Talk:Christine O'Donnell/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

70% + 29% + 4% = ?

I'm looking at the 2006 general election results. How many votes did she get? - Schrandit (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's "right". When you look at the 2006 returns at the Delaware Commissioner of Elections site, you'll see that her write-in votes, though pretty numerous, weren't counted in the official reporting of the election results, which only included candidates whose names were on the ballot. I've added an explanatory footnote to this effect. Life definitely isn't fair to write-in candidates ... Wasted Time R (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Lawsuit

[copied here from BubbaCrowell's talk page]
Though the NPR cite that was previously posted said that Christine sued ISI for gender discrimination, the lawsuit was officially filed b/c of wrongful termination. BubbaCrowell (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Presumably it was filed for wrongful termination due to gender discrimination (i.e., they aren't mutually exclusive). If she really runs, maybe some more news stories will come out on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure how this should be covered. - Schrandit (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

BubbaCrowell's original edit summary said "ISI lawsuit removed. It didn't seem like vital information since it was dropped. It seemed like a biased piece of data placed for political reasons to smear her good name". But that made no sense – why would filing a gender discrimination suit smear the name of the filer? Discrimination happens all the time in America, still, and fighting back against it is nothing for her or her supporters to be embarrassed about. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. - Schrandit (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

General Edits/Controversy section?

I just made some general edits to the Biography section of this article. It seems to me that the biography is a little bit too lengthy, especially the last paragraph. Also, there has been a lot of talk of recent controversies surrounding Christine O'Donnell, including several cases of unpaid campaign workers, as well as a story about Christine sneaking into a state party fundraiser without paying for tickets. I think that these are two issues that may be worthwhile to include (given that there are accurate, verifiable sources, of course.) What do you all think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.20.208 (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree the 2010 paragraph smells a bit of recentism (I'm probably the guilty party), but the rest of the biography is too short. I've tried in vain to find out more about her upbringing or her business activities. As for controversies sections, they're a bad idea, but something important enough can be worked into the mainline biographical narrative. Show us the sources and we'll see. My own take: It's clear that she's never had much money in any of her campaigns, so unpaid campaign workers wouldn't be a surprise; as for the second item, if she sneaked into an overpriced, overbaked party fundraising dinner most people would probably salute her ... Wasted Time R (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I like some of your edits you made. Can we maybe try to get rid of some stuff in the 5th paragraph of the biography section? It is the longest paragraph in the entire article and it gives a lengthy description of detailed events that happened right before she announced her candidacy. It's really not that interesting. Also, does anyone know what job title she held at ISI, RNC, etc? I think that may be good information. I am going to combine the 5th and 6th paragraphs into something that is slightly more condensed. I am also going to include sourced information regarding the two major controversies that have been discussed especially since her announcement. I believe that due to the large amount of media attention they have received, they are most likely noteworthy and important for the reader to see. I will do my best to present both sides, please let me know if you think any changes should be made and why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.100.123 (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with your condensed version of the 2010 material, although I made a few tweaks and minor restorations to it. But your "controversies" material is more problematic. Please read WP:Reliable sources; some random guy or gal's blog (Jud Bennett/Nancy Willing) is not a reliable source, and nothing in it can be used. Then read WP:PRIMARY regarding interpretations of primary materials. Without the blog, O'Donnell's FEC reports become a primary document, which requires a reliable secondary source to provide interpretation of it. How common are those "notices of failures to file"? Are they just technical warnings or something more serious? You need a mainstream newspaper or radio/TV report that discusses them and their import, then it can be included. The WBOC story is a reliable source, and is used elsewhere in the article, but it doesn't support your claim that "O'Donnell declined to accept any further questions or media interviews after the incident", just that she didn't give a one-on-one interview with the TV station after her campaign announcement. The WDEL story also is a reliable source, but all that it supports is that one (not several) of her campaign workers didn't get paid. I've reworded and kept that in, but moved it to the 2008 paragraph since that's what it pertains to. Everything else I've taken out. Wikipedia is very, very strict about these kinds of things in biographies of living persons, campaign or no campaign. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Jud Bennett is a very popular blogger in the state of Delaware that many attentive voters in the state are aware of. I have provided a government source to display these notices issued by the FEC. I think that readers will easily be able to interpret that a problem exists if the FEC has 5 filed "notices of failure to file" in the past 8 quarters. Blogger Jud Bennett confirms that this is a problem for Christine. I also believe that that the unpaid campaign worker story deserves a little bit more attention, especially considering that it is definitely true that there are multiple people that have the same story (I just can't find a reliable source on this yet).

I have to reiterate what Wasted Time R said "Please read WP:Reliable sources; some random guy or gal's blog (Jud Bennett/Nancy Willing) is not a reliable source, and nothing in it can be used. Then read WP:PRIMARY regarding interpretations of primary materials. Without the blog, O'Donnell's FEC reports become a primary document, which requires a reliable secondary source to provide interpretation of it. How common are those "notices of failures to file"? Are they just technical warnings or something more serious? You need a mainstream newspaper or radio/TV report that discusses them and their import, then it can be included." Just because some people in Delaware listen to Mr. Bennett doesn't make him a reliable source & worthy of interpreting the FEC's report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BubbaCrowell (talk • contribs) 18:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"failed to filed 5 of the last 8 quarterly reports." That is a valueless statement that the reader can certainly draw just by going to the source. The reader can clearly see what is going on here without the help of an additional source. If you had a police report with no news story, would be police report be unusable? I am reading this line on the Wikipedia page regarding reliable sources: Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. I certainly don't think that BARS primary sources from being used without a secondary source to interpret them. I was very careful to only state facts and not draw conclusions. Also, does anybody know what Christine did at the RNC and at ISI?? I think that would be good information. Also, how often does she appear on news programs and talk shows? THANKS

I'm adding it back. There is a primary source and we have interpretation from a secondary source. Delaware does not have any sort of large media market, so blogs are generally how many people get their political news. Jud Bennett is a popular blogger in Sussex County with several thousand subscribers to his email newsletters. Of course the "news" isn't coming directly from his blog, it is coming from a U.S. government document. Jud Bennett simply provides the analysis that is not required by Wikipedia, but the analysis that you are asking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.100.122 (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Instead of deleting this entry entirely, can we try to make it conform to Wikipedia standards? Either by finding a secondary source or by stating this in a manner that does NOT create any "original research" as wikipedia calls it. Again, wikipedia in NO WAY BARS primary sources from being used. I think stating that 5 of the last 8 quarterly reports have not been filed in a timely manner is not doing any "original research". Can you please tell me which part of the entry is "original research"? There must be a way we can use this important information. 128.175.100.122 (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) User:128.175.100.122, you are obviously unfamiliar with how Wikipedia's sourcing rules work. Even the most popular bloggers in the nation – DailyKos, Powerline, Instapundit, Andrew Sullivan, Kevin Drum, name any of them you want – are not allowed as sources here. It doesn't matter how many or few mainstream media sources there are in an area, they are the only ones that can be used. The News Journal is a good newspaper, and many of Wikipedia's articles on Delaware political figures and races use it as a source. So if and when the News Journal, or one of these radio or TV stations that have covered state politics, or some other mainstream media source, writes that O'Donnell has been in meaningful violation of FEC regulations, then we can incorporate that here with the appropriate citation. And if the News Journal and the other mainstream outlets don't ever put out a story on this, it may be because they have decided that the missing or late filings are of no great importance, or on par with the rate of missed filings of other candidates, or just a technicality, or whatever. Their judgment on this matter's important becomes Wikipedia's judgment. That may seem foolish or limiting to you, but that's how WP:V and WP:NOR and WP:RS work. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Since 128.175.100.122/123 has now reinserted the material for a fourth time, I've posted this matter at WP:BLP/N. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly understand. I think that it's a good idea to let others decide. I'm not trying to put up negative information as much as I am just trying to paint a more complete picture of what a Christine O'Donnell biography should look like. The other big problem that I see with this article is that readers may be confused as to what Christine O'Donnell really does as a career. It says that she got her degree, worked for the RNC and ISI (doing what? I might add), then all of a sudden ran for U.S. Senate. Is there any information that we could provide that would discuss how she made the rise from college graduate to U.S. Senator, because right now there aren't too many details in between. 128.175.100.122 (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, I've never been able to find much biographical information about her. But it doesn't take much to explain how she could become a senatorial candidate: it's a very small state, and the 2006 and 2008 elections were hopeless races for Republicans against an entrenched and popular incumbents. Any politico with real potential doesn't want to be the sacrificial lamb, so state party officials often have to turn to fairly obscure figures when recruiting. Hence the likes of O'Donnell. Hell, if you look at Electoral history of Joe Biden, you'll see that none of Biden's other re-election opponents even have Wikipedia articles, they're all redlinks. This year in Delaware, of course, is different. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Update — This solid, mainstream newspaper source — Gibson, Ginger (2010-03-20). "Delaware politics: O'Donnell faces campaign debt, back-tax issues". The News Journal. Wilmington. Retrieved 2010-03-25. — now covers the FEC citings, the ISI suit, and much more that's been in question. I've started updating the article to reflect this, will do more tonight. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hit piece and bias

With all due respect, the O'Donnell biography as it was before my amateur edits, reads like hit piece. It said she was "lived for a while" in Hollywood and DC, making her sound like some sort of nomad. She lived for years in DC, working for the RNC. It talks about NBC's early call of the 2008 election. It doesn't mention that O'Donnell got 35,000 more votes than ANY Republican candidate had ever received against Biden in his six previous races (see Barone, Almanac of American Politics). It doesn't mention that she spent $116,000 while Biden spent more than $4.9 million, in addition to Obama-Bisen's $200 million. (see Barone again). It makes a big deal of O'Donnell's piddly $23,000 in campaign debt. Gee, how does that compare with Hillary's nearly $23 MILLION in campaign debt, which Bill has been recently still been trying to pay off by auctioning a "Lunch with Bill" (for $5 a participant)? Hillary's debt gets a one-sentence mention in her bio. O'Donnell's debt, one-thousandth of Hillary's, is used to make her seem like a deadbeat. Compare Joe Biden's bio wtih Christine O'Donnell's. The biggest controversy in Biden's personal life is his claim, made at the University of Iowa and later at the Univ. of Delaware and elsewhere, that his first wife and daughter were killed by a drunk driver, someone, as Biden repeatedly said, "drank his lunch." True, the Biden Wiki bio does say that the driver was "exonerated," which itself is not true. He was never charged or accused (except maliciously by Biden) of breaking any laws. Finally, after years of Biden's false statements, delawareonline (of the Wilmington News-Journal) published a story detailing Biden's false statements, made for God-knows-what-reason. Somehow that never made it into Biden's Wiki bio. Hey guys, what's going on at Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TalkTop65 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your wording change on the "lived for a while" and on removing the early call of the election and with your including the fundraising differential. (On the latter, however, you need to add your source where you got the figures from. Almost every addition you have made is without a source, and I have tagged all of them. Worse, you sometimes made additions in place but kept the old source in, which can be quite misleading.) But your statistic regarding O'Donnell's vote total is just an attempt at spin, because the vote total size is purely due to her running during a presidential election year with high turnout and due to the state having a larger population compared to previous decades. The only consistent metric is vote percentage, and if you look at Electoral history of Joe Biden, you'll see that Biden got his largest percentage of the vote in her race of any in his senatorial career. As for campaign debt, I agree it looks proportionately bigger in this article than Hillary's, but that's because Hillary's is so much longer. I've been frustrated that there isn't more biographical information about O'Donnell available, especially her childhood and her non-political professional career, and would welcome any you could supply. But it's got to have a good source!

As for your complaints about the Biden article, that article says "the truck driver was cleared of any wrongdoing" and then the accompanying footnote says "Biden has on at least two occasions alleged that the truck driver was under the influence of alcohol, but this was not the case." This was the formulation worked out by the editors there, but you are welcome to raise the issue again on Talk:Joe Biden. The thing with Biden is, he blabbers so much that he's likely to say anything twice in his career, so the significance of this isn't quite as big as you believe. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Signs of bias: The previous version said that Christine O'Donnell "tried to make an issue" of Joe Biden's 2008 double candidacy (for Senate and for vice-president). Frankly, she either made it an issue (which presumably it was for at least osme people) or she didn't. What's the purpose of the "tried" part? And what's the business about "NBC called" the 2008 election early? Remember when all the networks (save one) "called" the Florida election for George Bush? In the minds of many, O'Donnell achieved something remarkable in 2008. She got tens of thousands MORE votes than any Republican had previously -- and did it against a candidate who didn't need to spend a nickel to win. In 2010, a recent Rasmussen Poll (July 15) showed her running AHEAD of the Democrat Senate candidate (Chris Coons), who had raised 12 times more money this year than O'Donnell. Of course, that's not as juicy as a mistaken "tax lien" against her on a house she hadn't owned in years. A recent Human Events article by John Gizzi noted that O'Donnell had raised $30,000 in roughly a 30-hour period. Can we expect that information in future edits of O'Donnell's bio? Or does that just drop down Orwell's "memory hole?" Why are the same financial challenges the Obamas outlined in 2008 a plus for them, and a major negative for O'Donnell? In 2000 at the Dem. National Convention, Barack Obama tried to rent a car and his credit card waw rejected. In York, PA, in 2008 Michelle Obama talked about being besieged by bill collectors for student loan charges and other expenses. It was presented as an approving sign of the Obama's "humble beginnings." O'Donnell's upbringing with five siblings in a small house in Moorestown, NJ, and with a father working three jobs, were a lot more "humble" than anything Michelle or Barack ever encountered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TalkTop65 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with your changed wording on "tried to make an issue" and, as stated above, with removing the early election call as irrelevant. But again as above, her raw vote total is a function of population and turnout, not her; percentage is the key. Regarding the Rasmussen poll, you neglect to mention that Castle has a good deal bigger lead over Coons than O'Donnell does, but it can stay in nonetheless. The $30,000 fundraising can stay in as long as you give it a source, but I hope you realize that $30,000 is still peanuts in a modern Senatorial race. Indeed what's remarkable about O'Donnell is how she's had to scrape for every dollar; she's obviously not connected to any funding fatcats. Her humble origins are important to the article, but again, you need to add sources!

At the same time that you add biographical material about her, you cannot just delete or will away well-reported material about her college payments, her financial problems, and so forth. Mainstream news sources such as the Delaware News-Journal have found these important to report in detail and so too this article must summarize them. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Finally, what this article needs more than anything is a good photo of her that can be used in the infobox at the top. Alas, Wikipedia has unbelievably restrictive rules about using photographs and other images that are copyrighted. If you're connected to the world of Delaware politics, see if you can contact her campaign and get them to give Wikipedia a photo with the necessary image rights; see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for more. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A nobody

same old wikipedia....for now Christine O'Donnell is a NOBODY, so get off her back...all of these stupid skunks on the left, who have nothing better to do all day because they sit in their cubicles surfing the internet while they supposed to be working in their gov't jobs....makes me want to puke....take some similar nobody shlub on the left who is running for some office this year - is their wikipedia page full of bullshit charges?? change is coming for the lefties and they wont like this change70.0.182.170 (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

O'Donnell may be little-known nationally but she isn't a 'nobody'. She's a three-time contender for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senator who won the nomination once and is making a serious effort to win it for a second time. If you want an example of a Democratic 'nobody' running for the Senate who has a WP article full of unflattering information, try Alvin Greene. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:35, 3 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sexual Abstinence Advisor?

Does anyone see in this source [2] where O'Donnell is reputed to have been employed as a sexual abstinence advisor? Fell Gleaming^talk 18:51, 18 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)

Well, when I added the tag, the lead consisted of just 130 words, the article was around 2500. By the time you made your remark a day later, it had been lengthened and I had removed the tag. For the record, this was all it said when the tag was placed.

Christine O'Donnell (born August 27, 1969) is an American politician who is the Republican Party nominee in Delaware's 2010 United States Senate special election, which will be held on November 2, 2010.O'Donnell has worked as marketing consultant,[3] as a freelance public relations consultant,[4] as an advocate for sexual abstinence,[5] and as a political commentator.She ran for the Republican nomination for Senate in 2006, finishing third in the Republican primary and then gaining four percent of the vote as a write-in candidate in the general election.[6] She was the party's nominee for the 2008 U.S. Senate election, losing by a wide margin to Joe Biden. In a surprising upset, she defeated nine-term U.S. Representative and former Governor of Delaware Mike Castle by more than 3,500 votes in the 2010 primary.[7] The contest gained national attention.[1]

That simply didn't cover the many of the main parts of the article. --KeptSouth (talk) 14:31, 19 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)

Hmm...a baseless, personal attack from an anonymous IP. KeptSouth (talk) 13:53, 19 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)

I can easily imagine someone maintaining he's a Roman Catholic who has been excommunicated. The Roman Catholic Church is a real entity, not a state of mind. Why not rather say then that she "identifies" herself (however you care to put it) as a Roman Catholic (unless, of course, you have actual evidence that she's a member of this church)? TheScotch (talk) 09:39, 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. Further, claiming that a statement she made 15 years is part of her current political position is misleading as well. I'm selecting what appears to be the most reliable of the blog sources as a cite, recasting the material to align with what the source actually says, and moving it to a more appropriate section. Fell Gleaming^talk 05:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware of what constitutes a reliable source. The New Republic, New York magazine and The Economist (although on their blog) clearly are. You also have AOL News and Talking Points Memo for reiteration. How many sources would you like for a statement that can be easily verified back to her - are you even disputing the fact that she made the statement in question?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, why are you placing this in a "controversy" section? There is no "controversy" over her saying this, and she has not disputed it or said she doesn't still feel this way.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A controversy section is for actions or opinion which engender controversy, not for something the article subject has necessarily disavowed. Placing 15-year old comments on creationism on a section on poltical views on education implies something far different than the reality. As for the sources cited, several had their own interpretation of O'Donnell's statements, rather than the statements themselves. I chose the one which appeared to be most accurate, and used it as the basis for the new controversy section. Fell Gleaming^talk 05:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming, you keep taking out the references for claims, and moving items into some imaginary "controversy" section, on issues that there is no controversy over. Flippantly rearranging the article or outrightly deleting material - and then simply saying "see talk" as your edit diff is unacceptable (especially when there is no consensus to see here). Not to mention you've probably 3RR at least once maybe more in the last hour.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If 15-year old comments made in college don't engender present-day controversy, then they're not notable at all, and don't belong in the article. Attempting to portray those comments as her current political platform is a BLP violation, and an even more serious one is intentionally misleading text such as "O'Donnell admitted to attending satanic rituals". Removing such contentious material is specifically excluded from revert counts. Fell Gleaming^talk 05:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I never mentioned anything about "satanic rituals", the problem is that you are making a ref mess of the entire article, by moving large portions of paragraphs without concern for what refs you are also moving - and if those refs are utilized in the text you leave behind. You are also using WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to declare that there is a controversy around her support of creationism, when there isn't. She has not walked back from this position. Nevertheless, I'm done here (and taking the page off my watch list). I have no desire to edit war with you over this and its clear you are on a mission to fubar this whole page..   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) As I've already said, controversy has to do with how others perceive one's remarks and actions, not whether they've been personally disavowed. The firestorm of blog postings on some of these ancient statements are quite evident proof that they've engendered controversy. Fell Gleaming^talk 05:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: "If 15-year old comments made in college don't engender present-day controversy, then they're not notable at all, and don't belong in the article.":

Rather conveniently circular, I should think. If something doesn't "engender" controversy, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia? Wouldn't it follow that everything in Wikipedia should be subsumed under sections labelled "Controversy"? TheScotch (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't mischaracterize what I said. There are many things that are notable in their own right in a BLP. A college degree is notable in itself. A political campaign, or very traumatic life experience. But random comments from decades ago are not notable in of themself, unless they're curently controversial. This really isn't difficult to understand. Had O'Donnell said 15 years ago that "I don't like celery", would you want to place that in her bio? Fell Gleaming^talk 11:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

promiscuity

dam it! who keep puting that peacock sententece about her enganging in the sex with the person... she was just enganging in promiscuity- ONE WORD source is even usin this word. I see teabagers in action here! http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20100916/UPDATES01/100916020/Tea-Party-s-newest-darling-turned-her-life-around-in-Morris-County-NJ

71.99.92.124 (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's the problem with using the word "promiscuous" as I see it: the source that you referenced makes the 'promiscuous' characterization based on a 2004 interview in which O'Donnell said something to the effect that she 'had sex with men when there was not a strong emotional connection.' The author of the article you referenced also uses this language.

Per the Wikipedia article on "promiscuity," "promiscuity denotes sex with relatively many partners." O'Donnell has not made any statements regarding the quantity of sexual partners. She only commented on depth of emotion. That alone is not enough to support the 'promiscuous' characterization. Absent any supporting evidence, it is appropriate to stick with what O'Donnell herself has disclosed -- i.e. that the relationships during this time period 'lacked an emotional connection.' Charlrob (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Absent any supporting evidence, it is appropriate to stick with what O'Donnell herself has disclosed":

Absent any supporting evidence, it is important that when you report what O'Donnell herself maintains that you also report that the information is coming only from her. Otherwise you give the impression that supporting evidence is not absent. TheScotch (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The 'promiscuity' is unwarranted based on the sources available and is an out-and-out BLP violation. I've restored the previous language. If this keeps up, the article will end up getting full protection and only admins will be able to edit it. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes the outrage about BLP violations has begun, all the better to get "full protection" - complete lock down, just when the article reaches a point when the politician's fans and admirers think it's sweet.

I agree with not using the word, but it is absolutely false that the label is "unwarranted based on the sources available". Here are two sources which use the word, and one of these sources is oddly being used for the proposition that she had sex without emotional connection.

"The turning point in the life and career of Christine O'Donnell, the newest darling of the Tea Party movement, came during her years as a college student in Florham Park. 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."Daily Record September 17, 2010

Here's another source News September 15, 2010 - maybe not so RS as the first one, but plenty of proof that the use of the word was not an egregious BLP violation --Regards KeptSouth (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the only original source for any of this is the 2004 News Journal article and interview that another editor paid for and read further up in the #Early Life and Education section. That story didn't use 'promisicous'. Everything published since then has been a rehash of that story, and some of these rehashes had introduced that word. What I'm saying is that WP should stick with the original, unless and until some new reporting is done on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Verifiability means more than searching source after source until you find the word you wish to use. The most authoritative source for this claim is the original report, which subsequent retellings appear to have distorted or reinterpreted. Fell Gleaming^talk 13:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

<--redent No, you all are missing my point. I don't want to add the term back into the article - I think the article is better the way it is. I was remarking that using the term was not as outrageous as Wastedtime was saying it was. It is in a reliable source. No searching was needed by whoever put the term into the bio; the source was already being used.KeptSouth (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad it got fixed. I made a report to BLPN about it and I frankly think it is a disgrace to portray women this way in the 21st century using POV-laden terms like this nevermind if a reporter or not used them. We should not uncritically copy bigoted comments like this just because a supposed RS used them. This is just cultural bias against women. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Circular Citations

The bits about O'Donnell "dabbling in witchcraft" and working as a "marketing consultant" have citations, but the citations are merely quoting O'Donnell herself, and I think the article would do much better to attribute this information to O'Donnell directly--O'Donnell says she "dabbled in witchcraft"; O'Donnell says she worked as a "marketing consultant"--unless it can find independent corroboration.

There is strong reason to doubt she is ingenuous here (and elsewhere), which certainly is not to suggest the article ought to state or imply this in any way, but it is to suggest that the article ought not to take everything that emanates from her mouth as necessarily inviolate fact. The witchcraft thing sounds outlandish, anyway, and in the absence of supporting evidence, that alone is good reason to doubt it. It also sounds in context as if she were exaggerating and embellishing her former waywardness to make her religious conversion seem more dramatic. "Marketing consultant" is a pretty vague term, and my (admittedly loose and offhand) impression is that she has really been for some time a professional candidate. TheScotch (talk) 08:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

An example of what gives me the impression O'Donnell has been for some time a professional candidate: New York Times columnist Gail Collins writes, "Her [O’Donnell's] disclosure form says she earned only $5,800 last year....O’Donnell’s campaign pays half the rent on her town house, which she argued is appropriate since she really lives elsewhere, in a location she needs to conceal from her opponents. She told The Weekly Standard that she returns at the end of the day to the town house 'and then we have our team come out and check all the bushes and check all the cars' to see if she is being followed by someone who might jeopardize her safety. Her opponents, she added, are also 'hiding in the bushes when I’m at candidate forums.' " TheScotch (talk) 08:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Collins op-ed is snarky in tone and purpose and not really to the point. She may have been a professional candidate since 2006, but she was doing something else before then. But I agree on your original statement, the witchcraft bit could well have been embroidered to make a good tale on TV, and 'marketing consultant' is indeed vague enough to almost mean anything. Her website gives two specifics of that – that her clients included marketing consultant whose clients have included the Passion of the Christ film and Natalia Tsarkova, the Vatican’s first female portrait painter – but I've yet to see a mainstream source that affirms that. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

In general, op-eds are not suitable sources of verification in a BLP, except for verifying the opinion of the article author, of course. But taking unattributed statements of fact from op-ed content, especially when that content is politically aligned or opposed to the article subject, is rarely acceptable per WP:V. Fell Gleaming^talk 12:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding a unsourced fact about abortion

How do I add an unsourced fact about her having an abortion in College prior to her religious conversion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.130.49 (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

We're supposed to assume good faith, right? Fine. You don't ("add...unsourced" information). TheScotch (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the bad faith here might be that certain people are trying to create a record to justify full protection of the article. They will rush in to slant the article to their liking right before the article gets locked.KeptSouth (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder whether this is a case of beans but seems pointless since the above is an IP user so if they do decide to add silly stuff it's just going to result in semi protection again Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 19 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)

 Done I added a template to reduce the number of levels displayed. If a reader wants to know her political positions, they can click on political positions. The subsections are still delineated, but the TOC isn't unduly long. This is the same thing that was done with the Sarah Palin article; in fact, I copied the template from that article. KeptSouth (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

TEAPARTY ALERT! NEED HELP !

obvoiusly tea party is marketing their propaganda here.making her look like spotles angel. please help. 71.99.92.124 (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The god of Wikipedia helps those who help themselves. Be more specific, please. TheScotch (talk) 09:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This person does not seem sincere. Oftentimes, when partisans want full protection, rather than semi, messages such as this one begin to appear.KeptSouth (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Are there cute little Tea Party banners on other Wiki pages? Just curious, since partisanship seems to be the topic. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivory1029 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Audible Voice of God

This claim is not contained within the reference provided nor is it found anywhere reliable on the web (and the ref being used is a "Hit and Run" blog spot that shouldnt be included anyways). Until a valid reliable source can be found I'm suggesting someone remove the claim. 206.108.31.36 (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

From the reference:

It was not the only time she communicated with God. In May of 2006, according to the News Journal, O'Donnell was approached by anti-abortion activists who asked her to run for Senate. "Originally I said no," she said. "I never wanted to run for office. I was an outspoken advocate, and if you run you have to water it down. But as someone who prays about every decision I make, I felt like God was leading me in the other direction." "During the primary, I heard the audible voice of God," she said. "He said, 'Credibility.' It wasn't a thought in my head. I thought it meant I was going to win. But after the primary, I got credibility."

If you dispute the reliability then that is perhaps a fair dispute, but it's clearly in there. -Selket ^Talk 01:31, 21 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)

"unmarried" is linked today to an article that indicates the word is incorrectly used in this article. All indications I've seen are that she is a never married and therefore single person per the linked article which states that unmarried typically refers to divorced or widowed persons. 5stones (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Marital status

Ok, there is clearly a concerted effort to keep all mention of her marital status off this page. I really don't see why to be honest, but that's not for me to judge. Anyway, as I see it, marital status is on just about every other politician's article. The fact that she is single is properly sourced and certainly notable. If her husband's name would be in the article were she married, her not being married should be in the article too. I agree that it's not relevant to the election (although some clearly seem to think it is). However this is an article about the person not just the candidate. --Selket ^Talk 14:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Are we time-warping back to the Mary Tyler Moore era here? Being unmarried and/or single in the 21st century is not newsworthy or notable in the slightest. Biographies contain info on who or what the person is, not usually about everything that they are not. Tarc (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Show me an article on a U.S. Politician -- at least a major party nominee for national office -- that has no comment on their marital status. The reference to Mary Tyler Moore is a straw man, and I think you meant The Mary Tyler Moore Show anyway. This isn't even a negative -- as I think you were saying. And yes, biographies contain info on what the person is and she is single. But I'll make this easy, show me a precedent for this sort of thing being excluded and I'll let it go. I'm pretty sure the precedent cuts the other way. -Selket ^Talk 15:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

A single sentence in personal information stating she is unmarried should be both acceptable and sufficient. Delving into depth on the issue suggests soapboxing. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what it was: a single sentence in personal information. In fact, I just went looking. The only one I could find (male or female) was Mayawati, which states her marital status quite clearly. -Selket ^Talk 15:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to show you any such thing, bud, I'm not in the business of proving negatives. Unless there is something actually noteworthy about being unmarried, e.g. James Buchanan being the only bachelor president, then simply being unmarried is not notable. And yes, you are trying to include it in a negative manner (hence the MTM reference), that is rather clear as day here. Tarc (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I found an example that might be applicable in this case. In the article on Justice Kagan, the section I linked has the last sentence describing her as single and never-married. Not sure why there's a problem with doing that here. Lithistman (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Since the material is contentious and this is a BLP, it needs to have the phrasing suggested here for discussion.. Personally, I don't see a problem with it if its handled in a neutral manner. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The material is not "contentious" in any way. It's simply noting that she is single and doesn't have children. How is that contentious? And how could such simple phrasing as I used need discussion? This all seems a bit mad to me. Lithistman (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with you that "a bit mad" may be an accurate definition, the fact remains that by the Wikipedia definition, the material is contentious, i.e. editors are disagreeing over its inclusion. Just insert your text here in talk, we'll get consensus for it, and then you can reinsert it into the article. After that, anyone who removes it is working against policy. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No one but Tarc seems to be against it. And as there's tons of precedent for including such information, I've already replaced it into the article. Read it for yourself. How anyone could possibly find that sentence problematic is beyond me. And unless someone can explain why that sentence is negative or problematic, it should stay in. Lithistman (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The phrasing is problematic. Just say she's unmarried; I do agree with Tarc that focusing on the "never married" bit is POV. It's not standard in articles for men, which brings up concerns of misogyny. Fell Gleaming^talk 16:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Done --Selket ^Talk 16:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I posted this above, but having found this discussion perhaps it needs to be aired here. "unmarried" is linked today to an article that indicates the word is incorrectly used in this article. As she is a never married and therefore single person per the linked article which states that unmarried typically refers to divorced or widowed persons. I think the POV claims are nonsense. Any of the terms are factual statements the only legitimate question in my mind is what the least ambiguous presentation is. Personally I think "never" is more precise than un or single. 5stones (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Religious views

1. Is O'Donnell also once took a stance against masturbation Biblically equating it with adultery really notable enough to be included under this section? This is the official position of the Catholic church and many evangelical Protestants.

2. She has since stated her youthful views have "matured" and that sexual behavior is a personal matter, and that her political actions will be based on the Constitution, rather than her personal views.

Did she ever state that those had been political views? This makes it sound like she wanted the government to ban masturbation. I think this paragraph needs to be changed. How about, "She has stated that sexual behavior is a personal matter, and that her political actions will be based on the Constitution, rather than her personal views?" The Sex in the 90s clip that the first sentence refers to is already mentioned in the Personal life section. Wwwiro (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe she stated they were political views (although the full transcripts of the PI shows have yet to emerge). However, I don't believe the article suggests that they were, which is the reason they are under the religios views section. If the article suggests that they constitute a political position, then I agree it should be changed. -Selket ^Talk 01:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the masturbation remarks may be notable, but they're not portrayed in a neutral manner at present. Fell Gleaming^talk 01:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the September 15th, 2010 New York Times article written by Jennifer Steinhauer and Jim Rutenberg, Christine O'Donnell is currently a Roman Catholic who at one time considered herself an evangelical. Here is a quote from the article: "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" (The New York Times, 2010, "Rebel Republican Marching On, With Baggage," ¶ 17). This is in disagreement with the current Wikipedia "Religious views" section on Christine O'Donnell which states she is evangelical. Janellegoldi (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)