Talk:Christine O'Donnell/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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?[1] 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)

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. [2] 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)

That article is OR and dubious OR at that since section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code does not contain the word "nonpartisan" despite being used by the article as the only reference for the definition "in American politics, is a non-profit organization". Even if it were, it's irrelevant to the issue of whether dubious and disputed classifications of organizations should be place in articles that aren't even about them. -Selket ^Talk 02:11, 24 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)

Religious and personal views

I have combined two into one section,[3] 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 [4] BritishWatcher (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Fiscal Integrity

In regards to this edit [5], deleting the entire text because you don't agree with one word is clearly inappropriate. In any case, the statement that the text is "unsourced" is inaccurate. The quote supports the characterization; fiscal integrity in government is typically defined as policies to restrain excessive spending. One may certainly argue whether or not her opinion is correct, but the characterization of that opinion is accurate. Fell Gleaming^talk 01:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That's complete rubbish. Unless you're going to define "fiscal integrity" as something like "conforming to GAAP," it's just a meaningless piece of political rhetoric; including a claim like this in a supposedly encyclopedic article is just providing free campaign advertising space. Every candidate for office will support "fiscal integrity," and damned few of them mean it. Perhaps we should change the section title to "political posturing"; that way at least we'd be more honest. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with this revert in particular, you need to be careful about 3RR. The rule is no more than three reverts per article per day with very limited exceptions. They do not need to be the same revert as this prevents article ownership issues. -Selket ^Talk 02:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Turns out I spoke too late. I hadn't been watching AN3 and I didn't know there was already a report there. Sorry, I didn't mean to be condescending if you had already been blocked. -02:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"Fiscal integrity" is not a generally accepted term, nor is the characterization verifiable. Fell Gleaming's characterization of O'Donnell's remarks as "fiscal integrity" is clearly Fell Gleaming's own interpretation.Charlrob (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, just so the record is clear, I was endorsing the revert of the removal of the entire section. I think the current version is superior to the original. I was supporting the original over the intermediate (blanked) version. -Selket ^Talk 02:41, 24 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)

"O'Donnell is best known for her belief that masturbation is a sin." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2010/sep/15/tea-party-candidate-pictures Charlrob (talk) 17:48, 24 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)

How does [Fox News] not count as a credible source for inclusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.85.97.72 (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Once one goes beyond the level of, say, The National Enquirer, the issue is not whether the source is reliable for any particular fact so much as whether the source is overweighting material that tends to attract more mass market interest. Wikipedia was not created in order to just attract eyeballs. The problem with, say, The Fox Nation, and The Huffington Post, in other words, is not that they lean right or left, respectively, but that they have a populist lean such that some discretion is in order. For whatever reason, there is a lot more editor interest in adding (often without context), say, what O'Donnell said about mice with human brains on TV than there is interest in adding what a more "boring" politician like Mitch Daniels said to The Economist. And there is undoubtedly more reader interest in O'Donnell than in Daniels as well. But our obligation here is to be encyclopedic. The Encyclopedia Britannica is often found in academic libraries where it is read by stuffy people who are more interested in an informative read than an entertaining one. Beyond this, one has to ask how many quotes of this sort even Fox News or HuffPo would have if they were to have a single story on O'Donnell, which is what we are constructing here. All this to say that an edit that introduced this quote would be considerably more likely to have a consensus supporting its inclusion if it replaced some other controversial, widely criticized or ridiculed remark by the article subject as opposed to adding to them.Bdell555 (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Her remarks regarding mice with human brain is closely related to her stance on stem cell research. She was invited on Bill O'Reilly's show to discuss ethical issues on this subject matter. You can read the entire transcript here:

O'DONNELL: Bill, if we — if we approach this complicated bioethic issue with our heads in the sand, the other end is in the air.

O'REILLY: My head isn't the sand, Christine. I have the biggest head in the world. There isn't enough sand on the beach in Hawaii for my head to be in there.

O'DONNELL: My point is, we're approaching this issue with the other end in the air.

O'REILLY: No, no, no. Hold it.

O'DONNELL: By their own admission...

O'REILLY: No.

O'DONNELL: ... these groups admitted that the report that said, "Hey, yay, we cloned a monkey. Now we're using this to start cloning humans." We have to keep...

O'REILLY: Let them admit anything they want. But they won't do that here in the United States unless all craziness is going on.

O'DONNELL: They are — they are doing that here in the United States. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. So they're already into this experiment.

O'REILLY: Alright. Doctor...

MORRONE: That's an exaggeration.

She is contextually wrong from the technical and medical point of view. According to the interview of several researchers in this field done by NPR (Online NewsHour: Animal-Human Hybrids Sparks Debate):

TOM BEARDEN: Weissman's eventual goal is to create a mouse with a brain made entirely of human cells. He suspects it would still be a mouse brain in every other way -- structure, form and function -- but theoretically would react to new treatments the same way it would in a human body. It would provide a platform to test new drugs without subjecting a human subject to potential harm.

IRVING WEISSMAN: If you have a human set of neurons -- pain, hippocampus, learning, whatever -- in the context of the mouse brain you could try a drug and say, What does this do to a simple learning task? What does this do to perception of a smell -- and so on.

Therefore, it is not as if the scientists are deliberately creating a mouse with an actual human brain but rather a brain that still in every way is a brain of a mouse but can react to treatment similar to a human's. As far as addition to her biography, one must again look at the topic and see whether it fits into her life work which defines her. Again, she opposes stem cell research so this very debate can be used to highlight her view on the matter. At the same time, the content is so poorly constructed by her, and frankly I do not know whether she understands what the medical community is actually doing, that is hard to decide whether to catapult it in her biography. Rilixy (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

From the policy perspective she's concerned about the desacralization of life. Fact is, the creation of genetically modified organisms is controversial from a bioethics perspective and naturally one's position on stem cell research is going to be related. But many editors (I'm not including you) don't seem to be nearly as interested in fleshing this out as latching onto the "mice with human brains" line such that when it is presented, readers aren't informed about her position on life science research because they are distracted by how "out there" the particular quote snip is, such that nuance like "brain that .. can react to treatment similar to a human" is lost completely. Your extended quote here provides valuable context - although it is still a TV transcript, as opposed to remarks she wrote (what one writes being more deliberative and therefore, in my view, more authoritatively quotable)... the witchcraft thing didn't strike me as nearly so crazy when I watched the actual video and noted that she was not talking on C-SPAN or being interviewed by Jim Lehrer but was on a talk show format that enjoyed over-the-top remarks, heard her tone, etc - but your extended transcript of course cannot go into the article in its entirety. So how does one condense it? Would condensing it to "mice with fully functioning human brains" be an appropriately sober summary? That's the question. And what if there is a background story on animal-human hybrids such that she wasn't just pulling this one out of the clear blue sky but more just "over-do"ing a real issue on the ground? None of this to say that I don't personally think she's too whacky for the United States Senate; - I think we need to put some effort into playing Devil's advocate given how easy it is to indulge certain biases here.Bdell555 (talk) 22:49, 24 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)

Do you have an independent reliable source that her campaign places more weight on economic issues? Does she have the right to order the positions listed on this page? Is that more relevant than what the press focuses on? What about if she took a very unique position on something where that position became very notable? What if her campaign website reorders the way it presents the issues? (Actually it doesn't present her views on any issues, but that's beside the point.) The point is, all of these things require value judgments that are by definition not neutral. Alphabetical is neutral, so I support that. We all have biases, and I try (sometimes unsuccessfully) to set them aside while editing Wikipedia. Where there is a tool (such as the alphabet) to help me write without injecting my POV I use it and hope others do too. That is why I am just as insistent that we don't call CREW "liberal" as I am that we don't call ISI "conservative." Or is it the other way around? --Selket ^Talk 00:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetical order is the best way to avoid POV. Not that there won't be disputes (is it "abortion" or "reproductive rights"?) but any other way will provoke endless argument and POV-pushing. Coemgenus 11:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Christine O'Donnell: Roman Catholic

One of the biggest problems with Wikipedia is that it often gets basic facts wrong about figures whose biographies it purports to give, such as Christine O'Donnell. It gets the facts wrong because it relies on newspapers that fail to verify the facts in their stories, such as New Jersey's "Daily Record" and the Wilmington "News-Journal," two low-budget, low-talent operations.

Case in point is Ms. O'Donnell, US Senate candidate in Delaware. Wikipedia describes her religious affiliation os "Evangelical Christian." For that, it cites the "Daily Record" story that is riddled with errors.

In fact, Ms. O'Donnell is not an "Evangelical Christian." She is -- and has been -- a Roman Catholic. Wikipedia notes that she was "raised Catholic," which is more or less true, but O'Donnell has identified herself as Catholic for decades.

How am I certain Ms. O'Donnell is a Roman Catholic? Because I asked her today (Sept. 24, 2010)and she verified it. Of course, Wikipedia is uncomfortable with an individual certifying her religious faith. They'd rather rely on some shell of a newspaper which has no history of fact-checking.

If such a basic fact is wrong in Wikipedia, then what other facts about Ms. O'Donnell are wrong? The number of errors of commission and omission in the O'Donnell piece may total as many as 50 or more.

Gee, what should Wikipedia do with the article? It should gut it and start over, leaving out the titilating "facts" about her supposed sex life 20 years ago. Of course, in her political opponent's biography, there's no reference to his sex life. Are we to presume he remained celibate until marriage?

O'Donnell's bogus "bio" is more than twice as long as Chris Coons's. Are we to assume he has less than half as many accomplishments as Ms. O'Donnell?

The strange case of Christine O'Donnell's Wiki bio suggest that this online encyclopedia is not a source of facts when it comes to conservative Republican candidates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stavrossteve (talk • contribs) 03:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

As I recall there are other sources that indicate she is currently a Catholic and so the article could and should be corrected by changing the citation, as required. As for Wikpedia repeating what a biased or incompetent media says, there really no way to get around that without WP:original research, which creates all sorts of problems. I have ran for office myself in the past and the first lesson one learns is how the media gets things just plain wrong far more often than the general public realizes. The solution is to try to find a diversity of reliable sources. If just a source or two dominates the footnotes, especially a source that is not broadly recognized as authoritative, then that is indeed a problem, which can be somewhat corrected by identifying the source, e.g. "According to Ms so-and-so reporting for the Hogtown Haymaker, Mr O'Donnell did or said something or other."Bdell555 (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought we already discussed this (also here). She has never identified with any sect but the Roman Catholic Church. The confusion, I think, is that some editors don't realize one can be Catholic and still evangelize. The infobox should be changed to read "Roman Catholic". Coemgenus 13:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. I sort of gave up working on this article after it got overrun with editors following her win in the primary, but I worked on it for two years prior to that and she was never called anything other than a Roman Catholic. I think WP got this one badly wrong. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, should say she is RC. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll change it. Coemgenus 14:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents; after a quick review of google news I'm pretty sure O'Donnel is actually Catholic -

• Talking Points "O'Donnell, a devout Catholic, "
• Slate Magazine "O'Donnell—a Catholic, not a Protestant evangelical"
• (blog) "he now-Catholic O'Donnell's beliefs on creationism are at odds with her church "
• CNN "Among other things, O'Donnell, a Catholic,"

@Stavrossteve -

Re "Of course, Wikipedia is uncomfortable with an individual certifying her religious faith." - Wrong. Read WP:BLPCAT. Self-identification is actually primal in religous matters on WP.

Re "this online encyclopedia is not a source of facts when it comes to conservative Republican candidates" - Yeah yeah. Believe what you want. The media, the world and reality is against Republican canidates. WP is a vast conspiracy run by a secret cabal and whatnot....... Look... Fact is, you highlighted that WP had picked up on an error in the media, and it was corrected. Any other constructive comments you have to make? Help make WP a better place. Your viewpoints matter. Don't simply make disparaging, conspiritorial remarks about how people are treating your viewpoint unfairly. NickCT (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

University of Oxford

Apparently, another inconsistency has risen about O'Donnell's education.[6] Truthsort (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be a reliable source. Any additional information available? Basket of Puppies 02:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia and the Hatchet Job on Christine O'Donnell

There's a widespread belief, one I share, that Wikipedia's "biographical" article on Christine O'Donnell is a pure hatchet job. It's designed to harm her and ruin her reputation. With no other figure in Wikipedia does the supposed "bio" go into such elaborate details regarding an individual's personal life. Clearly, the article is designed to harm Ms. O'Donnell's chance to obtain a US Senate seat in Delaware, perhaps because she's seen by various writers and editors as too conservative.

Wikipedia relies heavily on a Wilmington News-Journal piece by one Ginger Gibson, written in March, 2010. Ms. O'Donnell and her representatives claim that every key element of the story is factually inaccurate. They might also claim that the story deals with the "trivialties of life" and seeks to inflate them into matters of importance. If you look up Ms. Gibson's record in her days at LSU, you will discover articles seething with hatred at conservative Gov. Bobby Jindal (and his press secretary). Ms. Gibson, in her mid-20s, lists her journalistic "role model" as [BLP violation removed] Helen Thomas.

The ultimate flaw in Wikipedia's approach is its assumption -- an absurd one -- that anything which appears in print is fair game for inclusion in a bio article. Thus, we read that Ms. O'Donnell led a "promiscuous" life in her early college years. We don't read the same about Bill Clinton or Barack Obama or Ted Kennedy. Why not? Why does Barack Obama's use of cocaine get dismissed in two sentences? Why is there more discussion of Ms. O'Donnell's long-ago views on masturbation than her stands on ObamaCare and the bank bailouts?

Why in the discussion of her 2008 race against Joe Biden, where she was beaten two-to-one, is there no discussion of the fact that Biden spent $4.9 million while O'Donnell spent $116,000? Why does the article "forget" to mention that she received 35,000 more votes against Biden than any Republican had ever garnered before?

In the discussion of O'Donnell's c2009 ampaign debt, this is treated like a "federal offense." Yes, she did try to wage a serious campaign with extremely little money. But her campaign debt was typical of an insurgent candidate and it paled before, say, Hillary Clinton's campaign debt of $22 million. In fact, Mrs. Clinton still reportedly owes millions, even though she and her mega-rich husband (worth about $200 million) could pay it off with petty cash. Thus, in her bio, O'Donnell is portrayed as a dead-beat while Mrs. Clinton is lionized. It goes beyond a double-standard.

Compare O'Donnell's bio with the flat, lifeless, and uninformative one on O'Donnell's opponent, Chris Coons. In fact, Coons's statement about being a "bearded Marxist" is dismissed as one he made 25 years ago. But Ms. O'Donnell's statments made 10 or 15 years ago are treated as if she made them yesterday. She has made hundreds of on-the-record statements about her beliefs and policies, but almost none of them found their way into the article.

And why does the O'Donnell piece indicate that her monumental victory over Mike Castle was the result of actions by the Tea Party Express? In fact, TPE spent only two weeks (probably closer to 12-13 days) campaigning in Delaware, whereas Ms. O'Donnell began her campaign on March 10, 2010. Contrary to what the article suggests, O'Donnell was endorsed by many groups other than the Tea Party; they include Citizens United, Susan B. Anthony List, Gun Owners of America, National Rife Association, Senate Conservative Fund, Gov. Sarah Palin, and various groups in Delaware. The Tea Party Express played a small, but admittedly significant, role in O'Donnell's winning the Primary.

Yes, I happen to know Christine O'Donnell -- and her history -- very well. The person I know -- and that America is coming to know -- bears almost no resemblance to the caricature presented in Wikipedia. Any individual capable of critical thinking who reads the O'Donnell bio will soon determine that something a lot more unsavory than the presentation of information is taking place.

The failures of Wikipedia authors and editors in the O'Donnell piece are causing me -- and it should cause you -- to question the assumptions and value of the online encyclopedia. The treament, including the salacious details, are "O'Donnell specific." If, say, Bill Clinton's bio dealt largely with available details about Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, and his other mistresses, then it would reflect similar treatment to that afforded Ms. O'Donnell.

The people who did the absurd hit-piece on O'Donnell, a thoroughly remarkable young woman, should be ashamed of themselves. But somehow I would guess that shame is not their strong suit.

Stephen R. Maloney, Ph.d. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stavrossteve (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not inclined to defend the article as not being a "hatchet job," but I believe a few things could be said that may be at least partially explanatory. For one, next to O'Donnell Chris Coons may be a relatively "flat" and "lifeless" character such that the article reflects that. The election may well come down to people voting for or against O'Donnell, with Coons really being incidental. If the general public is fascinated about certain things that O'Donnell has said and done, to a certain degree Wikipedia is going to follow the public's gaze because to not act as a passive follower is to act as a trail-blazing activist. As it is, Wikipedia DOES try to put up some resistance but there are significant difficulties with doing so because, for example, there is no one person who wrote this article. Rather, different people come along and try to add a crumb to the pile, and if others try to resist those additions, there is typically a hew and cry about "censorship", saying that the crumb represents an established fact. I believe Wikipedia is indeed "left" (Joe Klein has acknowledged this) but indirectly, as the liberal tilt comes through in the anti-censorship sentiment that predominates amongst internet users, who are also marginally more likely to be urban (and thus liberal). I share some of your concern about the sum of the parts, but resolving the issue involves taking action on a part by part (edit by edit) basis and it is difficult to defend each resolving edit in isolation. That said, it would not be true to say "resistance is futile" because people are lined up out the door to add "Justin Bieber is a little weiner" (or some variant thereof) to Justin Bieber and Wikipedia's "gatekeepers" manage to largely hold the line.Bdell555 (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you make some valid points. Although if you wish to improve the article you could always make changes provided they comply with WP policies. If you wish to make specific suggestions here on the talk page about changes you think should be made, we will debate them. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Hatchet job"? Hardly. O'Donnell has done and said some very strange (and well-documented) things during the last 15-20 years. Refusing to acquiesce to those who wish to keep any mention of those things off her page is not the same thing as creating a "hatchet job" in the article. With that said, Wikipedia is not your personal soapbox, from which to right the wrongs created by the evil leftists. This thread should probably end now. Lithistman (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I think there's focus on O'Donnell's sexual history because of her record of making public statements on the importance of chastity. DS (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Photo

Can we get a better photo of Christine O'Donnell? That is a terrible image by any standards. I wonder if her campaign site would be willing to give rights to a better photo. I might check.(All2humanuk (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC))

A better photo would be very helpful yes. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked on Flickr last time this came up, and nothing there had the right license. Maybe somebody at WP:Delaware might attend one of her rallies? Coemgenus 16:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Better picture definately needed. NickCT (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I checked on Flickr again, still nothing (other than some amusing witchcraft pastiches). And per this NYT story from today, she isn't doing any in-person campaign events in Delaware (!), which explains why there are no pictures of her from rallies. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Savior's Alliance

This new section looks as though it was written as an example of WP:COATRACK. Coemgenus 16:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a section, just a reference of a discrepancy under "Controversy." O'Donnell has been listed as president of the Savior's Alliance through 2009. But the IRS says the organization has not filed taxes in three years, that would make it the years 2008, 2009 and 2010. So, readers can draw their own conclusion that here is a nonprofit that she headed during 2009 (and likely other years) that does not seem to have been managed properly.Myk60640 (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The way it's written is misleading. Non-profits file a form 990 annually, but they don't pay taxes. The section as written suggests they've committed some financial impropriety. Coemgenus 17:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Coemgenus, the copy I used is almost verbatim from the AP story, so not sure what is misleading about it. Myk60640 (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless there's a reliable source stating that she has or may have responsibility for the fact that the group hasn't filed tax returns, I have to agree that the addition of "she headed this group. this group did X" to insinuate that she did X is more coatrack-y than not. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

@Comemgenus- The AP story says she was president of the organization through 2010 according to her 2010 Senate filing, and it's 2010, so I do not see how this is exactly an obvious coatrack. She founded the organization in 1996 and was the president of it for 14 years. However, this is a breaking story, not many details are known, and it truly could be another error by the IRS, or it could be that it was not one of her duties to file the forms or to check on whether the forms were filed, as you suggest. It is also possible this is no big deal, that non-profits like hers forget to file these forms, and it's no big deal, easily corrected. We certainly do have to be careful with what goes into these BLP, and with all that in mind, I will move the reference to the article on the organization. I can't see any reason why not, can you? -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Finished moving the information about the IRS snafu to the Savior's Alliance for Lifting the Truth article page. Hope this is ok with everyone. Here is the diff I really don't see why not! KeptSouth (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The Tea Party is Strong?

Does the last sentence of the introduction suggest that the Tea Party is actually strong? "Her victory was a surprising upset and was seen as a sign of Tea Party strength." I propose: "Her victory was a surprising victory and have suggested that it indicates a growing strength in Tea Party." Theowarner (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Most definitely, the Tea Party movement is strong. But now that you raise this issue, it appear to me that this is not appropriate for the lead, especially a lead such as the current one that only recites the barest of facts about O'Donnell's political runs and business careers. In any case, this is a biography of a living person, not an article about the Tea Party movement. I will remove the reference, and check to be sure this fact is discussed in the Tea Party Movement article. KeptSouth (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is the diff showing the move. KeptSouth (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Claremont Institute / Graduate University

The statement "O’Donnell also has claimed on her LinkedIn profile that she attended Claremont Graduate University in California..." seems to be misleading. The source article states that she merely used some incorrect wording when referring to her a fellowship she received from the "Claremont Institute." Her bio reads: "Christine was awarded a 2002 Abraham Lincoln Graduate Fellowship in Constitutional Government from the Claremont Institute in Claremont, CA." The key issue here is her incorrect use of the phrase "graduate fellowship." She never stated that she attended "Claremont Graduate University." 208.101.177.2 (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Right now the only sources are a blog and what is possibly her LinkedIn page. Let's delete until a reliable sources comes along. Coemgenus 16:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added CBS News as source for the Claremont Graduate University and Linked In references -- so I think we are satisfactorily covered now for including this. And, more major media are covering the story today Myk60640 (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me to meet BLP standards now. Coemgenus 17:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Just curious, has this been brought up by a talking head? I would remove this material as non notable unless there is more to it, ect. --Threeafterthree (talk) 02:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Given that the falsehood was in something that O'Donnell had nothing to do with creating, this has no biographical relevance and doesn't belong. At most it's a one- or two-day campaign flap and should be moved to United States Senate special election in Delaware, 2010. But it doesn't deserve any space here. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

O'Donnell says the linkedin page isn't hers. [7]. This is why we apply BLP rules. Coemgenus 15:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP doesn't prevent us from including information that appears in reliable sources, and any denial of responsibility should be cited, not used as the basis for removing information. More importantly, I'm disappointed that editors have removed well-sourced materials without moving them to the campaign article. What we have now, at the moment, is a total disservice to future readers. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Jennie O'Donnell

I have added reference to Jennie (Jean) O'Donnell, O'Donnell's sister. It seems very relevant because 1) Jennie is a family member and no other family member is mentioned by name. 2) Jennie works on O'Donnell's campaign. 3) Jennie has been photographed with O'Donnell and campaign staff. 4) While Christine O'Donnell is personally very anti-gay, her sister is openly gay. In addition, we now have sufficient credible sources stating that Jennie is "openly gay" including The Guardian, Mother Jones and The Atlantic. Her sexuality is widely reported and now, 10 days after publication, has not been countered by the O'Donnell campaign.Myk60640 (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Her sister really isn't notable, regardless of these rumors. Even if O'Donnell is elected, and her sister became her chief of staff, she still wouldn't be notable. KeptSouth (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, without any input from anyone, has deleted reference to O’Donnell being unmarried and without children. If this is improper information to put on her Wiki page for BLP reasons, then why is spouse and family information on all other politician pages for John McCain, Barack Obama, etc, etc.? Let’s be consistent, can we? Why the discrepancy? Are single people covered differenttly than married people on Wikipedia?

Tarc, today also deleted without input from anyone, well-sourced information --- published by The Guardian newspaper, Atlantic Magazine and Mother Jones magazine that has not been countered by any O’Donnell campaign staff for 10 days -- on Jennie O’Donnell, the candidate’s sister. Jennie is not only a campaign worker for O’Donnell -- which makes it quite relevant -- but she is openly gay, which is notable because Christine O’Donnell’s positions are so anti-gay.

Let’s have some consistency and accuracy, not biased information, can we? Or, are we living in Putin's Russia?? Myk60640 (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had time to check all the recent edits by Tarc, but I agree with keeping out the information on her sister - it really isn't relevant to her candidacy now. If you want a "Putin's Russia" experience, Myk, just keep adding this sort of information. A flurry of activity will occur on the article until it looks almost like a campaign flyer. At that point the article will be locked so that in effect, no one can contribute or edit it for quite some time. --Regards --KeptSouth (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

KeptSouth-- Interesting, you don't have 30 seconds time to give opinion on O'Donnell's unmarried/no children reference. Have time to slam me on Jennie, but not time to agree with me on her family information? Hmmm, interesting.Myk60640 (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What we have here is a run-of-the-mill single purpose account who, judging from edit history, is hell-bent on adding controversies-du-juor to the Wikipedia articles of conservatives. I've dealt with this sort of thing many, many times on the opposite side of the fence; agenda-driven editors who do the same to Obama, Clinton, etc... articles.

As to the specifics, in response to Mr. Myk60640, we had this discussion a month ago in regards to the infobox; there is nothing ground-breaking or notable in the 21st century about being an unmarried woman. McCain and Obama and others have spousal and family information in their articles because they have...wait for it...spouses and families. What you are doing is highlighting an absence of such, and in my opinion it isn't relevant to a person's biography to note their unmarried status unless said status does itself become notable, e.g. James Buchanan. As for the gay sister, you seem to be including this to make a gotcha-style WP:POINT, tryingt o frame O'Donnell as some sort of hypocrite for being anti-gay while having a gay sibling. What that amounts to is editorializing on your part, which is not allowed here. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, That is your opinion. In my opinion (oh, and please don’t stereotype me Sir Tarc), O’Donnell’s marital status is very relevant because of the story’s inclusion of her: 1) being anti-masturbation which has received considerable international media coverage; 2) "She became an evangelical Christian, chose to live a chaste life, began preaching sexual abstinence." 3) her wild partying and dating days in college; 4) fact that she sold her house to her former boyfriend and attorney, Brent Vasher, before the house was foreclosed. Tarc, thank you for your thoughts, and for checking all other Wiki pages so that they exclude improper references to marital status. You are my hero. Myk60640 (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Myk6040 - I would not have removed her marital status from the article, but when someone else did, it seemed to me an unimportant fact, so I did not add it back. My point, Myk, is that perhaps you should re-think whether her martial status is all that worthy of inclusion in the article. The way I look at it, you have just given at least two good reasons why her marital status it should not be re-added, at least for a while - namely -readers can make unwanted and untruthful inferences from such information, as you seem to have. So if we are aiming at an objective balanced bio, then perhaps we should keep this collateral info out. In any case, O'Donnell is notable for her political career, and whether she has or has not had a husband is irrelevant to that. One more minor point - as is shown in the Condi Rice bio, Americans can take offense at references to the marital status of their female politicians. Rice#Criticisms from Senator Barbara Boxer. So rather than quibble about this, why not add something new about O'Donnell that is reliably sourced, or why not do something else to improve the article rather than cover this old ground? Just a thought...--Best regards--KeptSouth (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to weigh in on Myk60640's side here. It seems to me as though the family background of a notable political canidate is itself notable. A brief couple sentences about her marital status and her sister's sexual oreintation seems appropriate.

Looking for precedent on WP, note that Mary Cheney, Dick Cheney's gay daughter, has her own article.....

Anyways, I have looked specificly at the language Myk60640 is trying to put in, but my vote would be to include mention of O'Donnel's family background. NickCT (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you are saying - that you would put information about her sister in the article or that you think the article should say she Christine is unmarried and has never had children?. If you want the information about the sister back in, how do you justify its notability in a BLP? --Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Mary Cheney is notable independent of her father though, thus warranting a mention in Dick's bio. Also, her sexuality was a notable debate point in 204 when (IIRC) Kerry brought it up, then Liz Cheney's "how dare you?" faux outrage, etc... Apples and oranges here, as O'Donnell's sister is only being brought up in an attempt to counter-point the candidate's stance on homosexuality. Tarc (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

@KeptSouth - Re "would put information about her sister in the article or that you think the article should say she Christine is unmarried and has never had children" both - Re "how do you justify its notability in a BLP", It seems self-evident that a notable person's family background is somewhat notable. I could point to quite a few BLP involving politicians, where that politician's family background is discussed.

@Tarc - Re "Mary Cheney is notable independent of her father though" - Point taken, but I'm pretty sure that even if Mary Cheney wasn't notable, she would get at least some mention in Dick Cheney's article. Re "only being brought up in an attempt to counter-point the candidate's stance on homosexuality" Well, that might have been the editor's intent, but that doesn't mean it isn't notable. Let's remember, this has appeared in RS, which is the bar for WP:NOTABILITY, no?

To conclude, I don't really feel strongly about this, so I won't press-the-point, but I thought Trac's summary was a little striking given that the material seems at least somewhat WP:NOTABLE and there don't appear to be egregious WP:NPOV issues. NickCT (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I can think of a few more differences between this and the Mary Cheney situation. Mary Cheney was actually out as a lesbian, and had been for many years, despite her parents' outrage at John Kerry's mention of the fact during the 2004 election season. It is still doubtful and or not established by reliable sources whether Christine O'Donnell's sister is gay, and so it would not be correct, in fact it would be a violation of BLP policy to add this fact to her sister's bio. Another difference is that Dick Cheney, perhaps the most powerful Vice President ever is more notable than O'Donnell, someone who has not yet held any public office. In fact, everything about Dick Cheney is far more notable by virtue of his fame and power over his long lifetime. Third, prohibiting gays from getting married was a Republican party campaign issue, a referendum issue in many states, and a proposed constitutional amendment at one time. As one of the heads of the Republican party, Dick Cheney had a lot, or should have a lot, of influence as to Party policy and platform on gay rights, and so it was relevant that he had a gay daughter and what he said about her and the gay rights issues that were very much in the news at the time. O'Donnell cannot influence national policy, and she has made very few statements on the issue. Gay civil rights as a wedge issue has also faded somewhat in notablity. Hope has helped to clarify the distinctions the two situations - and the two politicians. -Regards- KeptSouth (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

@KeptSouth 1)I wasn't claiming Mary Cheney was an exact parallel. 2) Re "nfluence as to Party policy and platform on gay rights" - I don't see how this wouldn't apply to Christine if she was elected. 3) Christine's sister is openly gay and there is a wealth of RS supporting it; hence it wouldn't be a BLP violation (see [8], [9], [10]).4) I could find a number of examples of less notable politicians who gay family member are noted (e.g. Alan Keyes) NickCT (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)