I know of no other article where she states her age in her own words, many others who have interviewed her have given her year of birth as 1973 or, occasionally, 1974. --Monger 00:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a fansite of hers there is a photo of her in 1975, she's a toddler in it. Weird thing is, she looks about 5 in it, so maybe even 1973 is too late a birthdate. But 1975 is definetly incorrect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.230.170.211 (talk • contribs) 19:06, August 3, 2006.

That photo could very easily been marked incorrect. Like I said before, Rose HERSELF, has stated in a 1999 interview that she was 23, and since the interview was taken in February and her birthday is in September, it would make the birthyear 1975. You can't be anymore correct than hearing it from Rose herself.--69.142.14.136 19:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On http://www.rosemcgowanonline.com there is an interview in the 1997 section where she's stats on October 17, 1997 she is 23 years old. http://www.rosemcgowanonline.com/press/1997/114/ "Didn't it seem strange that there were all these high-school students in Scream and none of the actors who played them were teenagers? You all looked so much older? "But I was one once. I remember. I'm only 23 now. If you have a problem with me playing a teenager, go watch Beverly Hills 90210. They're all like 45. That's why Tori Spelling has all that plastic surgery." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.113.37.43 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 30 August 2006.

There you go, direct evidence that Rose McGowan has to some degree been involved in spreading the varying birthdates. We now have two different interviews where Rose McGowan, in her own words, gives ages that directly imply different birth years. I am now in favor of restoring her year of birth as 1973, given its greater prevalance in generally respectable materials and sources. Clearly, the {{disputed}} disclaimer seems needed regardless of which year we go with, but can someone present a decent argument as to which year should be shown in the article? --Monger 23:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I am in favor of utilizing the '73 date, as well. I'll take the liberty of doing it. Too bad someone couldn't just contact her agent, and ask. I mean, they could simply direct them to this discussion and it would be settled. Any takers  :) --Joe Christl 23:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this solves anything, but all the "born today" announcements for McGowan say she is 32. [10] Mad Jack 16:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone care to comment on the whole "32" thing? Mad Jack 22:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been established that the media regularly claims different birth years for McGowan. I don't think this adds any new information. McGowan herself, during different interviews, has claimed to have been born both in 1973 and 1975 (see previous discussion on the subject). --Monger 00:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should all know by now that Rose is a liar. I don't believe anything that comes out of her mouth anymore.Care bear 10:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little uncalled for, don't you think? These aren't the social pages, but an encyclopedia. BTW, thousands of women have lied about their age - she's no different. Joe Christl 14:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been established by Holly Marie Combs in more than one interview that she thinks it funny that she was the middle sister in "Charmed" (and became the eldest sister when Doherty left the series), but was in fact the youngest of the four actresses portraying a Charmed one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.216.0.11 (talk • contribs) 18:58, September 7, 2006.

Well that would go to Rose being born on '73. --Joe Christl 14:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If her birth year can't be confirmed listing any year really goes against the principles of an accurate encyclopedia. Users can read the discussion section if there are interested in our guesses. 68.190.48.20 05:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should get a new picture of her. The one currently used is her from the Charmed series. Although stunning in its own right, I think the article would be served better if we could get a another one; perhaps a non-charmed pic? --Joe Christl 19:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added an additional picture of Rose, to differentiate it from the one on the Paige Matthews article. --Joe Christl 18:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a slightly more up-to-date photo of her here: http://www.celebrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/rose-mcgowan-quote-4-3-07.jpg

I'm not certain if it conforms with the licencing requirements though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.183.201 (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Z-Vap, what does the magazine source you cited (Simms, Molly (2006), "In Full Bloom", Bust Magazine, Dec05/Jan06) actually say regarding Rose being "officially emancipated" at age 15? I'm aware she left her parents at that time, but I have not seen any source say she was emancipated. Should you be unable to provide the quote from Bust Magazine, I will restore my revision, stating simply that she left her parents. Thanks. --Monger 00:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was an interview she gave for the magazine. In her own words, she says that she had emancipated herself when she was 15 1/2 years of age. She said it wasn't easy as she had to represent herself, to the court. I myself wasn't sure if she was emancipated, or had just left, and wanted to get some sort of confirmation. I don't know what the official Washington State law is regarding the emancipation of minors, but apparently a minor needs the courts permission. This article settles that. --Joe Christl 03:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. --Monger 19:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

she isn't in the natives of Florence and in the natives of Tuscany lists... and I readm I don't know where, her father now is italian citizen... by law she is italian citizen, but I don't know if she is enlisted as italian...

Is there a reliable source that describes her as Italian out there? See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) - only nationality is supposed to go in the header, and almost everything on her describes her as "American". The Italian thing appears to be an accident of birth Mad Jack 06:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if Mr. McGowan now is italian citizen, Rose is also italian citizen because daughter of an italian ctizen, while she isn't italian for birthpace because in Italy there isn't ius soli... so the quetion is: Mr McGowan is really also italian citizen?213.140.17.100 21:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rose McGowan's parents are both Americans and she too has spent much of her adult life in the United States. This is likely why she is often regarded as an American. McGowan's father Daniel (an American of Irish lineage) had several art contacts in Italy and ultimately relocated there with his young wife Terri, whom is believed to have forebears in France. The two became members of the Children of God and remained in Florence, later giving birth to Rose. They did not return to the US for some time.

[[11]] [[12]]

– — ArmsHeldOut ArmsHeldOut 18:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been plucked out of nowhere - I thought her middle name was Jane! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.43.89.118 (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I thought so, too. Her middle name was changed by an anonymous editor with no explanation or source given (see edit comparison). If no reliable source is given for this name change I will revert it within a few days, if no one does it before me. --Monger 19:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on that editor's talk page.All other sites have her name as Rose Jane McGowan.I will edit it,probably by the end of the day. JakeTheBlake 21:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jake -- contact me and I will confirm the middle name Arianna and the correct birthdate of Sept 5, 1973. Also, I am not french. Voodoochick6 15:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jake - did Voodoochick6 confirm this? Just curious.

Jake or Monger -- I would be happy to confirm. Some months ago, I received an email from a Wikipedia editor. I don't want to post my email address in a public forum. So how do I hook up with an editor to pass on proof? You guys don't have an email to use either. Voodoochick6 02:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add how this stupid, pampered actress living in the comfort of La La Land has said that if she had been living in Belfast during The Troubles she would have been a member of the IRA? Even ex-IRA are saying she is stupid and should withdraw the comments. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7609856.stm. Trey and Matt really hit the nail on the head in Team America, didn't they? I wish actors would just keep their vain mouths shut outside of the studio. My uncle was murdered by the IRA for the sole reason that he worked on a construction project for the RUC. Perhaps, on this day seven years after another terrorist event, she would have the guts to say also that she would join Al Qaida if she had lived in Afghanistan, or Iraq, in the last few years? See how her fellow Americans like that. 86.17.211.191 (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'My uncle was murdered by the IRA for the sole reason that he worked on a construction project for the RUC.' So he was actively collaborating with the British military occupation of Ireland. Paid off by 30 pieces of silver, in other words. He paid the price for his actions. Your problem, therefore, is? 86.42.119.12 (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Errr... The British military occupation of Ireland? You do know that the RUC operate exclusive in Britain, don't you? The clue is in the name: Royal ULSTER Constabulary. You did also read that the victim described above wasn't even an RUC policeman, but a civvy? Last time I checked, civilians are off-limits in any sort of legitimate warfare.

Actually, oddly enough I never knew Ulster was in Britain. Perhaps you could start with going over to the Ulster page and telling all us Irish that Ulster has now left Ireland (due to the iceage this morning, of course) and gone across the sea to Britain. And living here in Ulster, Ireland, I can tell you that Ireland has been under British military occupation for some centuries now. Had you been brought up with British military bases on the hills all around you, monuments to Irish civilians murdered by the British crown forces, and daily reports of harrassment you would not say such silly things. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, as for your 'Even ex-IRA are saying she is stupid...'- the "ex IRA" man is Martin McGartland, a former member of the IRA who changed sides and acted as a paid informer to the British. His very life now depends on supporting everything his British masters tell him to and he is living under the protection of that state because he has caused the death of so many innocent Irish human beings by working for the British secret service in their dirty war in Ireland. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came on to improve the article to include this new information on Rose McGowan being a terrorist sympathiser, but notice the article has been locked... Can someone with the necessary permissions please add it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.43.240 (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To "improve" it, did you now? Are you sure it wasn't to reinforce your own political viewpoint? She does not sympathise with the British, so please don't imply such a thing. She sympathised with the cause of Irish freedom, and opposed British state terrorism against another indigenous community of this planet.86.42.119.12 (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think she'd look great in a pair of combat fatigues, if appropriately tailored...the balaclava and the machine gun may be a bit much tho. ;-) I don't mean to make light of the subject - at all - but let's not forget that this girl is a Hollywood actress with, we may assume, a very limited understanding of what she's actually talking about. She's expressed her opinion, but it's silly to get carried away, and everyone should keep a sense of perspective. But of course the subject, which has garnered a fair bit of media attention in the UK, is worth a mention in the article. Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really "silly to get carried away". It's a criminal offence to incite terrorism. 195.157.52.65 (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

haha. Yes, one of the many crucially important and extremely necessary new laws added to the statute books in recent years. Although I think if you read the legislation carefully, that offence only applies to people that wear turbans, have big beards and deep tans, and talk funny. Nevertheless, I agree that it is crucially important to the defence of the realm that Rose McGowan be extradited from Hollywood via a secret SAS mission and immediately locked away for 42 days. I know I won't feel safe until this madwoman is put away for the public safety. Badgerpatrol (talk) 09:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to make light of it when you haven't been personally affected 195.157.52.65 (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making light of anything. People who make bombs and shoot people should be arrested and thrown in prison. By contrast, Hollywood actresses who say silly things are Hollywood actresses who say silly things. The really terrifying scenario is not evil men putting bombs in bins and blowing up kiddies out shopping for football boots, or maniacal mobs harassing little Catholic girls on their way to school. The really terrifying scenario is if we foster such a climate of hysteria and recrimination that people are no longer free to express their opinion without being, at best, castigated, or at worst, locked up. If every pretty young actress who said something slightly silly was locked away, then the film industry would disappear over night. She's got an opinion and she's entitled to it. Just as everybody else is entitled to disagree. Badgerpatrol (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Terrorist"? I thought she said she'd support the IRA freedom fighters, not the British colonial occupiers. This obviously needs to be changed. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The IRA are terrorists, whether you support the Republican movement or not, they're nothing more than a band of rapists and murderers, just like the UDA. 213.121.151.174 (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the British are terrorists who have persecuted people all over this planet for centuries. Or, wait, the British Empire was a civilising mission for which all us natives should be down on our knees thanking you? Do you have any idea of the savagery upon which British rule in Ireland is built? 86.42.119.12 (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"British Colonial Occupiers"?! Which century do you live in? Have you not noticed that over the last 63 years, every British territory that wanted its independence got it? What makes you think Northern Ireland is any different? If the people of Northern Ireland wanted to be part of Eire or independent, it would have happened by now. Is there any way to put a geographical lock on this discussion so only people who have any understanding of the situation (i.e. those in the UK and Eire) can partake?!

'Northern Ireland' is part of Éire, another basic fact which you are also oblivious to. 'Northern Ireland', the state, is the product of the British overthrow of democracy in Ireland on 23 December 1920 when, through the Government of Ireland Act 1920, the British state refused to accept the wishes of the vast majority of Ireland's democratically elected representatives for freedom from British colonial rule. The vast majority of this island's population voted for that in the 1918 General Election. They don't teach you that over there in Britain, clearly. 'Northern Ireland' is, therefore, as legitimate a state as if the Irish in Liverpool gerrymandered a majority out of that area and joined with the Republic of Ireland. PS: In the light of your abject lack of familiarity with Irish politics, Irish geography and Irish history, I think you are calling above for yourself to be banned from this discussion. PPS: You do know it was an Englishman who founded the modern IRA? And that so far only one Chief of Staff of the IRA has won the Noble Prize for Peace? 86.42.119.12 (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful not to slip into inflammatory and incivil rhetoric. I think the amount of attention paid to the topic within the article as it stands is reasonable and proportionate. Badgerpatrol (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, I would not be posting here only for a British nationalist pov is calling the Irish who resist British rule in Ireland by the same weapon used by the British-force- "terrorists". As I have shown above, this view is based on a profound ignorance of geography- Ulster is apparently in Britain- and Irish history. Leaving aside direct acts of British state terrorism such as this, the British state has colluded with loyalist terrorists and terrorised my community, also. This is well documented, reported on by the United Nations, Amnesty International and Helsinki Watch (among others) and finally admitted to by the British state in the Stevens Report. Therefore, why does this article not say that Rosie has opposed British state terrorism in Ireland? Because a British nationalist pov is represented here. That's why. There is a reason why IRA volunteers are not referred to as "terrorists" in wikipedia articles. Balance these comments and I'll feck off with myself and leave your man above to his lamentable ignorance of Ireland's British problem. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a political discussion. Any further comments that don't relate to the subject of this article (Rose McGowan), regardless of political stance, will be summarily deleted. Badgerpatrol (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the claim in this article that she supported IRA "terrorism" is a most political word to use, representing as it does a distinct point of view. Neutral editors would simply write 'IRA'. Indeed, more educated British nationalists could console themselves that 'IRA' is far better grammatically than what they would contend is a tautologous term: "IRA terrorism". 86.42.119.12 (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the IRA (and its associated iterations, Provisional, Real, etc.) has been classified as a terrorist group by both the British and US governments, among others, and Wikipedia deals with verifiability, not subjective "truth". However, I don't have any objection to changing it - but I would object if a politically-motivated edit war were to break out either on the article proper or on this talk page. So please everyone ensure that dialogue is kept on-topic and is civil, sensible, constructive, and not likely to be perceived as inflammatory. Badgerpatrol (talk) 08:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nothing to do with "9/11" although you would have thought the date would reminded her of the evil of any form of terrorism) .

This was just used as the edit summary to remove the wiki link to the 9/11 articles .She however made the comments on the 10th of September .Not the best week to make such comments apart from the stupidty of making them in the first place .

However mention of it being the week of the anniversary of the "9/11" attacks gives the false impression she actually made them on the anniversary itself

I'm not quite sure how to reword the paragraph to refelect that though .Anybody got any ideas .Garda40 (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will someone please tell me what was so bad about what she said? Look at the full quote. She said that she understands their cause, she empathizes with them. She says she understands why they fought. So what is she said she would have joined. Thenext (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she did say that she would have joined the IRA, illegal in the UK and the Republic of Ireland, and an organisation labelled a terrorist group (at least until recently) by the UK, the US, the Irish Republic (?I think?) and the EU. I think almost any impartial observer would agree that had she said "if I had grown up in Kabul, I would have joined Al Qaeda" then this conversation on-Wiki would have a very different tone...and her film career would now be over. Perhaps we should try and dig up some more response to her comments however, both positive and negative? Although it would be wrong to swamp the article with this one issue (in fact, I would probably support getting rid of the separate section and merging it with "personal life"). Badgerpatrol (talk) 09:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, Thenext. You don't need a PhD in Irish history to understand why people joined the IRA. I, for instance, can understand why many British people still contend that they civilised us natives and I can empathise with their sense of dislocation now that the Empire is over except for a couple of islands and part of another one; this does not mean I agree with them. The edit in this article is nothing more than a pov edit, quoting a guy who works for the British authorites without even mentioning that quite relevant fact. Badger, your analogy with Al Qaeda betrays your prejudices, and ignorance of what British state policy has been doing and defending in Ireland for quite some time. Having said that, I do understand why you feel as you do and I do empathise with your situation. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

haha, well, I'm extremely grateful to you! That is a significant weight off my mind. People shouldn't blow up other people and shoot them, whether they're Unionists, Republicans, Islamists, Zionists, Environmentalists, Animal-Rightists, Communists, Fascists, any other sort of -ist...or Governments. I have no political convictions on this issue apart from that simple and I hope sensible position. As for your comment - how do you suggest altering the Rose McGowan article? Because if you have no suggestions for the alteration of the article, please bear in mind that this is not a political discussion. If we can't stay on topic, it may indeed be best to delete the whole lot. So, what are your recommendations for the article? Badgerpatrol (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:-) It should simply say something like: 'Although objecting to the use of violence to achieve a political aim, McGowan empathised strongly with the reasons why people joined the IRA and said she 'would 100% have been in the IRA' had she been in their situation.' ("Violence is not to be played out daily and provide an answer to problems, but I understand it"). Saying it's a "support" controversy is not grounded in her actual comments. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]