Talk:Christine O'Donnell

Bias

Compare this article to Mike Castle's or Chris Coon's. This one is clearly written with a focus on exaggerations and dirt used to attack her. Therefore it doesn't conform to the NPOV ideal. In a political season this is especially telling about who are the mudslingers of the election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.121.90 (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree about this article. O'Donnell's personal and political financial problems are described in mainstream news sources and are relevant to her biographically (it's clear that she's had to scrap and scrape in everything she's done). Her dubious statements about her academic record are relevant too, just as they are in the Joe Biden article. But comparing to other WP articles is rarely a fruitful exercise, as different sets of editors usually work on each one. There are some glaring problems in the Mike Castle article, for instance that a near-trivial town hall incident is given more text than his eight years as Governor of Delaware!? I don't know anything about Chris Coons so I can't say whether that article is good or bad. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is not perfect, but the quibble has a great deal to do with framing - at first glance it appears the facts are there. You can comb through them to see which are reported in Reliably Sourced (See-WP:RS) outlets, and which might be WP:BLP violations from blogs or misrepresentations. I've done a basic neutral copyedit, but I've left the purported facts in the article. No doubt this will get considerable attention soon enough. 99.142.13.144 (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been working on this article for two years, since she was running against Biden in 2008. Most of the sources are mainstream media outlets, such as the Delaware News Journal and other newspapers, The Politico, CQ, etc. If you have concerns about any specific sources, please bring them up. But there's no reason the basic structure of the article has to change, just because she's suddenly the top story in the news. The biggest need, as it has been all along, is more information about her life and career prior to her Senate runs. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

To the point on bias, the opening to me does not seem in accord with others. "Christine O'Donnell (born August 27, 1969) is an American marketing consultant and political commentator. She is the Republican Party nominee in Delaware's 2010 United States Senate special election." I believe a better opening would be "Christine O'Donnell (born August 27, 1969) is an American politican who is is the Republican Party nominee in Delaware's 2010 United States Senate special election. Her background is as a marketing consultant and political commentator." Lets Be Neutral (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me; she's much better known as a politician than as a marketing person or commentator. I've made the change, and also expanded the lead to two paragraphs. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

To those who agree this article is not biased and aimed at attacking her. Would you feel the same way if ther person being attacked was Barak Obama? If you agree then i expect a huge rewrite of the obama page very soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.170.224.12 (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The article comes across as having been written by her political opponents. The problem is not so much with whether factcheck.org agrees or disagrees with the facts of the article, as whether they have been cherry-picked from among all the facts of her life in order to sway voter opinion. Any political candidate can be made to sound horrible with sufficiently biased cherry-picking of facts.

For Wikipedia to take sides in a political campaign in this way is to undermine its reputation as an impartial source of information. Ideally voters would come to Wikipedia for an obviously unbiased account of her background, so that they can judge her qualifications. If instead they see an obviously biased hit-job they will discount everything Wikipedia has to say about her and look elsewhere for a suitably unbiased story about who she is and whether she would be a effective voice for Delaware as a whole, as opposed to for just those who elected her as the Republican nominee. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, WP is not a voter guide, so your statement "Ideally voters would come to Wikipedia for an obviously unbiased account of her background, so that they can judge her qualifications." is off base. This is a biography of a notable person, no more, no less. And the facts presented here aren't cherry-picked; there's just very little known about O'Donnell's life. I've worked on this article for two years and added everything well-sourced I could find about her, good bad or indifferent, there just isn't that much. It would be great if we had more facts about the rest of her life, such as her childhood, her career in marketing, etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, looking at today's changes, I agree that there was way too much material about the attacks of the last few weeks of the primary campaign. Little of this is biographically relevant in the scope of her whole life. I've moved it, completely intact, to United States Senate special election in Delaware, 2010. That's why we have campaign articles, to capture the daily back-and-forth of campaigns, and leave the biographies to deal with the person's whole life. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

While that's an improvement, what remains will still come across as biased. Consider "made negative comments regarding pornography and premarital sex" for example. If you wrote or even approved that then you are coming at this from a point of view about these topics. Let's try substituting "bank robbery" for "premarital sex." Would you say she "made negative comments about bank robbery" or that she expressed opposition to it? If you would not say the former for bank robbery but would say it for premarital sex then you are judging the appropriateness of premarital sex. Wikipedia should not be in the judgment business. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I should add that I consider WP a guide, regardless of whom it is guiding, whether voters, water skiers, or philosophers. On that basis I disagree with your position that "WP is not a voter guide." It is a guide for its readers regardless of their application of its content. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:NOTGUIDE. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That guideline merely says that Wikipedia articles should not read like a guidebook, they should read like an encyclopedia article. Are you saying that someone looking for guidance in a subject cannot expect any help from an encyclopedia? If so I've been misusing encyclopedias all my life. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. When I'm writing articles, I picture someone reading them 10 or 20 years from now and orient the treatment that way. I never, ever, try to figure out how the article will look to people trying to decide how to vote today. There are much better publications for that, such as sites that publish side-by-side comparisons of candidates stands on issues (such as the pamphlets that the League of Women Voters used to print in days gone by). Wasted Time R (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally Wednesday's New York Times showed a little more finesse here by describing O'Donnell as "a former abstinence counselor who had failed in previous attempts to run for office in Delaware." The only reason I came to this article was to see whether WP explained why (in NYT's view) she was no longer counseling in favor of abstinence (many make that transition for understandable reasons so why not her?), and whether her defeat of Castle was her first success ever (is NYT trying to make her out to be a flash in the pan?). WP was no help whatsoever in either regard, it just seemed to have staked out a position much further to the left even than NYT. Not that I have an opinion either way, which is why I came to WP for guidance. Not that I'm a Delaware voter, but that doesn't stop me from being interested in the balance of power in the Senate. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As a life-long Republican I find no real bias in this article. Seems pretty straight forward to me and not badly written. Just because something reflects negatively doesnt mean its automatically bias. Wikipedia should be, like Dragnet's Joe Friday says, "just the facts, ma'am". Warts and all, the truth needs told if it can be backed up by reliable accepted sources, which this Wiki entry seems to be. Sector001 (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Photo needed

Actually, the biggest need of the article is a recent and better photo of her that is usable by WP rules. C'mon, some WP editor must be attending one of her rallies or appearances somewhere ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This one, I think, has a usable license and could work, if cropped correctly. Coemgenus 02:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

We can't use anything from Flickr with a NC license, so we can't use that one.Bdell555 (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I came to the same conclusion. Nothing is more frustrating than WP's image use rules! Wasted Time R (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I was afraid of that. It seemed like a reasonable use of free material, so I should've known it wasn't allowed. Well, hopefully some editor from Delaware will snap a blurry cell phone pic from far away. That will be much better.  ;) Coemgenus 10:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What counts as a "Position"?

While the references here to Ms. O'Donnell's comments about masturbation from many years ago are accurate, is it really fair to list this matter as a "position" along with abortion and gun rights? I don't think any reasonable person would argue that masturbation is part of the public political discourse in the same vein as abortion or second ammendment issues. I can't recall any political candidate being asked their position on "masturbation" on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, NPR, or any other place else, and neither can I recall coverage of any person asking any candidate their position on "masturbaton" at any candidate forum, townhall, or other event. Treating her comments about masturbation from years past alongside topics of mainstream debate, such as abortion or gun rights, is very misleading, as it creates the impression that Ms. O'Donnell affirmatively raised this issue during the campaign, or even that the campaign seriously treated this issue as a way of distinguishing the candidates. That was simply not the case. As an example, where does Mr. Castle stand on the issue of masturbation? How about the President? You won't find either of their Wikipedia pages addressing that issue, because neither of them discuss it or have developed policy positions on it. No political figure I'm aware of does. So why does it apper on Ms. O'Donnell's page? It shouldn't, and it's presence on the page certainly creates the appearance of bias on the part of the author insofar as an atypical and somewhat taboo topic is presented as though it were a staple in Ms. O'Donnell's campaign repetoire. Arguably, Ms. O'Donnell's previous comments on masturbation could be covered in another portion of the article, as she did in fact make the comments, but highlighting them as a "Position" is flatly misleadling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolvsII (talk • contribs) 14:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Is this a political position? I know of no anti-masturbation bill pending in Congress or before the courts. On the other hand, if legitimate publications highlight the issue and the candidate addresses it, I suppose it would be legitimate to include it. It seems like blog-fodder designed to make O'Donnell look foolish or weird, rather than something that would actually affect her candidacy or, should she win, her votes in the Senate. Coemgenus 14:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. RadioBroadcast (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, despite the fact that my "undoing" might suggest otherwise. I would like, however, for this issue to be adequately address in some portion of the article, because O'Donnell did spend a considerable portion of her career as an abstinence activist and starred in a number of television productions where she discussed her moral opposition to masturbation and pornography, often vehemently. ElentariAchaea (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It was an MTV clip from 1996. It did lead to Rachel Maddow endorsing her Democratic opponent as "Vote For Chris Coons! He's The Candidate That SUPPORTS Masturbation!". We don't really know yet if Coons actually supports clit rubbing and cock thumping, or if he has a position on any restrictions regarding age, place, frequency or hygiene in regards to this hot-button political issue. Or was it just an MTV clip? Perhaps an entire breakout article should be constructed.99.142.13.144 (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure masturbation has nothing to do with political positions. Truthsort (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Her prominent views on issues that aren't related to political campaigns might be grouped into a section with a title like "views" or "positions on social issues". We probably don't need a full subhead for every political position she's taken - that lengthens up the TOC.   Will Beback  talk  00:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Source for spouse's name?

Someone edited that she has a spouse named "Randall Stevens," with 17 children. Someone revised out my edit of "none" back to "Randall Stevens." According to this source, she is unmarried: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/15/odonnell.profile/ What's the basis for including a spouse name? 68.33.9.70 (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

--Ah, someone cleaned it up. I didn't want to get into a revision war. 68.33.9.70 (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Abortion as a separate section in "Political Positions"

It seems to give undue weight to her views, it was not a position she took as a platform in this campaign and is not something she appears to be running on -- according to the references. We do cover the subject in the article but should not give it undue weight of an entire section per BLP concerns until she is quoted on it in this campaign.99.142.13.144 (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. It's certainly an issue, but only one of many. Coemgenus 23:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Media attention to this article

FWIW, I just heard on the Ed Schulz radio show that this article claimed O'Donnell was of Arab/Muslim ancestry. By the time I had a look at the article (we hear it in Portland on a 3-hour delay), that information had been replaced with the more plausible claims of Irish-American & Italian-American ancestry. (No, Ed did not claim either credit for the edits or that he incited them.) Just thought the folks watching this article might be interested to know how this article is playing out in the wider world. -- llywrch (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Requests for Additional Information: S.A.L.T. and Effect on Political Views (i.e., Self-Gratification)

It didn't take but one search to find the following at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/us/politics/16odonnell.html:

"She was also attacked by Republicans and Democrats both for her right-of-center positions — including her role in an abstinence organization in the 1990s that denounced masturbation as a form of adultery and her characterization of President Obama in 2008 as “anti-American” — in a state that has been traditionally proudly centrist."

...

"Ms. O’Donnell’s political and religious interests grew in tandem in her early 20s, said Kelli Horta, who shared her childhood with the Senate candidate in a middle-class neighborhood in southern New Jersey.

”'She really got on fire with politics, and that is when her faith started to grow,' Ms. Horta said, 'and she got on this path of things that were important to her. She wanted to make a change.'

"In the 1990s, Ms. O’Donnell, a Roman Catholic who for a time considered herself an evangelical, founded SALT (the Savior’s Alliance for Lifting the Truth”) and appeared on MTV’s “Sex in the Nineties” to explain the values of chastity.

"Ms. Horta said Ms. O’Donnell delighted in debating matters of faith: 'I have been with her and when she’s sharing she does it in a loving way, she doesn’t do it in a condescending way. She feels she is following biblical principles.'”

Ms. O'Donnell's beliefs and positions are inextricably linked of her own accord. I think it's a strong argument for inclusion in some way. Mrs. Peel (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a plus for Supreme Court justices not to have strongly held positions, judging by their interrogations. Should this test also be applied to Senators, or the opposite? Should vocational guidance steer legislatively inclined teenagers towards the legislature if they are strongly opinionated and towards the bench otherwise? The answer would seem yes if O'Donnell's strongly held opinions are her strongest qualification for the Senate. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

position on the Environment

The article currently reads, "She has promised to block cap and trade legislation, and favors a free market approach." The problem with this sentence is two-fold: first, cap-and-trade legislation IS a free-market approach, by definition (for pete's sake, click on the link to the Wikipedia entry!). Second, the NY Times article that is cited only says that she would block any attempts at cap-and-trade legislation; it doesn't mention any alternative policies related to the environment that she would favor. (The following sentence in the Times article does mention free-market policies, but with regard to economic recovery, not the environment.). So, at most, this section should say no more than, "She has promised to block cap-and-trade legislation if elected to the Senate." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbecker21 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Cap-and-trade is a market program, but not a free market. Free markets exist independent of government, while the carbon trading in cap-and-trade would exist only because the state would decree it. But, more importantly, we should follow the reliable sources. If it doesn't say she favors a free-market solution to an environmental problem, we must not write that. Coemgenus 14:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Middle Class

The term "middle class" is ambiguous and vague. It does not indicate an exact placement between lower class. In fact, a man having to work 3 jobs to support a family in a small house is not middle class. -- Reviewing Editor, Noles1984 (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Noles,

You make a good point -- and I agree, the term may be vague and ambiguous, especially in the US where nearly every is grouped as middle class and the terms "working class", "working poor" and "lower middle class" are seldom used. However, I think precise socio-economic definitions are beyond the scope of this bio. In other words, this is not an article about how middle class is defined. It is a bio, and the NYT, which I believe is considered a RS even when writing about mainstream media bashing conservatives, the NYT used it.

NYT: "Ms. O’Donnell’s political and religious interests grew in tandem in her early 20s, said Kelli Horta, who shared her childhood with the Senate candidate in a middle-class neighborhood in southern New Jersey."

The Wikipedia article text did not say she was middle class; it did summarize the NYT article by saying she grew up in a middle class neighborhood. Someone has added "what was considered" as a prefix to middle class - I would think that would take care of your objections.

Finally, some people do work 3 jobs in order to live in a "middle class" neighborhood. This happened during the recession of the 1970s when O'Donnell was growing up just as it happens today. The fact that her father may not have been middle class because he had to work 3 jobs to support 6 children, would not change the character of the neighborhood--Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Gay rumors about Castle

Why has the fact that her campaign circulated these rumors about Castle been removed from the article? It's a high-profile, easily-sourceable fact that her campaign did this, and then she subtly encouraged the rumors with her "unmanly" comments. Lithistman (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Because there are partisans editing this article.KeptSouth (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, then. Lithistman (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely an issue, but some of what you re-added is sourced to blogs. Do you have some reliable sourfces to nail down the facts better? Coemgenus 16:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Being a blog does not discount a source's reliability prima facie. In fact, Politico is a very well-respected blog, and qualifies as a reliable source. Lithistman (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I read Ben Smith's blog. It's decent, but it's still not as reliable as the news articles on the main site. The one I was more concerned about was TPM. Coemgenus 18:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed it, not because I am a partisan (I am for example responsible for much of the "negative" financial material in this article, which I added back in March when it came out in the News Journal), but because I think it belongs in United States Senate special election in Delaware, 2010 not here. It's not something she did, it's something someone affiliated with her campaign did and that she disowned. The reason WP has campaign and election articles is to contain stuff like this. For instance, Obama and Hillary spent a year and half battling each other, and their campaign staff and surrogates said all sorts of nasty things about the other side. But little of that is in the Obama and Hillary main biography articles; instead, it's in their respective campaign subarticles, or in the articles on the surrogates. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

She "disowned" it? Hardly. A short while after "disowning" it, she called him "unmanly" and told him to "get his man pants on", which seems to be relatively straightforward allusions, wouldn't you say? To say this belongs sloughed off in some sub-article doesn't seem a good idea to me at all. Lithistman (talk) 06:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The sources for these assertions are Rachel Maddow and a TPM blogger, neither of which qualifies. But whatever; I'm clearly in the minority on this one. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree -- blog-sourced info in a BLP is a violation of our policy, as I said above. Putting it in a campaign article makes sense, although no matter where it is I'd like to see a reliable source. For what it's worth, I'm not a great fan of hers either, I just want a neutral, well-sourced article that the encyclopedia can be proud of/ Coemgenus 10:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop with the "blog-sourced" meme. Being a blog does not disqualify a source. And the fact that her campaign started these rumors, and that she fanned them with her rhetoric, is an important part of both her personal story, and her political one. Lithistman (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right: there are blogs, and there are blogs. That's why I wrote in another section below that Ben Smith's blog at Politico is better than most, and my opinion seems to follow the policy on that subject. But other blogs, like Talking Points Memo, are not attached to organizations that adhere to normal journalistic standards, and should be judged accordingly. Coemgenus 18:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Where's the beef

After Christine O'Donnell won the Republican primary two nights ago, I decided to check her listing on Wikipedia. The entry appalled me because of its negative tone. Looking back tonight I see that the tone has improved slightly. Unfortunately much of the entry is still focused on trivial aspects of her life history. I suggest that entry should be rewritten to provide more balance. Also, it should focus more on what she plans to do as a Senator, rather on her past life.

Houstoncatlover (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Houstoncatlover

Again, this is not a voter guide, this is a biography. It will focus on her whole life, not just her 2010 candidacy. She's a committed social conservative who's occasionally bordered on the strident, she's struggled financially her whole life and has rarely held a steady job, and she's fudged her resumé a few times. None of this things are that unusual – and thus none of the anti-O'Donnell freak-outs that you see on political blogs are really warranted – but they do partly define her life so far, and thus have to be covered here. If you want to help bulk up the earlier parts of the article, find a solid source for her having been a marketing consultant whose clients have included The Passion of the Christ and Natalia Tsarkova, the Vatican’s first female portrait painter, and then that can be restored to the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for free political advertising!

Please REMOVE the POSITIONS section.

Is this a fact based biography or a medium for free political advertising?

The political positions are irrelevant to her biography. Keep the page short, fact based, and in biographical format.

Please remove all the political content, wikipedia is not a medium to provide candidates with free advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki21014 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Politicians' biographies contain information about politics. See, e.g., every other candidate's bio. Coemgenus 12:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Claim that her sister is gay

It is still just a claim and needs to be qualified. Three sources are given, the Daily Beast, The Atlantic and Mother Jones. Though it could be argued that they are not reliable sources, I think they are marginally reliable, there are three of them and each of these articles is written by professional journalist{s}.

However, when I looking at the sources they do not definitively say Jennie is gay, which is contrary to the way the WP article now reads: The Atlantic says Jennie has been campaigning for her sister and may be a lesbian; Mother Jones says Jennie supports gay rights and lives with a girlfriend; Daily Beast says Wade Richards, a former employee of Christine's organization, SALT, says the O'Donnell has a sister who is gay. Daily Beast also says Christine campaigned against gay rights. Based on all of this, it is not established by RSs that Jennie is gay. So, I will be doing a combination of reverting and re-writing the earlier version of the statement. KeptSouth (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it for now. There is still uncertainty about this and much of it is still speculatory . Truthsort (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The Mother Jones article has a link to sister Jennie's Facebook page. Jennie openly talks about her relationship with her long-time live in girlfriend. This ain't speculation - it comes from the horse's mouth! 70.126.98.155 (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I have replaced that Jennie is gay. There are three valid and respected sources,and if jennie wasn't gay she could have certaijnly told the media by now, or, there would be contrary information, but there is not. Wikipedia does not require a certain number of sources to fit TruthSort's personal wishes. Myk60640 (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's get concensus on the reliablity and relevence of this info, rather than edit-warring. I'm not convinced that rumors about her sister's sexuality are even relevant to this person's biography. Coemgenus 14:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Coemgenus, it is certainly relevant, unless you want to hid any irony in this piece. You have a very conservative candidate in a party that is strongly anti-gay, with an openly gay sister who is working on her campaign. How is it not relevant? Myk60640 (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Irony is best left to blogs and fiction writers; here, we strive for neutral, encyclopedic, non-libellous content. Ever since the Siegenthaler incident, Wikipedia rules on the biographies of living persons have been quite a bit stricter than those for the rest of the encyclopedia. Do other politicians' articles list the sexuality of their siblings? Is Jennifer O'Donnell so notable in her own right that we need to delve into her private life based on the rumors spread by bloggers and opinion journalists? To put it another way, if. Britannica or Funk & Wagnalls had an article on Christine O'Donnell, is this the sort of thing you'd expect to find there? Coemgenus 17:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize it would be libelous to state that someone had a gay sibling! Normally I'd agree that a political bio doesn't discuss the sexuality of siblings, but in the case of a politician that has extreme, out-of-the-mainstream views of homosexuality, it is indeed relevant (beyond just ironic) that the politician has a gay sibling. You cannot advocate for less than full civil rights for a class of people that includes your own sister without drawing attention. 70.126.98.155 (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you guys read the article? It says, "They did not find definitive proof that O'Donnell has a lesbian sister, but they did locate a sister of hers in Los Angeles who is a gay rights advocate and says that she lives with her girlfriend".[1] Truthsort (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"Christine O'Donnell not homophobic, says her lesbian sister", The Guardian, 17 September 2010. While the UK press is a bit more salacious on average then in America, this is one of the more reliable newspapers there.   Will Beback  talk  05:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

More generally, I'd remind folks that Wikipedia does not have to be the first place everything is reported. I'm sure that this matter will become clearer in the next week or two. There's no hurry to include this.   Will Beback  talk  08:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point, Will. Encyclopedias aren't about "breaking news," they're about reporting what's already known in a neutral manner. As the mainstream press begins to cover this story, if it is a story, we can add it with the confidence that real reporters and editors scrutinized it. I'm still not certain it's relevant, but I accept that I may be in the minority on that one. Coemgenus 13:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal life

This article needs the usual 'Personal life' section. What O'Donnell personally believes is morally wrong isn't necessarily what she believes the government should or shouldn't enforce. Believing in 'young earth creationism' personally (which she does) is one thing, advocating that it be taught in public schools (which she also does, or did at one point) is another. We need to keep these separated for clarity. We also need to be clear on what statements she made as part of her conservative lobbying job. I expect those statements reflected her own beliefs, but the context is still important. Flatterworld (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point about the possible lack of correspondence between her personal, religious beliefs and what she would do as a senator. However, the Christian right, of which she is a undoubtedly a member, holds that the religious beliefs of an official can and should affect how he or she governs. In addition, her website currently consists only of a page requesting donations. The MSM says it is likely being scrubbed of some of her earlier, more controversial positions - but regardless of whether that is happening, it doesn't yet exist. So we kind of have to have some of her prior political/religious views in this article, imo. One more thing about the relevance of her personal or religious views - her primary job over the years was as an advocate for policy changes based on religious beliefs. So it's all pretty relevant, imo. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing its relevance, just keeping it clear. I've now added a piece she wrote in Catholic Exchange in 2003 (found via this Guardian piece), and perhaps other writings can be found to help flesh out her views. This is an archived version of her 2008 campaign site. Flatterworld (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

And as I suspected...she waited until she got her 'base' out to vote for her in the primary before changing her tune and claiming 'youthful fervor'. A lot of politicians go radical for the primary campaign and move to the middle for the general election, but I've never seen anyone move this far this fast - lol! I expect a lot of voters are feeling like they got rolled, bamboozled, misled, lied to.... Flatterworld (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Now, is she catholic or evangelical? In the box aside, she's catholic, in the "personal life"-section her conversion to protestantism is part of the text, both linked to journalistic texts about her ... Creationism (of this kind) is no catholic position at all, so it seems more likely for her to be evangelical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.217.202.195 (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Some people describe themselves as Catholic and evangelical. O'Donnell might mean that she is a Catholic who evangelizes. Or, maybe she's Protestant. I'm sure it will come out at some point. Why not just write "Christian" for now and cover all bases? Coemgenus 00:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There are charismatic Catholics that have similar beliefs & practices about the Holy Spirt as Pentecostals. Kilowattradio (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The only material on her personal life is that she's unmarried and Christian, which don't require an entire section. Her positions on issues already have a section. I've merged her religion and marital status back to the top section, but if more information on her personal life, family, etc, are added then it can be split out again.   Will Beback  talk  00:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, but "Early life and education" is a standard title for BLPs, especially political ones. A separate "Personal life" section doesn't belong in this article at all, as her personal life is totally intertwined with her career and political life. And the fact that she is single is already given in the infobox. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fine.   Will Beback  talk  01:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead too short

The lead is too bare bones. It doesn't even mention the tea party involvement, or any of the many controversies discussed in the article. It really needs to be fleshed out a bit, which is why I am tagging it. KeptSouth (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

imo, the lede is already much too long. Flatterworld (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Riiiiiiiiight, KeptSouth. It doesn't defame her enough upfront for your usual partisan political purposes. Why not go work Joe Biden's plagiarism, or Bill Clinton's adultery, into the leads of their articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.137.215 (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Early Life and Education

The source for the statements regarding premarital sex and drinking is itself a reference to another source. The article (ref 5) refers to an article containing an interview in Talking Points Memo. Does anyone have a link or can verify that the original article is accurately referenced? Second-hand sources should be avoided and the reference should point (ideally link) to the original source. Here's the quote from the reference (#5 in the article):

"On the campus of Fairleigh Dickinson University, O'Donnell — then an openly promiscuous partier with theater aspirations — rediscovered her faith and chose to live a life of chastity. O'Donnell was drinking too much and having sex with guys with whom there wasn't a strong emotional connection when she had an epiphany and chose to live a life of chastity, she said in a 2004 interview.

The key moment for O'Donnell came during her junior year when a friend "asked me if I knew how an abortion was performed ... She showed me the medical journals, and it was frightening," she said according to the website, Talking Points Memo.

The article went on to quote her saying:..."

Interesting discussion here and it's obvious the article editors are working hard to keep it "fair and balanced." SuperDuperRocketMan (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and purchased the article just to satisfy my curiosity. Here's the exact quote from the artice, which doesn't line up with the second-hand quote particularly well

"It was in college at Fairleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey that O'Donnell did things she regrets - drinking too much and having sex with guys with whom there wasn't a strong emotional connection. But it was also during college that she found her faith again and chose to live a life of chastity."

There is no mention of "openly promiscuous" and it shouldn't be inferred. If she had sex with two or three guys during her time in college, that probably wouldn't rate as "openly promiscuous." The second hand reference is supposedly quoting the original source, but the paraphrasing is quite inaccurate, to say the least. There is no other mention of her sexual activities or beverage consumption proclivities in the article. I'll leave it to a long-time editor to make the change in the actual article. Here's the article details: The News Journal - Wilmington, Del. Author: JULIE SHAW Date: Apr 14, 2004 Start Page: A.9 Section: Supplement Text Word Count: 1138 and it was retrieved on Sep 17, 2010 SuperDuperRocketMan (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice job going the extra mile to track down that source! Coemgenus 18:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: "chose to live a life of chastity" -- as far as I know one cannot regain one's chastity. "Abstinence" would have been the appropriate word, but who can prove she is or isn't abstinent from sex. Nonetheless having chosen to put her sexual opinions and background out there she deserves all the serious criticism (good and bad) she gets. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(1) You're confusing chastity with virginity. (2) What she "deserves" isn't relevant. The talk page is about the article, not our opinions on it's subject. Coemgenus 18:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Some commentators also the attacks showed elements of sexism.

Some commentators also <What?> the attacks. Can someone a complete sentence here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.134.150 (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the word "said" was needed. I'll add it if it hasn't already been fixed. --Regards KeptSouth (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Witchcraft

Today she admitted that she is a practicing Wiccan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.153.175 (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I have found no evidence of her admitting that she is a practicing wiccan. I have, however, located evidence (an interview on Bill Maher's show Politically Incorrect in 1999) that she once "dabbled in Witchcraft." The information and source has been added to the article. ElentariAchaea (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The statement that she 'attended dates on Satanic altars' seems intentionally misleading. She said one of her first dates was "on a Satanic altar, and she didn't know it". I presume this is from her early college days, which probably also should be specified in the article. Fell Gleaming^talk 19:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm somewhat offended by your assertion that I intended to mislead anyone. However, I can see the validity in removing the additional detail regarding the satanic alter. On the other hand, I think that it is important to retain the added bit about her not joining a coven, as it directly illustrates just how little she actually dabbled in witchcraft. ElentariAchaea (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. An offhand remark made more than a decade ago is now 50% of the entire section on her personal life. WP:UNDUE alarm bells are screaming at the moment. Fell Gleaming^talk 20:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Coons, and presumably O'Donnell, now believe that (1) a man was nailed to a cross, died, then rose from the dead to wash away mankind's sins, and (2) that bread and wine turn into that man's flesh and blood when you ingest them. Do those CURRENT beliefs also get recorded in their biographies, or just selected decade-old comments by one candidate? Why are the editors taking sides against Wicca? Why is it more noteworthy than the candidates current religious/spiritual beliefs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.137.230 (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree it shouldn't be 50% of the section on her personal life, but I believe it merits a mention, especially as she has made faith and religion a significant issue in her public statements. Suggest the personal life section be beefed up in general with more information, which would both make the article more useful and reduce the undue influence of any particular statement. Zachlipton (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If there is so little material in "Personal life" then maybe it should be merged with another section, or maybe other material can be added to it.   Will Beback  talk  00:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Why was this deleted?[2] Does anyone doubt her own words on the matter, as recorded on video?   Will Beback  talk  00:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, where to begin? (a) It's flatly incorrect. She did not admit to "attending a satanic ritual". She said one of her first dates was at a Satanic altar -- and that she didn't know what it was. (b) It's presented in a misleading, out of context manner. It doesn't identify this as an offhand comment made over ten years ago on a talk show, that may have been joking -- she and everyone else were certainly laughing at the time. (c) The language is POV, especially with loaded words like "admit", and (d) Its a huge WP:UNDUE issue when it comprises such a larger majority of her personal life section. And (e), Wikipedia verification policy says extraordinary claims require extraordinary verification. A brief clip from Mayer's show -- possibly intentionally edited to be misleading (Mayer is, after all, politically opposed to O'Donnell) must be treated very carefully, and identified as such. I left a prior version in, but I see someone couldn't resist editing it to "spice it up" to the point of a serious BLP violation. Fell Gleaming^talk 00:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The comments come from her own mouth. I don't see any sign that they were altered. We can edit the material to be closer to the sources. DUE applies to the article, not to individual sections. It was such a short section that any individual assertion was undue, if taken by that measure. How about something like this, in the 2010 cmapaign section: "After the primary, Bill Maher released a video clip of O'Donnell on his show in the 1990s in which she says she had 'dabbled' with satanism." Any objections to that?   Will Beback  talk  01:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you even watched the clip? She didn't say she dabbled with "Satanism". She said witchcraft -- and from what little context we have at this point, it suggests the "dabbling" was hanging out in college with some people who said they were witches. Even the Associated Press -- usually hot on such material -- is afraid enough of the source to qualify it with "The context of what led to the comment is not clear and O'Donnell is laughing while she talks about witchcraft." Until Mayer releases more than a brief, potentially edited and/or out of context clip, serious questions are going to remain. And all this, of course, ignores the entire notability issue. Inclusion at this point doesn't seem to be in any manner an encyclopedic attempt to inform the reader of notable events, but more like an attempt to besmear. The repeated reinsertions of statements verifiable incorrect (such as "she attended satanic rituals") further drive home that point. Finally, I have to remind people of WP:NOTNEWS. I strongly suspect this story will take an entirely different form in a few days time, or even vanish altogether. Fell Gleaming^talk 01:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right. So the proposed text should be more like, "After the primary, Bill Maher released a video clip of O'Donnell on his show in the 1990s in which she says she had 'dabbled' with witchcraft when she was younger." As for notability, it's seems to be notable based on the coverage so far. I don't think that a BLP argument can be made here. What reason do you have for believing that this matter will disappear in a few days?   Will Beback  talk  02:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

We have to be very careful with claims like this. When someone laughingly says they dabbled in witchcraft by "hanging around people who were doing these things", a bald statement without context is very misleading. When the clip this was taken from was never even aired on TV, it raises further questions. To present it in proper context would require more than a sentence or two, which then brings back all the questions of notability and undue weight. No one has so far answered why this is important to an encyclopedia entry on her. If the story gains ground (which it might; I certainly didn't state that I felt it definitely would disapear), then the notability issue will be established. Fell Gleaming^talk 03:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I think this is silly and undue weight to include. She made 22 appearances on the Maher program, which means she was a lively interview, and one way you become that is to tell amusing/unexpected stories about this thing or that thing that happened to you. That's what happened here. There is zero evidence that witchcraft ever played a significant role in her life. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sexual Abstinence Advisor?

Does anyone see in this source [3] where O'Donnell is reputed to have been employed as a sexual abstinence advisor? Fell Gleaming^talk 18:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholic

It says in he bio section that she is a Roman Catholic, yet the article alleges that she advocates teaching creationism in public schools and rejects the science of evolution outright. As the teaching of evolution is a established part of contemporary Roman Catholic catechism, It seems that the accuracy of the unequivocal label "Roman Catholic" in describing her religious beliefs is compromised. There exists the possibility that she is a member of one of the Sedevacantist or Traditionalist Catholic splinter movements or perhaps-albeit less likely- is unaware of the reforms that were made during the Second Vatican Council. However to refer to her as a "Roman Catholic" without further clarification, seems at best misleading. 67.142.172.22 (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Catholics in the U.S. hold a variety of beliefs. Some have referred to them as "Cafeteria Catholics" because they pick and choose what to believe. In any case, we'd have to have sources that label the subject - we can't just review her stated beliefs and decide on our own what labels to add.   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Unless a valid source states otherwise, this would be a serious WP:SYN violation. Fell Gleaming^talk 00:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with these two responses. We go by self-identification, not by somebody's idea of doctrinal fidelity. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Masturbation

The most reliable source I can find on this issue says that, 15 years ago, O'Donnell once compared masturbation to adultery. Claiming she is today "well known for her vocal opposition to masturbation" is clearly misleading, and appears to be POV pushing. A fact has to be accurate, neutrally presented, and notable to be considered for inclusion in a BLP. Fell Gleaming^talk 02:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no question that she said that on national television, and that it's been a frequent topic of discussion. Deleting it outright is probably not a good idea. However if we assert that she is "well known" for it requires either a source that explicitly say she's well know for it or many sources that mention it.   Will Beback  talk  02:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Here are these, found in a quick search on Proquest:

• ...O'Donnell, a social conservative pundit known for touting abstinence and criticizing masturbation,...
• Where else would conservatives who lust to regain control of Congress reject a respected Republican moderate and throw their weight behind an upstart best known for calling President Barack Obama "anti-American," and preaching against masturbation?
• In the bright light of Wednesday morning, Christine O'Donnell, whose Republican primary victory upended the calculus for future control of the United State Senate, became quickly known to Americans as the woman who once made dire warnings about the negative impact of masturbation.

I didn't see any that said "well-known", though.   Will Beback  talk  02:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a plain statement of what she said, and when, is better than attempting to quantify it as something she's "well known" for, or part of her current political philosophy. It appears to have enough coverage to be notable, so as long as its presented accurately and neutrally, I don't have a problem with it. Fell Gleaming^talk 03:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you go ahead and add what you think is appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  03:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The URL I had for her original comments seems to be dead now. Do you have a source that identifies them, rather than various political pundits restatements of them? Fell Gleaming^talk 04:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Creationism

A couple of editors keep reintroducing non-properly sourced material about O'Donnell's views on creationism and evolution. Given her background, I don't doubt that some or all of this may be true, but it needs to be properly cited by a reliable source. Op-ed pieces can only be used if attributed as such, "i.e. John Doe of AOL News says ...." Fell Gleaming^talk 04:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I added 3 additional sources, which should be more than sufficient.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You can add 100, but until you stop adding blogs and op-eds, and start adding reliable sources, it doesn't count. Fell Gleaming^talk 04:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)