Talk:Christine O'Donnell

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)

Claim that her sister is gay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal life

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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)

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)

Some commentators also the attacks showed elements of sexism.

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

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

Witchcraft

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If this were Sharon Osborne, then it would likely be unimportant. But for someone who has apparently gained fame as a conservative Christian it is more remarkable. I can't believe that anyone here really believes this is just going to disappear. Let's see what tomorrow brings. If no new mentions of it are made in the mainstream media than we can drop it. But if it continues to be a story then we should include it.   Will Beback  talk  05:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's a potential compromise. Add the following (or some variation thereof) to the Religious Views section: "During a Politically Incorrect appearance, in a segment unaired until 2010, O'Donnell described past experiences with witchcraft, stating "I dabbled into witchcraft — I never joined a coven. But...I dabbled into witchcraft."." I think this is more fair, as it treats the subject as part of her religious background (Wicca being a religion according to its entry). It may or may not be an undue influence when presented under Early Life, but it seems perfectly reasonable to include this information in the section we already have about her religious views. Her views at one time involved dabbling in witchcraft, and they no longer do. That's fair to say. For completeness and accuracy, the religious views section ought to mention her later shift to evangelical Christianity. Thoughts? Zachlipton (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I agree especially that the "dabbling in witchcraft" bit should be attributed directly to O'Donnell herself. I'd be curious to know, by the bye, why Fall Gleaming thinks she was laughing. What precisely is the joke? TheScotch (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Not bad, but I don't think any of this is notable. I have a very strong suspicion she made the remark after the other panelists guffawed at her statement that witchcraft was prevalent on college and high school campuses. So she gave an example that may or may not have been true to prove her point about the threat of satanism, which was one that was being frequently made at the time by media Christians. KeptSouth (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe you're right, KeptSouth...and the fact she (and the rest of the panel) were laughing supports it. No one has established notability for this brief statement. Furthermore, putting in her "religious views" is a serious BLP issue in its own right. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I am also concerned about the "promiscuous" label. To me it smacks of sexism and I am sure it would not be applied to a male figure. But an IP started throwing around "tea-timer party" comments when I reverted it yesterday, even though I am as far from that concept as can possibly be. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

How is discussing her "religious views" a seriously BLP issue? The article is providing well sourced information (often direct quotes) about her religious views when she has made her religion a large part of her public persona. O'Donnell has repeatedly gone on television to announce her religious views and advocate them to the public. Zachlipton (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

TheScotch: "I'd be curious to know, by the bye, why Fall Gleaming thinks she was laughing.". Because I actually watched the clip, rather than simply relying upon some blogger's breathless version of events. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Zachlipton's compromise proposal above. As to Fell Gleaming's assertion that the "witchcraft" statement is not notable, the fact that O'Donnell's statement has been reported by nearly all the major national news organizations suggests otherwise. Charlrob (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the her remarks are now identified as relating to high school makes them even further below the bar for notability...and identifying them as her "religious views" is extremely misleading. Her "dabbling" was hanging out in high school with some people who said they were witches. This is about as far as one can get from being her own personal views on religion, either now or then. Fell Gleaming^talk 04:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to other wording, but this is not going to go away. Rove is speaking-out about this, now. 04:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Fell Gleaming, the two things you use to minimize the notability of this are completely speculative: 1) that this was in high school instead of college, and 2) that "dabbling" meant just hanging out. "Dabbling" implies taking part with rather than just witnessing activities, and this would logically occur with a religious belief in the practices. Also, the sequence of her original quote suggests that the "midnight picnic" occurred after she realized it was a "satanic altar." It should definelty be included as a small detail in the "religious views" section. --Jleon (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. Try watching the original clip instead of relying on third hand reports. And O'Donnell has already stated it relates to her high school days, see the source in the article (unless someone has removed it since I last inserted). Fell Gleaming^talk 16:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I did watch the original clip. She first claims to have "dabbled" in it (it's a big stretch to redefine "dabbled" as merely "witnessed"). In the second part of the quote, she mentions being brought to a satanic altar with blood on it. The third, and final part, of the quote mentions having a midnight picnic on this altar. --Jleon (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(a) She was laughing when she said this. (b) She identified the experience as being from her high school years. (c) Immediately after using the word "dabbled", she makes it clear that by it she means she "hung out" with people who called themselves witches...not an uncommon thing in high schools, at least when I was in school. (d) She states she didn't know it was a "satanic altar" when she was brought there. (e) We still don't have the full context of the clip from Bill Mayer, and (f) Given the utter lack of any other mention of this elsewhere, and the fact that even Bill Mayer didn't think it was notable enough to even broadcast at the time, trying to cast this as some integral portion of her life experience is a severe and unarguable BLP violation. Period. Fell Gleaming^talk 19:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not an integral part of her life, so it doesn't need its own section (though future clips from Maher may require a separate section at some point). Right now it blongs as a minor point in the "religious views" section. If a politician says he or she dabbled with buddhism, or Islam, etc., it would be worth mentioning. The fact that satanism (or witchcraft, which is not even the same thing) is far from a mainstream religion makes it slightly more notable. --Jleon (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The assertion that O'Donnell's witchcraft remarks from Politically Incorrect were stated "laughingly" is unsourced and appears to be a WP:NOR violation. Charlrob (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the context of the show itself, which is full of humour does need to be made clear. Its obvious to most people she said it to get a laugh, like most people would do on that sort of show. We should not use unsourced terms though. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Its obvious to most people she said it to get a laugh." That is your interpretation of O'Donnell's comments; it is not supported by major news organizations. If one wants to claim that O'Donnell made the comments in jest, one would need to provide sources to support this interpretation of her remarks. Charlrob (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I clearly said that should only be included if sourced. What i did say was we should put the show into context although with a title like "politically incorrect" people get a good hint. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sexual Abstinence Advisor?

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

Roman Catholic

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

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

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

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

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)

Masturbation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll have to look that up tomorrow. But we don't need her original comments in order to know that they have created controversy.   Will Beback  talk  05:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Right; I've moved the material to a controversy section. It still needs some work, but I think its definitely answered some of the most important objections. Fell Gleaming^talk 05:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• She drew nationwide attention for old appearances on MTV in the 1990s, when she told teens to avoid not just sex, but masturbation. "The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. So you can't masturbate without lust," O'Donnell said. "You're just gonna create somebody who is, I was gonna say, toying with his sexuality. Pardon the pun."
  • TEA PARTYER RATTLES GOP IN DELAWARE. ADAM LISBERG. New York Daily News. New York, N.Y.: Sep 15, 2010. pg. 4
• She took opposition to premarital sex a step further than usual in a 1996 video aired on MTV that is getting renewed attention. "The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery, so you can't masturbate without lust," she explained.
  • O'Donnell in spotlight after Del. primary victory RANDALL CHASE. Daily News. Midland, MI: Sep 15, 2010.
• She condemned masturbation as adulterous, saying: "The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery."
  • This civil war spells only bad news for the US in the long term. Rupert Cornwell. The Independent. London (UK): Sep 16, 2010. pg. 26
• She has been ridiculed on liberal talk shows for condemning masturbation. "The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. So you can't masturbate without lust," she has said.
  • Delaware primary tests uneasy right-wing alliance; Republicans claim Tea Party candidate funds illegal LARA MARLOWE. Irish Times. Dublin: Sep 14, 2010. pg. 11
• One of the most notable things on her political resume is her well-publicized position against masturbation. ("The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. So you can't masturbate without lust.")
  • Horror In The Hedges; [Op-Ed] Gail Collins. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Sep 11, 2010. pg. A.19

I can post the citations tomorrow.   Will Beback  talk  06:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Done.   Will Beback  talk  06:20, 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)

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)

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)

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)

CREW

The fact that CREW is making the allegations is highly significant to the discussion. CREW is regularly labelled liberal and their actions against Republicans outnumber those against Democrats by an enormous margin. [4] Fell Gleaming^talk 16:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is precisely why the article should just say CREW is making the allegation. CREW itself makes the (grantedly dubious) claim that it's non-partisan, but the CREW page is the place to flesh out that distinction. Anyway, this should probably be in a different section. -Selket ^Talk 16:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Nonpartisan (American organizations) does not mean nonpartisan or apolitical, but is simply a tax-exempt status in US tax law.

Unfortunately the article is almost orphaned. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Witchcraft2

It appears to me that her admission of being involved in witchcraft belongs in the religious views section. It may be a former religious view, but it was one she held, however briefly. I am, however, unsure of the this edit summary if people keep improperly casting this as her religious views, its going to have to come out entirely. Leaving a note for FellGleaming to reply. I would be rather shocked it Fell would remove a reliable sourced piece of information. Basket of Puppies 19:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(a) She was laughing when she said this. (b) She identified the experience as being from her high school years. (c) Immediately after using the word "dabbled", she makes it clear that by it she means she "hung out" with people who called themselves witches...not an uncommon thing in high schools, at least when I was in school. (d) She states she didn't know it was a "satanic altar" when she was brought there. (e) We still don't have the full context of the clip from Bill Mayer, and (f) Given the utter lack of any other mention of this elsewhere in her life, and the fact that even Bill Mayer didn't think it was notable enough to even broadcast at the time, trying to cast this as some integral portion of her religious views or even her life experience is a severe and unarguable BLP violation. Period. It was a snarky comment on a show that expects panelists to make snarky comments, plain and simple. Stop trying to distort this into something it clearly is not. Fell Gleaming^talk 19:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Finally, I have to correct your misapprehension that, even if a fact is "reliably sourced", that it somehow becomes inviolate and cannot be removed from an article. WP:RS is only one of many factors. The material still must be notable, neutral, and cause undue weight concerns or be presented in a misleading manner. I also remind you that Wikipedia policy, most especially for BLPs, is that exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing. A brief ambiguous clip from 15 years ago is in no, way, shape, or form enough verification that O'Donnell ever considered "witchcraft" as part of her religious views. Fell Gleaming^talk 19:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Politically Incorrect story is likely to grow since Bill Maher has promised to continue releasing clips until she comes on his current show. I think it should go in it's own section for that reason alone. Additionally it is rather silly to say that "in Highschool" (Bill Maher's words) "I ... dabbled in witchcraft" (Christine O'Donnell's words) means that witchcraft is a currently held religious belief. -Selket ^Talk 20:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not an integral part of her life, so it doesn't need its own section (though future clips from Maher may require a separate section at some point). Right now it blongs as a minor point in the "religious views" section. If a politician says he or she dabbled with buddhism, or Islam, etc., it would be worth mentioning. The fact that satanism (or witchcraft, which is not even the same thing) is far from a mainstream religion makes it slightly more notable. --Jleon (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It may be notable, but it is not a "religious view." Suggesting that it is anything other than her relating a highschool experience is giving it undue weight and sounds like soapboxing. Now the fact that she was trying to advocate against Halloween might be relevant to her current religious views, but suggesting that she's a Wiccan is really twisting the record. --Selket ^Talk 20:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that it is part of her current religious views. It's open to intrepretation whether or not it can be considered part of her former views, and so it deserves a brief mention. She specified that she "never joined a coven," which clearly indicates that witchcraft was at least a minor part of her religious beliefs at some point. If I told you, "I dabbled in buddhism but never joined a monastery" it would be clear that I believed in buddhism at some point. --Jleon (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

How does saying that she didn't join a coven indicate that witchcraft was a part of her beliefs? Wouldn't the more ordinary inference be that it wasn't a part of her beliefs? That's like saying that because Obama lived in a Muslim country and went to a Muslim school, he must have Islam as a part of his beliefs. Is that reasonable? Both politicians (Obama and O'Donnell) say that they are Christians and should be taken at their words. Coemgenus 21:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As I just said: If someone said to you "I dabbled in Christianity but never joined a seminary" it would clearly mean that they had believed in Christianity at some point. --Jleon (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It could also mean that you took Communion but didn't believe in Transubstantiation. Saying you "didn't join a seminary" says nothing about your religious beliefs beyond that you didn't join a seminary. -Selket ^Talk 21:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Read policy, Jleon. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. The claim that anyone -- much less a conservative Christian -- ever considered witchcraft as part of their religious views requires more than one brief ambiguous comment made while laughing. The fact that Mayer has so far refused to release the entire clip, as well as her qualification that "dabbling" meant nothing more than association with someone who themselves may have believed in it, makes the issue an utter nonstarter. This is notably only for the coverage its gotten vis a vis her campaign. As any part of her life or religious views, its completely under the bar. Fell Gleaming^talk 21:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Jleon makes the argument quite well. Clearly, witchcraft is not something that she practiced for a long time. Nor is it a current or was a long-term practice of hers. But she did dabble in witchcraft. Unless the definition has recently changed, I understand witchcraft is a religious expression. How and why it can be moved from her religious beliefs to a section on a TV show is rather confusing. Thus, I move to restore the reliably sourced and neutrally stated witchcraft religious beliefs back to the religious views section. Basket of Puppies 22:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. BLP violations override all. You cannot portray this as an expression of her religious views. Fell Gleaming^talk 23:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Fell, Wikipedia governs by WP:CONSENSUS. I highly suggest you go back and read that. Also, the statement is well sourced and neutrally stated. Thus there is no BLP issue. Please review WP:BLP. Basket of Puppies 23:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a religious view per se, that is a mighty stretch of the "dabbled" descriptor. It should be left as it is in its own section. Tarc (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

So then where should it be located? If a religion that she dabbled in cannot be located in a religious views section, then you suggest a section for itself called "Affiliation with Witchcraft"? Basket of Puppies 23:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it would best go under "Career and personal life." She spoke of it as something that she had done earlier in her life, rather than as a religious opinion. Wwwiro (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a career, its not a religious view. "Hanging out" in high school with someone who says they're a witch is just that. Hanging out. It's notable solely for Mayer's use of it, which is why it's in the section it is. Fell Gleaming^talk 00:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but she did not solely hang out. She dabbled. Our good friends at Wikitionary define dabbled as to participate or have an interest in, but not so seriously. She admits she dabbled, thus participated, so I am still wondering how you are trying to claim she wasn't involved. As she participated (to whatever degree) in witchcraft, I can only see one location for this information- in the religious views section. Can you suggest otherwise? Basket of Puppies 00:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this isn't correct at all. Watch the actual clip, instead of relying on thirdhand accounts. She didn't say she participated in anything, she didn't say she believed in anything. And by any reasonable interpretation, her definition of 'dabbling' was simply being around someone who themselves may have participated. Fell Gleaming^talk 01:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like for you to find one instance in the English language in which anyone has ever used the term "I dabbled" to describe something they only witnessed. Then your argument might have an ounce of validity. --Jleon (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Jleon. Dabble always means participated in, usually for a brief period of time. Fell, your interpretation of the facts does not hold water. I am sorry, but it appears you're in the wrong. I'll wait a few more hours to see if there is any major objection, but it appears the consensus is forming to indicate that she indeed dabbled (practiced, however briefly) witchcraft and add it back to the religious views section. Basket of Puppies 02:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Basket of Puppies and Jleon. Dabble means to be involved in an activity directed towards doing something. It requires participation. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with those who are saying that "dabbling" in something is more than just watching other people do it. If someone says, for example, "I dabbled with pot back in college", that does NOT mean they watched someone smoke it. It means they used a bit of it themselves. It also doesn't mean they are still using it. And to claim that the witchcraft stuff goes anywhere but the religion section stretches credulity. Lithistman (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• • So consensus is that by her "dabbling" in witchcraft it means she practiced it to some degree for some period of time? Listhistman, by no means does placement of witchcraft in the religious views section mean she is currently a practicing witch. Far from it! It merely catalogs her previous religious experiences. Afterall, she is no longer a Catholic, which is stated in the religious views section. I don't think her previous experience with witchcraft warrants a separate section as it's a rather minor point, so it seems placing it in the religious views section and describing it (accurately) as a short-lived religious belief and practice would be most appropriate. Agreed? Basket of Puppies 06:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you drop the false consensus attempts. Not that consensus is relevant in a BLP violation anyway. Until or unless additional evidence is presented, a ten second laughing statement on a snarky talk show is as far from being evidence of a religious view as possible. And by the way, the article's current religious views section is incorrect. O'Donnell is still a Catholic. Fell Gleaming^talk 09:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing "false" here, Fell. What is strange is that you would make the above comment while at the same time making this edit. That appears a bit hypocritical, don't you think? You're deriding a statement she made on a talk show many years ago, while at the same time defending an insignificant paper Christopher A. Coons wrote decades ago while in college. Please be consistent. Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• If I'm reading the above discussion correctly, there is consensus for including a brief mention of her having dabbled in witchcraft in the religious views section. Calling this some kind of BLP violation, when such a brief mention doesn't imply she is STILL dabbling in witchcraft, or any other potentially libelous thing, is a non-starter. Without any serious objection (meaning a later interview where she claims that she actually DIDN'T dabble in witchcraft, not an individual editor saying "I don't like it" over and over), I believe there's consensus here to put a short sentence noting her dabbling in witchcraft into the religious views section. Lithistman (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, following an editor from article to article with personal attacks is harassment. The "hypocrisy" here is all in your head. In both cases, the material should be in the article. But portraying O'Donnell's remark as her religious views is akin to putting Coon's college paper in a section entitled "Current Socialist Political Views". In both cases, the material would be falsely represented by virtue of placement. Fell Gleaming^talk 10:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And to reply to Lithis, the false consensus claims aren't going anywhere. Scroll up to the original Witchcraft section and you'll see three other editors disagreeing with your interpretation. Not that this is even relevant. This isn't the 16th Century. A snarky panel comment is not an admission of a religious conversion to Wicca. Nor is the word "witchcraft" in this context even specified as a religious orientation (there are plenty of other interpretations). Finally, the overriding BLP principle that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing". You cannot claim someone has practiced satanism or wicca on the basis of such marginal evidence. Fell Gleaming^talk 10:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No one is claiming that those are her current religious views, just that she once dabbled in witchcraft, per her own words. Also, it's a bit ludicrous to claim that better sourcing than her very own words are needed. And putting that information anywhere other than the section on religious views is just, well, silly. Witchcraft is a religion. She claimed to have "dabbled" in it. That doesn't imply she is STILL dabbling in it, just that she once did. Lithistman (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The source seems to indicate that she once went to a place where witchcraft was said to be practiced. That certainly doesn't imply belief or participation. I know I've attended religious services at churches I didn't belong to -- haven't most people? Does that rise to the level of relevance? I think not, and I can't see how any NPOV observer could disagree. Coemgenus 12:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt you would say you "dabbled" in those religions, though. She made that statement. She didn't just say, "I attended a witchcraft ceremony", she said she "dabbled in witchcraft." There's an exponential difference there, and her own words are the source. I'd feel the same if she'd said, "I dabbled in Mormonism" or "I dabbled in Pentecostalism." And being accused of not being NPOV is growing quite tiresome. It's not POV at all to include something in her religious views that she herself has said she dabbled in. Lithistman (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• FellGleaming, the consensus is clear. A brief mention of her short-lived participation with witchcraft will be included in the religious views section. It will use the reliable sources, be neutral in tone and not violate BLP in any way. You continued claims that 1) there is no consensus, and 2) there is a BLP violation is flat out wrong. Please go and read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BLP before continuing. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 17:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Read: Wikipedia is not a democracy. Then read the WP:BLP policy. I'll quote the relevant portion: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." Until or unless you have a reliable source that claims this is or was a religious viewpoint of hers, do not make this edit. Having done it once before -- and been challenged by three separate editors in the talk space above -- you are skirting a demonstrable pattern of violating BLP policy. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Fel, you clearly feel very strongly about this. I will have to suggest you go to the BLP Notice Board WP:BLP/N and plead your BLP case there. Understand, however, there is no conjecture, no interpretation, no weasel words, nothing to make this a BLP violation. It is reliably sourced and my suggested text is as neutral as can be (I think). Please see below. Fel, if you do end up going to the BLP notice board, then I kindly ask that you make a quick note of it here. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 17:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Question to FellGleaming Is there a reason why you did not inform the participants of this discussion (as requested) of the discussion you initiated on the BLP Notice Board? Or are you actively engaged in WP:FORUMSHOPPING? Basket of Puppies 17:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Restating It looks like you are engaged in Forumshopping, which I am sure is not your intention. Basket of Puppies 20:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

edit: striking my earlier comment. Thank you for the clarification, BasketOfPuppies. Fell Gleaming^talk 02:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Witchcraft text

Below I wish to open a discussion and form consensus on the actual BLP-violation-free text of her previous experience with witchcraft. The previous text was

In a 1999 appearance on Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher, O'Donnell said, "I dabbled into witchcraft — I never joined a coven ... I hung around people who were doing these things". She added, "One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn't know it. I mean, there's a little blood there and stuff like that."

with three reliable sources. I figure we can shorten this and don't need the entire quote. Simply say something like

In 1999, O'Donnell stated to have dabbled in witchcraft for a brief period of time.

Short, sweet and to the point. Thoughts? Basket of Puppies 17:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly misleading, as you well know. Fell Gleaming^talk 19:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No it is not, Fel, and now you are crossing the line on WP:AGF. Basket of Puppies 20:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Read the responses above. The same objections still apply. Fell Gleaming^talk 20:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Just include the full quote. That makes it clear. DS (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the full quote might be best, since some people now want to redefine what she said. You know Fell, she never actually denied practicing witchcraft in her recent comments. She first made a general comment about how everyone hangs out with the wrong people, and then she said "there's been no witchraft since high school." That only serves to reinforce the notion that she actually did practice it in the past. I'm afraid your whole premise is shot. --Jleon (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say a more accurate condensing would be something like

In 1999, O'Donnell stated that she "dabbled in witchcraft" and "hung around people who were doing these [witchcraft] things".

Do we know what was in the ellipses in the original quote? "dabbled in witchcraft and by that I mean hung around..." carries an entirely different meaning than "dabbled in witchraft. I hung around those people too!"

I'm honestly not sure whether the part about her not joining a coven provides important enough information to keep if we condense the quote, although I tend to think it doesn't. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so it seems we wish to keep the entire quote, including the part about not joining a coven. That seems good to me. Is there any dissent? Basket of Puppies 20:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Some of these comments are making it very difficult to AGF. Her full statement was "There's been no witchcraft since high school. If there had, Carl Rove would now be a supporter". Clearly it was a joke. You are attempting to perform synthesis to justify your position that this is, or ever was, a religious view. Until or unless you have a reliable source that states this, it is a BLP violation to insinuate so. Fell Gleaming^talk 20:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Other than FellGleaming's noted objection, are there other dissenters? Basket of Puppies 20:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the AP, there's more to come: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g4RSQ56a3WTiFTp5aeSm9-hts8MAD9ICFDMG2 . We should leave the quote under "religious views" for now and see what happens in the next week or so. --Jleon (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus formed for the following?

Do we have consensus (noting Fell's objection) for the following

In a 1999 appearance on Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher, O'Donnell stated "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." She added, "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," she said. "We went to a movie and then had a little midnight picnic on a satanic altar.

Of course, it will be very reliably sourced. Basket of Puppies 20:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. --Jleon (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I would not include this under religious beliefs.--Threeafterthree (talk) 04:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Done Basket of Puppies 04:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I think the current verion (with the quote in the "Controversial statements" section is fine, but I think it is important to note that "witchcraft", especially as something "dabbled" in, does not necessarily mean Wicca or any sort of religion. It could mean playing around with a ouija board or attempting to practice some form of magic or any one of a number of things, none of which really count as religion, depending on the speaker's meaning. Even if she did participate in something she considered to be witchcraft, we'd need some sort of quote showing she considered this to be a religion. mkehrt (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment (copied from WP:BLPN): In its current form clearly WP:UNDUE to have an entire section. Notability sufficient to mention it can be shown by sources relating the release of the clip in the context of her candidacy, and hence due coverage as part of the election section like this but with some more sources for media coverage which is the essential point. Rd232 ^talk 12:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus to list this quote in the Religious Views section?

Is there consensus to list the above quote in the religious views section? Since it was a briefly held religious belief, it appears to me it should go into the religious views section, much like she is a former Catholic is listed in the religious views section. Dissents? Basket of Puppies 20:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Since it was a briefly held religious belief that is a stretch to say the least. I guess it depends on what dabbled means, but that opens up original research/synthesis ect. Probably best to stick with the smear aspect of this deal. --Threeafterthree (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Threeafterthree, I kindly point out that the discussion of listing the quote or not has seemingly been settled with the above consensus. Just to point out, dabbling means To participate or have an interest in, but not so seriously. This section is to determine if the quote should appears in the Religious Views section or elsewhere. Basket of Puppies 20:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on what little context there is in that video clip, it scarcely seems like a religious sentiment. It seems more like a laugh line than a profession of faith. Coemgenus 20:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

With great respect to Coemgenus, the consensus discussion is a few sections above. It's still open and I invite you to opine there. Just to keep things together and gauge consensus. Basket of Puppies 20:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The subhed asks if there is consensus to list this quote in the religious views section. I said I don't think it's a religious view, as I said above, so I wrote that I did not think it should be in that section. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Coemgenus 21:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That makes more sense. Of course I disagree (as the definition of dabbled demonstrates), but I respect your opinion. Basket of Puppies 21:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable minds can disagree, to be sure. We each observe the primary source video and interpret it differently. Unfortunately, I think our exegesis is verging on original research. If a reliable source represents her as a former Wiccan, I guess then it would be all right to include it under "religious views," but I don't think you or I are qualified to characterize it as such. Coemgenus 21:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we have to take her for exactly what she said- she dabbled in witchcraft. The definition of dabbling has been made clear. If we say anything other than she dabbled for a brief period of time, then we would be guilty of WP:OR. Basket of Puppies 21:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with including this in the 'religious views' section, because we don't know what she meant by 'dabbling', which is a word she used because she was in an informal, unscripted conversation. Did she buy a used tarot deck from a thrift store, dress in black, and draw pentagrams on her schoolbooks? Did she break into a church and write curses on the walls with her menstrual blood? No way of knowing. It's academically safest and personally fairest to assume that it was not a religious belief. DS (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I too strongly oppose this proposed inclusion in the Religious views section. This is a BLP, we must always side with caution if there is any doubt. Sticking this in a religious views section based on the single quote ive seen above does not seem in any way justified. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Where else would you place a direct quote from the subject of an article stating that they "dabbled in" a given religion (which witchcraft is)? The argument against putting it in the section on her religious views (past and present) is weak sauce indeed, and is quite nigh indefensible. Lithistman (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

As I commented above, there is no reason to believe that a conservative American Christian would necessarily use the word "witchcraft" to refer to a religion rather than some sort of occult experimentation. There is no way we can conclude that she considered this a religion. mkehrt (talk) 02:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I have already posted the topic to the BLP noticeboard, and the consensus there was that the material should not be represented as a religious view. So this is a dead issue. Fell Gleaming^talk 02:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe it needs to be included on this article at all, however it is far more suitable in the section it is at the moment, focusing on the media attention it got than it being placed in the religious section which is totally unacceptable and unsourced. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:56, 23 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)

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)

Mice with Human Brains

She said scientist are "cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains."

Surely, her scientific "theories" should be included in the article?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiQ1DBhNe_4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.190.179 (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If the material can be sourced to the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or similar, be all means it should be considered for inclusion. But if most of the available sources appear on Youtube, blogs, or in the supermarket checkout aisle, I suggest erring on the side of trying to preserve for Wikipedia an authoritative voice. To quote, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and as such it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims..." I do think the article needs an eye-brow raising quote or two, since that's Christine O'Donnell, but do we need 10? I suggest not; the point will have been made and need not be flogged.Bdell555 (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This article does not have to include every single comment she has made in her life. There has to evidence the comment is notable enough for inclusion. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Religious and personal views

I have combined two into one section,[5] as there is no clear line separating them, and personal views had only one statement --that homosexuality was an identity disorder. More could be added to that statement equating it with a religious view, and then it would have to be moved into the religious view section, and the disputes could continue. So I hope people here see that the two are intertwined, and best combined into one section. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 11:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Social Security

This claim "O'Donnell supports raising the age for receiving Social Security benefits" is appearing on a lot of blogs and op-ed pieces, but I can't find a WP:RS for it. Can anyone help? Fell Gleaming^talk 18:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Best i can find is [6] BritishWatcher (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Political Views: Ordering

Articles are traditionally organized with more relevant information coming before less relevant. The "hot button" issues on O'Donnell's campaign were placed first, and the lesser ones deeper in. This goes a long way towards addressing the WP:UNDUE issues the previous text had. Fell Gleaming^talk 22:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

How do you decide which political positions are the "most relevant" without inserting POV? You have to make a value judgment -- and you have -- that her economic positions are more important than her social positions. I would disagree with that. We could have a big argument here over which issues are "most relevant" or we could choose a neutral criterion. I propose alphabetical; you are free to suggest another. Although, before you do, I would recommend you note Political positions of Joe Biden and similar articles. Here's a sample:

• 1 Social issues
  • 1.1 Abortion, stem cell research, cloning
  • 1.2 Capital punishment
  • 1.3 Crime
  • 1.4 Drug law
  • 1.5 Education
  • 1.6 Environment
  • 1.7 Gun issues
  • 1.8 Health
  • 1.9 Homeland security
  • 1.10 Immigration
  • 1.11 Internet privacy and file sharing
  • 1.12 LGBT issues
  • 1.13 Welfare
  • 1.14 Women

In any case, your assertion that economic policy is more "relevant" than social policy is POV, and your POV at that. -Selket ^Talk 00:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You're misreading my remarks. Placing economic issues first is not a moral judgement that the economy is more relevant than social issues. It's a statement about the weight her campaign places upon that issue. If you feel strongly about the alphabetical ordering, I can live with that -- but we'll have to seriously cut back on the abortion issue, as I can't find any recent references from her or her campaign on that. It therefore becomes a serious WP:UNDUE issue, as it suggests its a topic of major importance with her campaign. Fell Gleaming^talk 00:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)