Talk:Christine O'Donnell/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

'Controversies' sections are still a terrible idea

The structure of this article has taken a turn for the worse. There is now a separate "Controversies" section containing a bunch of biographical events. This is always a bad practice. All supposedly controversial material should be included in the normal biographical sections they occur in. Doing this gives them proper biographical context and weighting, and is what every real biography (book) does. Having a separate "controversies" or "criticisms" articles or sections is considered a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. Notably, a special effort was undertaken to rid all eighteen or so 2008 presidential candidates' biographical articles of such treatment — see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections/Archive 1#Status of "controversies" pages — and the same has been done for many other political figures' articles. If WP can tell the story of John McCain and Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani and Mike Gravel without resorting to these sections, then surely WP can do the same for Christine O'Donnell. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wasted Time R 100%. I, too, saw the POV nature of these sections in 2008. They end up as sandboxes for the person's detractors. Let's keep it encyclopedic. Coemgenus 11:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

@ WastedTimeR You are misunderstanding and misapplying WP guidelines and policies. NPOV does not say that a separate controversies section within an article is a NPOV violation. It does say that a separate controversies article may be, and that is called Content forking - the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view fork is also a separate article created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines. There is no separate article that has been created here. I have simply reorganized for reader convenience. To avoid undue emphasis on any one particular controversy, and to avoid the appearance that there are many controversies, I have previously placed a limit on the table of contents, so that separate sections that list each controversy do not appear in the table of contents at the top of the article. There is no guideline or policy that says that a Wikipedia encyclopedia article must be organized in the same fashion as biographical book. All of these controversies have arisen in the context of the current election season. The chronology is not incorrect. Please point out the sections of WP policies that support your contentions so that we can discuss this a bit so that we can perhaps reach an accommodation and avoid the dispute resolution process. KeptSouth (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The same principles apply whether a section or a subarticle is in question. And the chronology is incorrect – for example, her lawsuit against ISI is completely out of place, for example (and was known before this election season). And why is suing to protect one's rights "controversial"? That's just your value judgment. Another way to look at this is to take the best political biographies that WP has to offer, those that are FA or GA. Look at Gerald Ford or Ronald Reagan or Nancy Reagan or John McCain, all FA. Look at Joe Biden or Geraldine Ferraro or Jon Corzine, or Bill Bradley, all GA. None of these articles have "Controversies" sections or subarticles. In fact I don't know of any FA or GA political biographies that do (although I haven't looked at all of them). There's a reason for this. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The Barack Obama article is an example of how to write a biographical article neutrally, and not include every scrip and scrap of political innuendo. Parts of this article are turning into a mouthpiece for TPM and Bill Maher. Tarc (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

<--[Redent] Well Wasted Time, you certainly did not respond with any proof for your assertion that having a controversy section is a "considered a violation" according to WP policies and that is your basic assertion. In other words, you haven't support your claim. Just because we don't like a particular presentation, does not mean it violates WP policies or even guidelines. You talk about articles that don't have controversy sections -- that is well and good that all bios here are not the same, especially since the people who are profiled in the bios are not all the same. Here are some examples of bios that do. I see you may be attempting to move the goal post by saying you don't know of any Featured Articles or Good Articles that have controversy sections. This article is not being considered for FA or GA status. In any event, here are some articles and article sections that disprove your as yet unsupported point that articles that include the word controversy in them and even sections within articles that are include the word controversy in their title violate WP policies.

• Bill Clinton pardons controversy
• Bill Clinton#Travelgate controversy Bill Clinton Travelgate controversy
• Bill Clinton#White House FBI files controversy Bill Clinton White House White House FBI files controversy
• Bill Clinton#Whitewater controversy Bill Clinton Whitewater controversy
• Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies
• George W. Bush military service controversy
• Mike Huckabee#Clemency and Pardon controversies Mike Huckabee - Clemency and pardon controversies
• John Kerry#Controversy John Kerry Controversy

--Best regards KeptSouth (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That this article hasn't been nominated for FA or GA is not the point. The point is that those articles are examples of Wiki's best work and that this, like all articles, should aspire to those standards. What is your counter-argument? That we should make this article purposely low-quality so that it can include every news media tempest in a teapot that gets published? That's fine if you're writing a blog, but we're trying to build an encyclopedia here. Coemgenus 13:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Responding to this remark: "What is your counter-argument? That we should make this article purposely low-quality so that it can include every news media tempest in a teapot that gets published?" - no, that is your argument, your framing, Coemgenus. There is much reliably sourced information on the controversies, less than 1/10th of it is here. Would you like more in the article about these controversies to justify their inclusion? They are serious issues, allegations of financial irresponsibility, financial impropriety, calls for Federal Election Commission investigations made by both Democrats AND Republicans, and at best, careless puffery of educational qualifications throughout many years. These not tempests in a tea pot, they are significant controversies. --Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(od) KeptSouth, your examples above are a different beast. Clearly if a political scandal or controversy is noteworthy enough, it will merit its own dedicated article – Watergate scandal, Whitewater controversy, Keating Five, White House travel office controversy, and so forth. Some of these will be so focused on a particular person that it's part of the name, for example the Bill Clinton pardons controversy, Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies, and George W. Bush military service controversy articles you mention. These are all detail articles about a particular focused subject, per the WP:Summary style guideline. Now, in a BLP, clearly there are times when a scandal or controversy will be so important that it merits a section; Richard Nixon has a section "Watergate", for example, and Bill Clinton has a "Lewinsky scandal" section. Now, the Clinton article takes this too far; there is no need for Travelgate or Filegate to have their own section, since these were focused on Hillary and had little to do with Bill. (Someday I hope to tackle the Clinton article; there's a lot of space for improvement there.) The Huckabee and Kerry articles are also just giving particular sections to controversies within the biographical narrative. I'm not sure they're warranted the way they are done (the Kerry article has way too many short choppy sections), but that's different question. None of the examples you point to do what you are doing here, which is to pull all the controversies out of the chronological biography narrative and instead group them separately. That's what I'm saying is unwarranted. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

@ Wasted Time R Each time I respond to your arguments, rather than stay on course and rebut, you start a new line or sideline of attack on the idea that this bio of a controversial candidate should have a controversies section. It is really pointless to continue discussing this, but because you have moved the discussion in a circular manner and far afield at the same time, and have offered no solutions, I feel I must recap, and move this matter along.-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This has gotten way too confrontational. I'm not trying to win a debate here; I'm trying to persuade you of a better way of organizing articles. That's why I've approached this from several different angles, not to move the goalposts but to try to give different perspectives on why "Controversies" sections are a bad practice. Years ago I also created "Controversies" sections and subarticles, until other editors convinced me that it was a bad practice. True, for the most part it doesn't violate the letter of the WP guidelines, but I and others believe it violates the spirit of them. (Sort of like the penumbras and emanations of Griswold v. Connecticut.) So I'm not trying to "rebut" or "attack" anything, but merely to sway. I can see I've failed badly!

Yes, it is possible to organize biographies by topic rather than by chronology. I think this is inferior, because what happens in any area of a person's life at time T1 often effects what happens in some other area of their life at time T2. I think it's an especially bad approach in O'Donnell's case, because her personal, financial, activist, and political lives are all closely intertwined. And while you reject my comparison, I do think it's important to realize that professional biographers always organize their works chronologically, for just this reason.

But before I go, let me try one more tack. What is your dividing line for what goes in a regular bio section and what goes in the "Controversies" section? Why does the ISI suit go in Controversies, but the FDU suit go in bio – what is the difference? Why does her personal debt go into Controversies, but her 2008 campaign debt does not? Why aren't her views on sexual purity in Controversies, since they've received more attention and often derision than anything else she's done? Why isn't her campaign's rumoring about Castle in Controversies? Why does the reaction to the March 2010 report on her financial difficulties go in bio, but the actual description of them go a dozen paragraphs later in Controversies? Why is "Her financial practices were criticized by former campaign staffers Kristin Murray and David Keegan ..." in bio while "Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington alleged that O'Donnell made false statements on Federal Elections Commission filings ..." is in Controversies? What is the difference? What I'm getting at here is that organizing the article the way you do results in a series of difficult judgment calls about what is and what isn't a 'controversy', and the breakup of material into disjoint locations makes it very hard to tell a coherent narrative. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

SUMMARY of the discussion above

• 1. WastedTime began this dispute by saying that a controversies section in a BLP is "considered a violation of" WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking and WP:Criticism. He also makes the vague statement that the "controversial material", should be included in the normal biographical sections they occur in."
• 2. I respond by saying that WastedTime R is misinterpreting policies and guidelines. I say that the existence of such a section does not violate NPOV, and that the policy against content forking applies only to separate articles and not to sections within an article. I ask WastedTime to point out the portions of WP policies that support his assertions. (He never does.) I also answer that all the controversies have arisen during the current election season.
• 3. I perhaps misused the term chronology in my previous reply and WastedTime R focuses on that. He says O'Donnell's 8 million dollar lawsuit against a conservative publisher is not controversial, that it is only controversial in my mind, that it is my personal value judgment. Finally he says "another way to look at this" is that featured article and good articles don't have such sections -- which of course, is a new argument.
• 4. I respond that WastedTime R has not supported his assertion of a policy violation, and that WP bio articles differ as to content and the sections they contain. I say that WastedTime R is attempting to move the goal post by using featured articles and good articles as a standard here. Finally I list examples of articles that contain the name of a U.S. politician in their actual titles, and I list 5 articles that are bios of U.S. political figures that have sections titled with the word "controversy".
• 5. WastedTime R responds by first declaring that my "examples are a different beast" then he immediately mentions articles I do not mention, as if those were my actual examples. Wasted Time R then vaguely refers to some of the 5 bios I have listed that sections on controversies by saying variously that they are poorly written with choppy sections, that someday he will "tackle" one of them, and that two of my examples "are also just giving particular sections to controversies within the biographical narrative".
• 6. Regarding his last comment, I must say that everything in the bios is within the biographical narrative. The longer bios are usually organized by topic as well as chronology, and that is they way this one is. -- End of Summary--KeptSouth (talk) 10:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

masturbation

i am missing her opininon on masturbation! 71.99.86.158 (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's right there at Christine O'Donnell#Personal views. Tarc (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Christine O'Donnell calling a controversy a controversy

Dispute is over whether it is a violation of WP policy to name a section of the article "Controversies", placing them in together logical place since they are all at issue in the current election, or whether to scatter some of the information into unlikely subheadings and fold the rest of the information into a generalized and relatively long section titled "Career and Personal Life", see [1] and [2]. The current version, which I support (though I fully believe that some re-working is always needed in BLPs), is at [3]

Please see the discussion immediately above this section, if you still need information on this dispute. -KeptSouth (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It's true that a Controversy section is not a violation of policy, but it is also true that it is generally undesireable. Note the section of WP:NPOV called WP:STRUCTURE. It states, in part:

Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[3] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact: details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false — an implication that may not be appropriate. A more neutral approach can result from folding debates into the narrative, rather than distilling them into separate sections that ignore each other.

This implies that this article would be better off if you could fold the controversial issues into the main text itself. The only reasons I can think of for not doing so are 1) if the controversies themselves were a major portion of what makes O'Donnell notable, or 2) if the controversies are notable enough for inclusion but don't easily fit into other parts of the article. #2, however, is a pretty rare circumstance.

Some specifics on the section as it stands now. In "financial issues," the first paragraph should go (it has nothing to do with what makes her notable as a politician). The rest look like they should be able to be folded into the "years" above (btw, also not a great use of subsections, but passable). The "Lawsuit" doesn't even look like an issue--if the lawsuit was dropped, for whatever reason, it has no further merit for purposes of the article. In any event, filing a discrimination suit isn't at all a controversy. The "Educational History" seems overly long, but perhaps it's all important to her campaigns. Either way, the info should be factored into the appropriate campaign sections.

So, since these "controversies" (some of which aren't even controversies) can be refactored into the rest of the article, we should go by best practices and do so. I don't see any evidence in a cursory reading of this article to imply that these controversies are somehow so important to her "life story" (her legacy, if you will), that they deserve their own section. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Split it up, of course. The education stuff goes into the education section. The lawsuit against employer goes into her career history where that employment is mentioned. Queries about the financing of a campaign go into the report of that campaign. Same with any article on a politician. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This is in response to the RfC notice. I agree with the separate controversies section She is a controversial person, and a controversies section is perfectly appropriate for the convenience of the reader concerning this public figure. Figureofnine (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

politician

Should someone who has never held office be called a politician? How about political commentator or candidate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.173.78.131 (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

neutrality

The neutrality of this article leaves a great deal to be desired. It's clearly been written by people with an axe to grind. Some of these sources are very questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.55.41 (talk) 05:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your comments. Wikipedia takes biographies of living persons very seriously and has extremely strict rules to follow. Thus, your allegations are taken seriously. If you can please point out the exact issues then I am certain they will be tended to. Specifically, which areas do you feel are lacking neutrality? Also, what sources are questionable? Wikipedia has very strict requirements on the use of reliable sources and all claims are required to be verified. Please reply when you conveniently can. Basket of Puppies 05:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm new to the article, responding to the RfC on the "controversies" section. I think that the neutrality of the article is fine. She is a controversial public figure, and the article naturally reflects that. Her fame is directly attributable to controversy, so it stands to reason that there will be a significant portion of the article devoted to controversies. Figureofnine (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm new too, also coming in from the RfC. All politicians are controversial, otherwise why are they in politics? It's good to have full coverage of the negative views of her work, but it's not ideal to lump it all into a single "Controversies" section. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

'...AN AMERICAN POLITICIAN"?

Really? Simply running for office does not a politician make. The bio should more correctly state "...an American aspiring to be a politician". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madone1959 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. I have changed the article accordingly. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Due to her past employment, I think "political activist" would be correct.   Will Beback  talk  00:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably. Is it any better than just saying that she's the Republican nominee? I could live with "a political activist who is the Republican nominee..." Other thoughts? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's typical to include a job title or other claim to notability. She isn't just a nominee.   Will Beback  talk  00:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'll buy that. Do you prefer "was a political activist and is the Republican nominee" or "is a political activist and the Republican nominee"? In other words, do you think she still counts as an activist at the present moment? Either way, I don't care much, so feel free to change the article to whichever you prefer. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia standard is to use "was" only for dead people. It should be either "is a political activist and candidate" or "is a former political activist and..." I don't think she's stopped being a political activist, so the first choice seems more accurate.   Will Beback  talk  02:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Marketing Executive

There is no evidence in this article that O'Donnell has worked as a marketing executive. A reference to an ABC article that uses the phrase "marketing executive" is not enough since that article could simply reference another article that uses the phrase or back to the Wikipedia entry itself. Where is the actual evidence? Later in this Wikipedia entry under "Career", it clearly states "over the years, O'Donnell has worked as a marketing consultant". Later it describes SALT. Being president of an organization you founded does not make you an executive any more than it does someone who is the CEO of a startup. In other words, it is the size of the organization that makes you an executive, and there is no evidence that SALT is an organization whose size justifies an executive. The word "executive" should be changed to "consultant" to be consistent with the rest of the article. Beck8888 (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The term comes from a reliable source. If it quoted Wikipedia as it's reference then we would likely not use it. This is not the case, however. Basket of Puppies 19:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the reliable source provides no evidence for using the phrase "marketing executive". The author of the reliable source may have just copied the phrase from other sources. Where is the evidence?

Also, please note that the same reliable source (different writer) called her "a former marketing consultant" instead of "a former marketing executive" a couple days earlier (see reference 1). Beck8888 (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia can only report what is in the reliable sources. If it's not in there then it must be removed from the article. However, what the source material for the reliable source cannot be our concern. That would put Wikipedia in the position of having to verify and factcheck every single reference. Basket of Puppies 22:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

What do other sources say? If most other sources call her a "consultant" rather than an executive, we can use the term used by the majority. If other sources also report her as an executive, it should stay as is. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I can do a poll of other sources, but I suspect few reliable sources call her an "executive". As I mentioned above, even ABC called her a "consultant" two days before calling her an "executive". However, I hope that this "reliable" source will end the discussion. Here it is from her own campaign site (http://christine2010.com/about) retrieved by Beck8888 (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC):

"Christine O’Donnell is a nationally recognized political commentator and marketing consultant."

Here's the past tense if the above verb tense bothers you:

"Christine has served as a marketing and media consultant to various clients..."

No mention of "executive" at all. Beck8888 (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I just did a quick scan of other news articles, and they all seem to use the term "marketing consultant" as well. Since I'm seeing many sources that say consultant, and just the one that says executive, it appears that the first ABC story is no longer considered to contain the reliable info. I'll make the change

Edit request from Beck8888, 8 October 2010

{{Edit semi-protected}} Please change "executive" to "consultant" in the second sentence, as there is no evidence that she has worked as an executive for any larger organization/corporation. This is also more consistent with the rest of the article. Can anyone really become an executive by just staring an organization/corporation and naming themself the president? Please refer to my comments in discussion of this page. Beck8888 (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, per above discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Polling information location change

Just a minor change, but didn't want anyone to misconstrue... This text: "A July 2010 Rasmussen Reports poll showed O'Donnell running ahead of Democratic Senate candidate Chris Coons by a margin of 41 to 39 percent (with a +/- 3 percent margin of error) in a hypothetical matchup, while a similar poll in August had her trailing Coons by ten points (46 to 36 percent)."

Was located in the primary election section. I removed it and added it to similar polling discussions in the general election. The matchup wasn't based on the primary, so it seemed out of place. If someone disagrees, it should probably be made clearer why it relates to the primary, in both explanation here and text in the section (all I could think of was that it might be in reference to her potential electability?). Absent that, i think it fits better with the discussion of other polls, showing change in public opinion over time.Jbower47 (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Primary election

There is no "University of Delaware -- Wilmington". It would be more accurate for this sentence to read: "On March 10, 2010, O'Donnell officially announced her candidacy before a small group of supporters at the Wilmington campus of the University of Delaware." Idsardi (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sex life, BLP, appropriate?

First time hearing about this lady after watching youtube stuff, came here to see what the deal was. I notice that in her personal life section it mentions sexual and romantic relationships. Is that encyclopedic? And beyond that is it appropriate for a BLP? Otherwise, nice article. 69.246.27.226 (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It's my understanding that they are mentioned because they have been notable in her public statements...i.e. these are things that she has said regarding her sex life that have caused discussion. I think that is certainly in the realm of public information and is passingly notable. Consider other politicians whose similar comments/actions/ideas/etc are parts of their page. A large focus of her political efforts in the past has revolved around sex (appearances on MTV, abortion issues, being an outspoken activist regarding sexual abstinence). In that frame, her public comments are applicable to her political stances.Jbower47 (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The passage is mainly if not entirely based on an article from The Daily Record that says: "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." "Tea Party's newest darling"

Although social conservatives like stories of redemption and that is likely why these issues have been discussed in the media, I think anything other than the briefest mention is WP:undue, and in some ways, sexist. So, I have trimmed the section down to her quote that she wasn't a slut, but didn't have the morals she had now.diff. Please read the additional reasoning I gave in the edit summary that you can see in the diff. -Regards- KeptSouth (talk) 10:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The following phrase seems a little loaded and lacks objectivity:

• O'Donnell came to a turning point when she was about 21, when she saw illustrations of how an abortion is actually performed.

The word "actually" adds a negative connotation to that sentence and implies a particular stance toward abortion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsquibb (talk • contribs) 20:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree the word "actually" can be POV here, so I removed it. KeptSouth (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Bozo the Clown

• Her father, Daniel O'Donnell, acted in television including being a part-time fill-in for Bozo the Clown in Jenkintown, Pennsylvania.
  • Mark Liebovich (October 1, 2010). "The Political Wild Card". The New York Times.

I don't see "part-time fill-in" in the source. Where are we getting that from? FYI, Bozo the Clown was a franchise. Every locality had it's own Bozo. There was no single Bozo, though there was an originator.   Will Beback  talk  00:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no response, I'll remove that phrase.   Will Beback  talk  19:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Widely reported, the only trick is finding a source that doesn't contrast Christine as a "full-time Bozo". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was just going by what was in the cited source.   Will Beback  talk  20:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is what the cited source says - and it fully supports both the prior and the current wording:"he confirmed that yes, he was Bozo, but not an official, full-time certified Bozo, more of a part-time Bozo....To be an official Bozo, you had to go to a special school in Texas,” explained Mr. O’Donnell. He never did. Instead, he was asked to fill-in for the official Bozos whenever they would have to travel out of the Philadelphia area for acting gigs." Political Wild Card

Hope that takes care of everyone's issue here.-Best regards- KeptSouth (talk) 10:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

O'Donnell's "relationships" in college

Sources, many of them derivitive, have discussed her statements that she drank and had a series of sexual relationships in college, and this material has usually been in this bio. (Curiously, it is sometimes added or added back by editors who appear to be very conservative). In any case, this material it is only very marginally notable, and the way it is usually phrased in this article, it is a BLP violation. She has said her real change of heart came about because she began thinking about what is done in an abortion procedure, and that is the part of her early college years that is most notable to her life story. She never said she was a virgin and never argued for alcohol prohibition during her moral advocacy days, so adding and re-adding material that she was "promiscuous", had a series of casual sexual relationships, drank excessively, etc. is actually pretty pointless as well as an BLP Undue violation. Let's keep it out.KeptSouth (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

wow 360 change within a week about her promiscuos sexual life ... hmmm

"She also found herself drinking excessively and having sexual, romantic relationships,[2] though she has clearly indicated she was not promiscuous.".... This is how it looks now. Week ago it was book example of teenager promiscuity, How this change of history happend? Did people disapear? Books and newspaper were burned? C'mon people. This is FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA. Not some tea party controled propaganda! 71.99.86.158 (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is dramatically POV, so let's throttle back on the propaganda charges. However, the wording does sounds awkward. She "found herself drinking...having.." sounds pretty passive, and "romantic" seems awkwardly inserted, and "she has clearly indicated" smacks just a little of editorializing (what is "clearly"? why is that word necessary? At worst it sounds conversational rather than encyclopedic in tone). Can we reword this to just state the facts as represented by the sources?Jbower47 (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

She told the NYT she was not a "slut". I thought the addition of "she has clearly indicated she was not promiscuous" was a fair rendition of that, but in view of the objections to that language and the removal of the term "romantic" (which is the term the NYT article used), I substituted her quote from the article.-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Where is anything that says she tried her hand in witchcraft, I think that should be a pretty important thing, especially when it comes to a person is campaigning to be a people's representative in government! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cu8ro (talk • contribs) 15:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It's written about in the General election section. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

seriously?

Isn't that the same picture twice on the same page? It doesn't even look good. Can we really not get anything better? 97.114.129.248 (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a better one now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.2.244.169 (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but it would still rock if the campaign gave up am official pic of herThis is the new media TOO!

Buzz Aldrin

[Aldrin]'s surname is currently misspelled in this article as "Aldren", but I can't edit it. Will someone with editing powers on this article please hit that? 24.145.132.195 (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Legal difficulties

The section titled "Legal and financial difficulties" implied the phrase "Legal difficulties" which normally has the meaning that somebody is suspected or accused of having done something illegal. That's not the case here; O'Donnell was accusing ISI of doing something illegal. It's a lot better if the ISI lawsuit is simply combined with the ISI career description in the "Career" section and no implication of her being in legal difficulty is made. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is civil and criminal, but I agree, it's best not to imply anything negative, particularly when some kind of wrongdoing is being discussed. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Constitutional knowledge

I wonder where and how this news article might fit in to this article. It appears Ms O'Donnell is unfamiliar with the Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment. Basket of Puppies 15:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It's very briefly in the last text in the article and supported with footnotes 123 and 124. I'd include a link to the actual audio, available at [4] that makes everything perfectly clear. Smallbones (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

An official CBS video is available here. Basket of Puppies 23:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of the initial critical news sources did make it appear she was unfamilar with the establishment clause, but others that went into more depth explained clearly her meaning. Wikepedia should use the more indepth news reports. But it can't be changed, as it is locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.114.34.63 (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether one feels she knew the implications of the first amendment and was trying to make a point, or genuinely didn't know, is subjective depending on how you read her reactions in the video. Those news sources clearly point out it could have been either. 62.56.113.81 (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

62.56.113.81 is correct in stating that the sources clearly point out that it could be either she didn't know what the amendment says or she was making a point that the phrase is not found in the constitution. The article, however, states that she was saying that the phrase was not found. The video of the exchange and the cited sources do not show her stating that the phrase does not appear. She simply states "That is in the First Amendment?" Which is ambiguous at best. I am going to edit the paragraph to reflect this. Danpenning (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

On Tuesday, October 19, 2010 Coons and O'Donnell met for their third debate, this time located at Widener University Law School. During an exchange about teaching creationism in schools, O'Donnell asked,

"Where in the Constitution is the seperation of church and state?"

As the audience laughed, Coons replied it was in the First Amendment.

O'Donnell continued, "Let me clarify. You're telling me that seperation of church and state is in the First Amendment?"

Coons answered, "Government shall make no establishment of religion."

"That's in the First Amendment?"

When questioned about the Constitution further she replied, "I'm sorry, I didn't bring my copy of the Constitution with me. Fortunately, senators don't have to memorize the Constitution."

Thank you to whomever posted the above. It shows the exact exchange between the two. Danpenning (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the debate from above is mentioned in the article, but O'Donnell's gaff has been subtly avoided. There is no mention of the exchange that follows her dumb question, nor of the laughter with which it was met. Someone change this please. The audience of the debate were mostly law students. Hilarious. Video is on youtube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.1.30 (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

like wow

She is jaw dropping dumb. This is the first time I have really paid attention to the tea party and I'm scared. I need hug —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.40.117 (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:HUGGLE? Basket of Puppies 02:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Reading this article, people would incorrectly think she is 'dropping dumb'. This article needs a major re-write - removing irrelevant material, and stating things in a non-partisan way. This article is extremely partisan, but is locked, so cannot be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.114.34.63 (talk) 08:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where it says she is dumb - you can imply from the new information added at the very bottom of the article that she lacks knowledge about the constitution, and perhaps this needs to be re-worked a bit: (The current version says at the end: O'Donnell's comments surrounding various articles of the Constitution have been the subject of commentary by news outlets, such as "appearing to disagree or not know that the First Amendment bars the government from establishing religion"[123] and a lack of knowledge of the subject of the 14th and 16th amendments.[124]] But that short statement can be reworked and new sources can be added regarding her statements on the Constitution.

If you want to edit, just create an id and you will be able to do so after a few days and something like 25 edits to other articles. -Regards- KeptSouth (talk) 11:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

On Tuesday, October 19, 2010 Coons and O'Donnell met for their third debate, this time located at Widener University Law School. During an exchange about teaching creationism in schools, O'Donnell asked,

"Where in the Constitution is the seperation of church and state?"

As the audience laughed, Coons replied it was in the First Amendment.

O'Donnell continued, "Let me clarify. You're telling me that seperation of church and state is in the First Amendment?"

Coons answered, "Government shall make no establishment of religion."

"That's in the First Amendment?"

When questioned about the Constitution further she replied, "I'm sorry, I didn't bring my copy of the Constitution with me. Fortunately, senators don't have to memorize the Constitution."

I fundamentally disagree with this woman on...oh, everything...but this is being spun out of control. It is a classic conservative argument that the "separation of church and state" is not enshrined in the constitution, but is rather a (in their estimation, flawed) interpretation of the first amendment. When you hear them say "freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion", this is what they're getting at. Tarc (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and specifically, these conservatives interpret the 1st amendment as saying that govt, atheists and non evangelical Christians cannot interfere with the freedom of religion of evangelicals to have creationism taught in public schools' science classes. Thus, O'Donnell is not dumb at all, at the most, she just needs to refine her arguments a bit, and perhaps carry a pocket copy of the Constitution with her, as all "constitutionalists" should. KeptSouth (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Article contradicts itself

It says in the top section, that she is a Catholic, but in the middle it says she is an evangelical Protestant who attends "both Catholic and Protestant" services.--68.92.125.241 (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point, but for a while it has said

"O'Donnell has been described as a former Catholic turned evangelical Christian. The News Journal reported that she converted back to Catholicism in 2006. She told The New York Times in 2010 that she embraces both faiths, and has said she now attends Catholic and Protestant services.

Hope that clears it up for you - it's confusing in a way, but it's what the sources say. KeptSouth (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"Personal life" section is completely POV, reads like a GOP ad

"Originally a political liberal who believed in abortion rights, O'Donnell experienced an epiphany at age 21 when she saw graphic descriptions and pictures in medical journals of how an abortion is performed.[12] "'There's only truth and not truth,' O'Donnell said she realized at that moment. 'You're either very good or evil.'"[1] She dropped her acting aspirations, began thinking about moral issues, and became an evangelical Christian, liking the moral certainty of that religion.[1] She chose to live a chaste life, began espousing sexual abstinence, and joined the College Republicans.[3]

[24]O'Donnell has been described as a former Catholic turned evangelical Christian.[3] The Wilmington News Journal reported that she converted back to Catholicism in 2006.[1] She told The New York Times in 2010 that she embraces both faiths,[12] and has said she now attends Catholic and Protestant services.[25]"

She is single but has said she is interested in marrying.[12]

--- ROFL! Are you kidding me? This sounds like a cut-and-paste from a GOP TV commercial. "She chose to live a chaste life, began espousing abstinence.." oh God, I nearly felt nausious reading that one. I'd change it if I could, but the article is locked.68.92.125.241 (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I am changing the text to: "said she experienced an epiphany". I think you will agree that is an improvement.

Regarding making any huge changes because you have the feeling this is puffery, you should know that Wikipedia has some pretty strong policies about what can go in a BLP, see WP:BLP for starters. Basically, the paragraph you quoted is backed by WP:Reliable sources, and is consistent with the way she has told her own story of conversion. Finally, you fail to notice that many people could read it and come to a negative conclusion about O'Donnell. It all depends on where the reader is coming from, what the reader wants in a politician.-- KeptSouth (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Financial issues

Few if any BLPs have a separate section called "Financial difficulties" or "Financial issues". The one here suffered from two problems. First, its presence would suggest that all of O'Donnell's financial issues are collected in it, but in fact they weren't; her college tuition payment problems were dealt with separately, as were some but not all of the allegations made about her misuse of campaign funds. Second, anyone reading the article narrative will understand that she's struggled financially her whole life; it isn't necessary to shout this out loud with an unusual section title.

So, I've moved the allegations of campaign funds misuse to be adjacent to the other allegations; I've moved the FEC filing violations (which aren't financial per se, but regulatory) to the appropriate campaign section; and I've merged the remaining into the "Career" section (where they are relevant, since they illustrate that her career hasn't earned her much money). Wasted Time R (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Defaulting on a mortgage, and owing back taxes are not part of her "career", in fact it is a violation of BLP to call these events her "career". Similarly the complaint to the FEC and US attorney are not part of her primary run where this information now been located. The complaint by CREW now lumped into "primary election" was filed after the primary and concerned alleged irregularities that occurred before the current election season. I am putting this material into a financial issues section. The term is neutral, there is a common subject matter, and I am ordering this information into basic chronological order. Just because every financial issue she has had is not all in this category, that does not mean it is invalid. This is an encyclopedia article, not a 300 page biography.

Every person's life and career are different and this sometimes calls different categories in the bios. For example only Bill Clinton has a Law license suspension section and a Sexual misconduct allegations section. Current Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal has a PAC money contributions and Vietnam War service claims section. Senate candidate Mark Kirk has an Intelligence officer of the year, Being under fire, Military politicking and educational controversy section. Former Senate candidate Sue Lowden's bio here has a Using barter to pay for health care, and Opposition criticism of Pioneer Hotel layoffs section; Barbara Boxer's bio has a Criticizing Condoleeza Rice section; Joe Sestak's has one titled Treatment of Staffers. Obviously, there are no hard and fast rules on the creation of sections in political figure bios, and the circumstances of the individuals' lives dictate the content and sectioning of the Wiki articles. In this case, O'Donnell's financial problems are often mentioned as a topic in the RSs.

Finally the term and section name Financial issues is neutral, logical, and helpful to the reader. It does not scream anything, but it does not bury it either.-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree on several points you make (the chronology currently is broken, none of those articles you mention are at GA level, I still don't see how splitting the campaign funds for personal use allegations makes sense, etc.), but I'll wait until some time after the election is well past to pursue it further. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I don't see where the campaign funds for personal use allegations are split in the article, and I don't see how we can apply a hypothetical GA standard here - it seems to me you are moving the goal post. As to whether the chronology "is broken" - it is impossible to hew to a strict chronology in bio articles; they most often have topics defined by section headers. I would think that a basic chronological presentation within the topics would be generally sufficient. Since we are dealing with a story about someone's life, there are always going to be loose ends at times and overlap in the categories. At least that is the way I see it, and my view is consistent with WP general and BIO policies as well. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to address one point, why is this:

Several days after the 2010 primary, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington alleged that O'Donnell made false statements on Federal Elections Commission filings and illegally used more than $20,000 of her campaign funds as "her very own personal piggy bank" by claiming campaign expenses during a time when she had no official campaign.[10] The group filed a complaint on September 20, 2010 with the Federal Elections Commission, and asked the U.S. Attorney in Delaware to investigate.[43] O'Donnell responded to the accusations, telling reporters, there is "no truth to it. I personally have not misused the campaign funds,"[46][47] and refused to answer specific questions about her finances asked by CNN.[48][49]

in the "Financial difficulties" section, while this:

Her financial practices were criticized by former campaign staffers Kristin Murray and David Keegan, with Murray charging that during her 2008 campaign, O'Donnell used campaign funds "for rent and personal expenses, while leaving her workers unpaid and piling up thousands in debt."[86][87][88]

is in the "2010 Primary election" section? Both are allegations that she used campaign funds for her personal use; seems to me that wherever they go, they should go together. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually there isn't a "Financial difficulties" section - it was renamed "Financial issues" some time ago to avoid possible negative connotations in a BLP. I suppose one reason why the criticism by staffers is in the primary campaign section is that the criticism was made during the 2010 primary campaign. It my view it became a financial issue for her, and not just passing critique or robocall material when the complaints to the FEC and US Attorney were filed -a distinction that is a difference. -Regards- KeptSouth (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

So an allegation made by former campaign workers during an election season gets one treatment, while an allegation by a progressive-oriented watchdog group during an election season gets another treatment? Both of these are just allegations at this point; neither of these is an official conclusion of any official federal or legal body. And note that you're in the minority here; the "Financial issues - paragraph 7" comment by richrakh below also thinks the two items should be together. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

<--[Outdent ]No, that is a mischaracterization of this discussion which began with you putting the financial issues under "career" section, which I believe was a violation of BLP policy - it was not part of her career to avoid paying personal and campaign debts. So I moved the material. I have now trimmed and combined, responding to the unsigned comment by richrakh which you say put me in "the minority here". Have you thought of any new arguments for this same old issue? If we are going to engage in quasi or Wikilawyering such as requiring that there be an "official conclusion" of a "federal or legal body", then the principle of estoppel should kick in right about now. No, on second thought, it should have kicked in a long time ago. -Best regards- KeptSouth (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Restoring sourced material to the lead

Actually, I'm just talking about a couple of words: "surprising upset" which were used to describe O'Donnell's primary victory over Castle. diff However, the description is supported by a number of sources and conveys an idea that is important to the history of O'Donnell's campaign and bio. One of several examples is contained in the actual title of the article: "Christine O’Donnell, Tea Party Shock GOP Establishment in Delaware"; the article itself also says Castle is the eighth GOP establishment candidate to be upset and contains this quote: "I have no doubt if she by some miracle became the nominee she would lose the seat by unprecedented numbers," Delaware Republican Party chairman Tom Ross said last week. Based on this and other sources now in the References list, I have restored the phrase "surprising upset" to the lead -- KeptSouth (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the point another editor was making is that "surprising upset" is redundant – by definitions, all upsets are unexpected. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

He did say the two words were redundant in the edit summary, but then he removed both of the words, changing "defeating ... Mike Castle, in a surprising primary upset on September 14, 2010" to "defeating ... Mike Castle, in a primary on September 14, 2010", so I cannot divine what that editor meant.

My main point is that using the two words, "surprising" and "upset" in this context is not redundant, and RSs have used both words together when describing O'Donnell's primary win. There can be an upset, a change in the established or expected order of things, where the occurrence of the change itself may not be a surprise. For example, if the Republicans take the House in 2 weeks, it will be an upset, but it won't be a surprise. When O'Donnell defeated a political veteran who was the establishment candidate, it was an upset. Evidence that it was a surprise is contained in news articles from last month. For example, one week before the primary election, the state party chair said it would take "a miracle" for O'Donnell to win the nomination. Therefore --> surprise + upset is not redundant. -Regards- KeptSouth (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I missed that the person removed both words, one or the other should be there. But dictionary.com disagrees with you; there's no definition corresponding to "a change in the established order of things", so if the Republicans win the House, it will not be an upset. The relevant definition here is "to defeat or overthrow an opponent that is considered more formidable, as in war, politics, or sports." In that sense all upsets are a surprise. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You must be kidding. Even the dictionary.com reference (the ultimate and only authority??) that you give does not support your assertion or your added assumption that in a "sense all upsets are a surprise". I am not going to quibble about one word here. Maybe it's worth it to people with pointed agendas, but I don't have one. I would simply like to get more facts into this article and to improve the writing.

I would suggest though, that before you make a comment such as the one with which you began the thread, that you actually read the diff. It could save you some time, you know.-Regards- KeptSouth (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Financial Issues

Paragraph 7 in the Primary section. the one about her manager stating she is living off campaign funds. It would make more sense if that were in the Financial issues section. richrakh```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richrakh (talk • contribs) 13:44, October 20, 2010

 Done:I summarized it in a general way by saying there were last minute charges she was no conservative and was finacially irresponsible. The details are in the Financial Issues section. - Regards - KeptSouth (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Court

I don't really follow this article, and I don't like to edit political articles that I'm not quite familiar with, but I was a little surprised not to see any mention of this candidate's inability to name any Supreme Court decision she disagrees with, after she "invited the question", according to The Daily Telegraph:

Miss O'Donnell, 41, who is running for the senate in Delaware, invited the question when she said she opposed activist judges, citing the recent court decision ordering an immediate halt to military discharges of gays who revealed their sexuality. But when the moderators asked her to name a recent Supreme Court decision with which she disagreed, the Tea Party favourite was unable to name a single one. Her opponent, Chris Coons, a senior official in the state, immediately answered that he disagreed with the court's Citizens United earlier this year which loosened controls on campaign financing. The fact that the debate was televised live on CNN ...

The article compares her inability to do so to Sarah Palin's ability to cite only Roe v. Wade when asked the same question in 2008 by Katie Couric. ( Has this become a fairly standard question that candidates can reasonably be expected to anticipate, btw? ) Anyway, Palin's reply with just Roe v. Wade was considered a very big deal at the time, so I was wondering why no mention of O'Donnell's inability to come up with anything at all in response to the same question?  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Video of the event. Basket of Puppies 16:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; this one from CNN might be more acceptable, since it's provided by a reliable source. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've now added this information.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.100.60.193, 27 October 2010

Please remove 'O'Donnell has said that if elected she will not support Mitch McConnell continuing on as the Republican leader of the Senate.[12]' from the Political Positions section. The NY Times quotes O'Donnell: "I wouldn't not support him." 76.100.60.193 (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done here. Good eyes. Hope you don't mind that I've also now deleted (just above, from this talk page) the {{edit semi-protected}} template that you used to make your request, simply to save space on the page. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead too short

I have placed a lead too short tag at the top of the article. The lead is supposed to summarize the main points of the article, giving an overview to to reader. This lead does not - it needs to be expanded. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)- KeptSouth (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph could certainly be improved to better reflect her newfound prominence, despite defeat. And the first sentence there should be rewritten to remove the 'political' redundancy -- "O'Donnell is politically conservative on social and political matters.." -PrBeacon (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

'Where in the Constitution?'

Democracy Now! has a recording of this discussion (including the audience's reaction).

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/20/headlines#10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.97.71 (talk) 11:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.26.8.207, 3 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} the summary box says "extremist Christian" ... that is a judgment and is not objective... remove it.... say instead "Evangelical/Catholic"

70.26.8.207 (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Y I reverted to the previously stable Roman Catholic. NickCT (talk) 12:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

She's not a politician, she was a political candidate.

I guess you might say she meets 2b:

a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government

2 a : a person engaged in party politics as a profession

b : a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.79.38 (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hai dere!

Where can I put "She's a little crazy, but I'd marry her in a heartbeat!" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.130.70 (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Careful what you wish for, pal. 76.105.254.23 (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You can write it on a bathroom wall where such comments belong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.124.58 (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Who changed it back to "evangelical Christian"?

She's a Catholic - I've seen this changed multiple times. Or at least change it to just "Christian" if you can't decide whether she's Catholic or Protestant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.239.161 (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

She is of some crazy Christian denomination. Does it really matter which one? --Jimv1983 (talk) 07:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

She was raised Roman Catholic and has stated that she attends both Catholic mass and Evangelical servicesWkharrisjr (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Christine O'Donnell is a Catholic. I attended Catholic mass with her in 2003. She invited a number of people to Wilmington for the weekend. She strongly encouraged everyone the next Sunday morning to go to Catholic Church with her. I am a protestant, but I went with her and everyone else to Catholic mass.

Christine O'Donnell was raised Catholic. She then went on a search for what is true about God and religion. She explored many different religious ideas with an open mind, before becoming a born-again Christian (Protestant). She was very outspoken as a born-again Christian for about a decade, and then returned to her Catholic roots around 2001 (roughly).

-- Jonathon Moseley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.124.58 (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved to Delaware specifically to run for office

A great deal was made locally during the election that she had moved to Delware specifically to run for office. Should this be mentioned if a credible source is located? 4.238.234.246 (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

NO, because there is no credible source. Christine O'Donnell moved to Delaware when recruited to work at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute in March 2003. Christine first ran for office in April 2006. Christine grew up just across the border in a New Jersuey suburb of Philadelphia, very close to Delaware. Her grandfather was a Delaware native.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.124.58 (talk) 00:24, November 17, 2010

Article contains * LIES * about 2005 lawsuit -- defamation

What is stated in the article is *FALSE* and defamation.

Christine O'Donnell's 2005 lawsuit is explicit that Christine started work on March 12, 2003, HOPING to attend a Princeton master's degree LATER THAT YEAR -- IN THE FALL OF 2003.

It is explicit that she was NOT enrolled in Princeton... but was hoping to enter in the Fall.

She was enrolled in non-degree corusework, as Princeton confirms.

SEE:

http://www.redstate.com/jonmoseley/2010/10/04/i-wrote-christine-odonnells-2005-lawsuit-liberals-are-lying-smearing-by-claiming-christine-odonnell-lied/

70.179.124.58 (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, first off all, the citation is not exactly a neutral unbiased source, is it? The Wiki article states "In a 2005 lawsuit, O’Donnell implied she was working toward a master's degree at Princeton University but she later acknowledged she had never taken graduate courses there." This is consistent with the citations, so your issue is with the sources, not with the Wikipedia article. BTW, how could the lawsuit claim she was preparing to enter the grad program at Princeton if she had not yet received her undergraduate degree from FDU?Wkharrisjr (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Change in consistent date format

Oddly someone has [changed] the formerly consistent yyyy-dd-mm dating in this article to British format contrary to the MOS. I have asked them to change it back, but in the meantime, I will use the former format if I add any new cites, as O'Donnell has no strong ties to Britain. see WP:DATERET --KeptSouth (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Linking to only one page of a multi-page article

I don't see how it is useful or helpful or in compliance with WP:Cite and WP:Verify to link to archived articles that only have the first page of a multi page article. I am commenting out those links now. As long as the full version of the article, with all of the pages, is available on line, the links should go directly there.--KeptSouth (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

My concern is when the links go dead. Unless one is continually monitoring the links, the links may be useless in the future. I feel that at least an archived link to the first page would give a future research an idea of the article and some clues for digging up a hard copy of the story. Wkharrisjr (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly a good and commendable thing that you are doing, archiving the articles, and I was not challenging or criticizing that. But you did not respond to my only point which is that as long as the full version of the article is still available on line, readers should be able to link to that rather than to just the first page. The cite template for archived sites that you are using, effectively prevents that. I think the best of both worlds is to preserve at least the first page for now, which is what you are doing, but to comment out the automatic link those archives -- unless and until the live link goes dead. That is what I have done. It would be nice if when you archive an article you do the same. Otherwise what your work is doing, in some cases, is to make it improbable that readers will find the full article which is currently on line. -Best regards- KeptSouth (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

A question on the lengthy witchcraft quote

A few things about the quote from the Bill Maher show:

• Firstly - it is a smear, a digging up of something she said 11 years ago about something she did more than 12 years before that. It was aired as part of an attempt to derail her candidacy.
• Regardless, the fact that she made such a statement is still notable because it was so widely reported, and there has been consensus that is notable.
• There is also a prior consensus in the archived discussion to quote her words - but why does the quote have to be so long and repetitious? WP:Policies and guidelines says avoid redundancy. I recently trimmed the quote. but it was restored to its full lengthy glory. I have made a short table so that the edit I am now proposing can be compared to the current text.

Current version

My proposed edit

"I dabbled into witchcraft — I never joined a coven. But I did, I did. I dabbled into witchcraft. I hung around people who were doing these things. I'm not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do... One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn't know it. I mean, there's little blood there and stuff like that... We went to a movie and then had a little midnight picnic on a satanic altar."

"I dabbled into witchcraft — I never joined a coven ... I hung around people who were doing these things ... We went to a movie and then had a little midnight picnic on a satanic altar."

I think no meaning is lost by this edit; it has all the elements of her statement. Shortening the quote complies with the spirit of WP:Undue emphasis as well. I will check back here for anyone's comments before I make this edit. - KeptSouth (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree and made the change. The quote was actually shortly not long ago and was expanded. Arzel (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the "I didn't know it" part of the quote relevant, as it may reveal her intent at the time of the incident? I'll defer to however the quote was most widely reported in the media during the campaign. GoingBatty (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Important edit needs to be incorporated

Opening MUST read: "Christine Therese O'Donnell (born August 27, 1969) is an American politician who is not and has never been a witch and who founded two advocacy organizations..."etc. Change immediately or God's righteous judgement will come down on ye sodomite wikipedians and smite thee mightily Oooompalooompa (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC) (with much frothing at mouth) PS Why are Americans crazy as a box of frogs?

"I am not a witch"

Shouldn't it be mentioned that she isn't a witch? Robert Berkshire (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Political campaigns, General election, 2nd paragraph. Tarc (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is this section titled "88" it would seem to have no relevancy to the editor's concern. The number 88 is however neo-Nazi code talk and perhaps is libel of a BLP even if it's on the talk page. Eighty-eight is used as code among Neo-Nazis to identify each other --Wlmg (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

"88" has been used as a code for "Heil Hitler" (H being the eighth letter of the Latin alphabet).

"88" can also refer to the 88 principles of white supremacy. So I ask once again why it is being used as a section heading? It doesn't take a huge inductive leap or forays into original research to see something not kosher is going on here.--Wlmg (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Changed the section heading.Wkharrisjr (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Should we say in the article that she's also not a sandwich? Just so people know, I mean?  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

NO, Robert, it should not be mentioned -- not the way you phrase it, anyway.

CHristine O'Donnell became a devout Christine around 19 years ago. Prior to that time she explored Buddhism, Hare Krishna, and her friends' interest in witchcraft, before finally deciding to be a Christian.

Unless you want to expose whether every candidate smoked pot in high school, what Christine O'Donnell did in high school is not relevant.

The fact that she was attacked by people who could not focus on the issues might be worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.124.58 (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Should there be a category of people who are not witches? Sterrettc (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant section?

Do we really need the section about her financial issues? I guess the campaign stuff is relevant, but it seems biased against her to include the fact that she had financial troubles, when it doesn't seem relevant to the article. I think you guys can tell by my name that I'm not a Christine O'Donnell supporter, so I'm not trying to make her seem perfect or anything, but I don't think we need to include her financial difficulties. Plenty of notable people have had financial difficulties and it's not a dedicated section of their wikipedia page. SuperAtheist (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thought the section could probably use re-writing, I think it is relevant to the article as questions have risen concerning the use of campaign funds to pay for personal finances. Wkharrisjr (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Her financial issues were reported on widely during and immediately after her recent campaign, so I think there's merit to some inclusion of sourced information in the article. However, it may not need to be an entire section. Instead, you may want to merge the info into the other sections of the article. Any updates on the complaint in paragraph 3 or the investigation in paragraph 4? Paragraph 5 doesn't seem necessary at all. GoingBatty (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"Moral certainty"

The following line in the section on personal life should be changed: "She dropped her acting aspirations, began thinking about moral issues, and became an evangelical Christian, liking the moral certainty of that movement."

It ought to be changed because it presupposes that the evangelical Christian movement actually has "moral certainty," but this is not an agreed-upon fact. This wording, thus, represents bias toward evangelical Christianity and against, e.g., morally relativistic and utilitarian philosophies and belief systems.

I would suggest an edit similar to the following:

"...and became an evangelical Christian due to the appeal of the moral grounding she felt the movement offered."

Nlacara (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The statement is sourced to this article: From middle-class New Jersey, moral activist Christine O'Donnell knew 'God was calling'. It mentions "moral certitude" and says "O'Donnell said she liked the certainty that Christianity offered." I think we could keep that phrase while making your other suggested change. Perhaps, "...due to the appeal of the moral certainty she felt the movement offered". How's that?   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Done.   Will Beback  talk  02:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Palin alegedly uninviting Christine to speak at Iowa Tea Party rally

The MSM is widely reporting that Palin's team demanded at the last minute that Christine not be allowed to speak at the Iowa Tea Party rally this past Saturday before Sarah went on stage. The SarahPAC website vehemently denies that any request like this was made. Has O'Donnell's team made any response yet? 70.53.84.154 (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Electoral History subsection

The percentage numbers do not add up at all and give many false insinuations. 1/5/12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.88.102 (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Bias

This article is astoundingly biased, large portions of it appear to come straight from her campaign dossier, and embarrassments like her notorious campaign slogan "I'm not a witch" have been glossed over entirely, to say nothing of the fact that she is depicted as being relentlessly slandered by the media for no reason. This article must be fixed.-Zyrath (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Note that most of the references come from newspaper articles covering the campaign.Wkharrisjr (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The article still depicts her in a rather favorable light. And there is still no reference to "I'm not a witch".-Zyrath (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so add that, if you have a reliable source. Dylan Flaherty 02:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC

Agree with Wk - there are at least 110 references to articles, and though there may be some glossing, there are also some very negative facts in the article regarding tax liens, lawsuits, the witch statement, and the FEC case. I don't think you will see any quotes or paraphrasing from her campaign site, but if you do, why don't you point that out here? The article is balanced in my view, discussing some of her work as an advocate for causes she believes in, and some of her financial and other troubles. I have added a bit about her campaign ad and removed the biased tag. Generalized unsupported declarations of "bias" are not enough to keep the tag up there, in my opinion. -Regards- KeptSouth (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I also disagree with your expectation of what a Wikipedia article ought to be. Pick up a genuine enyclopedia and read about other people. An encyclopedia article is supposed to INFORM the reader about a notable person, and is usually focused on their accomplishments and strong points -- in other words, WHY they are notable. Read what encyclopedias say about a variety of noteworthy people. You will usually not read a lot of criticisms of that person, because the purpose of the article is for people to know why a person is historically, socially, culturally, or politically important -- not every complaint someone may have about them. So if you want to include a lot of criticisms of Christine O'Donnell, you should go elsewhere to the many, many, many political blogs that exist. Wikipedia purports to be a real encyclopedia, not a play thing of left-wing activists. Jon Moseley April 2, 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.124.58 (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed a significant number of links that have been used to defend her case have come from sites of questionable bias (Redstate.com, for starters) which lends more questionability to the accuracy. Aren't wikipedia entries normally questioning of sources that may have a potential bias in information? 146.203.130.11 (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. For sources you believe have "questionable bias", you may want to mention them here or add {{Verify credibility}} in the article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with this, and suspect some wikipedia authors and moderators, knowingly or unknowingly, may act on personal political opinions while writing or editing an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.164.135 (talk) 07:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

as I encountered it, curious about the FDU diploma, there was only that she had received; this was stated as fact and sourced only to her website as linked by Fox News. If someone can rewrite this, great.J Civil 02:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan civil (talk • contribs)

Catholic

Christine O'Donnell's religious affiliation should be changed from Christian to Catholic, which is more precise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.81.57 (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to use as the reference? GoingBatty (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This Patheos article has multiple links on her Catholicism. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2010/10/christine-odonnell-catholic/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.213.18 (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)