Talk:John Edwards/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Stephen Colbert and IntegrityJustice.com

This page is going to be, and is already (check the history), a target for vandalism because of Stephen Colbert and The Colbert Report. He has a continuing joke about Senator Edwards having a sexual encounter with a terrorist. He raised this joke by mentioning a website where people could post fake news stories, and that website was "IntegrityJustice.com". This website isn't real yet. However, editors here might want to consider protecting this article due to the vandalism from the fans of Colbert. dposse 04:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope no Edwards fans vandalize the site with the false information mentioned by Colbert in an attempt to cast Edwards as the "new John F. Kennedy" (since JFK slept with a Nazi spy during WWII but Joe Sr. got him sent to the Pacific Theater instead of court-martialed).  : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AuH2ORepublican (talk • contribs) 15:57, 2 February 2007

Anyone have a spare grain of salt? /Blaxthos 22:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm the first to admit that you should take that JFK story with several grains of salt, since it's one of those urban legends about JFK that may never be confirmed or disproven (which is why I added the : ) on my obviously tongue-in-cheek comment). I Googled JFK and "Nazi spy" and this is the first hit I got, which is not exactly Encyclopaedia Brittannica but succintly retells the legend: http://www.sharkhunters.com/tapeh40.htm Sorry if my jesting comment caused any confusion, and I further apologize for forgetting to put the four tildes after my comment (I'm still getting the hang of this---I even forget to sign in half the time). Anyhow, I won't forget to sign this one. AuH2ORepublican 18:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm a huge fan of humor (was even a standup comic back in the day)... but I'd caution against slinging those kinds of accusations (tongue in cheek or not) on politicians' talkpages, especially with tensions running high and an election in the not-too-distant future. I can see the humor now, but having "republican" in your username and the declaration that JFK slept with a Nazi spy and avoided going to prison because of political connections probably isn't going to have any sort of positive impact and certainly doesn't make me think you're working from a neutral point of view. Hope this doesn't offend. /Blaxthos 19:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If I edit a main article, I stick to the facts and keep a NPOV (unfortunately, that does not appear to be the norm in political articles). However, if I'm cracking wise, I'm bound to take some liberties, which is why I included the : ). My joke was similar to, say, joking that "we'll need to keep an eye out for supporters of Giuliani who, to make him look "Reaganesque," may vandalize his article to claim that Rudy made a deal with Muslim terrorists (as an homage to Reagan sending VP nominee Bush to Paris to stave off an "October Surprise")," and I would hope that irrespective of my monicker I could make tongue-in-cheek comments (in the Discussion page, of course, never in the main article, although again I wish that everyone took the same position on that; a lot of my edits have beenm to erase "jokes" from other editors) about Republicans or Democrats alike. Anyways, thanks for the explanation. AuH2ORepublican 15:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

What a laugh. The article is currently using a source to assert something that is flatly untrue on its own premises. The article refers to a Krauthammer article which correctly quotes Edwards in criticizing him in order that it may misdirect the valid criticism of Edwards towards The Drudge Report and its misquote as if the effect was entirely different for those that responded negatively. This not only denies that legitimate criticism but as well uses sources for purposes that are undermined simply by reading what they say.

Here's Edwards's actual quote:

If we can do the work that we can do in this country – the work we will do when John Kerry is president – people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.

Here's the misquote from The Drudge Report:

"When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."

Here's how the Krauthammer article that is linked to quotes Edwards:

If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again. [1] [The very source used in the article]

Does that sound as if he is simply "[r]eacting to the misquote", as the article is now stating as fact? Is that an accurate representation of Edwards's speech and the controversy, that he was misquoted and everyone was fine with the substance of his remarks when they were clarified? Apparently some editors are content not bothering to examine this. Any others are prevented from editing it. 129.71.73.248 06:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Register a user name and in a few days, you will be able to edit this article. No one is stopping you from doing that. Frankly, I was involved in removing that quote a while ago but gave up when several edits kept putting it back and now it looks like two completely different takes on it have been fused together so that it seems that they are talking about each other when they are not. Gdo01 07:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been out of the loop. Has Wikipedia policy changed and anonymous use is now officially disallowed and discouraged? I could register a name yes but do not see the point in that. In fact, the only point I see here is that one version must be protected and in the course of this a very valid content dispute is treated as "vandalism". My, the vanity. 129.71.73.248 07:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if vandalism is uncontrollable, it is better to keep a bad version than to allow harmful changes that could make it worse. Apparently, anonymous users have been the problem. Temporarily blocking their edits is a way to protect the current integrity of the page. As you can see from the history [2], this page was hit several times by anonymous vandalism. Unfortunately, good editors are caught up in the collateral damage. Other than that, I suggest you not try to be cynical. There is no conspiracy to keep you from editing, Wikipedia is not against you, and protecting a page from further damage is not vanity. Gdo01 07:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me a bit. There are plenty of bad apples (anonymous and not), but the protection happened mightily fast after complaints were made about my edits. I did not see anything on the Rfp page about John Edwards so the evidence only shows an informal wish by one party was granted. This does not necessitate site-wide conspiracy, but involves at least quite a bit of bad faith and/or laziness. 129.71.73.248 07:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I was not involved in the protection of the page so I didn't know you were the party who was deemed responsible for the protection. I thought you were just an anonymous user who was not involved. Well I really have no more to say, I don't know any of the details on the protection or what edits caused it. Gdo01 07:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I finally found a request which was purged quickly (perhaps there is a much bigger load now). Given the time that it was made and its mention of "heavy IP vandalism" I don't see how it could be targeted at anything else. 129.71.73.248 07:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I just figured that one of the versions was arbitrarily quoting Krauthammer, while the last (sprotected) version was not correctly quoting him. I put up a version without any Krauthammer words (actual or alleged by us) because the whole text is there for anyone who likes his rants and/or depth of opinion. Can we agree on that? Kncyu38 10:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you "arbitrarily" quote someone when the issue is what the reaction and controversy was (and it was rather significant)? MediaMatters was previously allowed to determine the argument and now is the only one speaking its mind. Here's what I seem to understand happened: the MM article was inserted, attempting to insinuate carelessness on the part of all Edwards critics; Krauthammer was in that piece given as literally responding to the misquote but a further link was added to a completely separate article of Krauthammer's. In that piece, he quotes him accurately and obviously does not feel that it changes the intention or effect of Edwards's claims (and personally I don't see how any intellectually honest person would think so). So no I don't agree to the current edit. It seems to either wish to sidestep the substance of the issue in favor of reporting the misquote or to simply disfavor the critics and disallow their own words in favor of MM. And I would love to change it "at will" if you and perhaps the editor on Rfp did not decide to term it "vandalism". 129.71.73.248 18:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down, it was only an attempt, I will leave to other editors now. Kncyu38 09:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the section about the misquotation of Edwards on Christopher Reeve: at this point in time it had undue weight in the article, way too prominent for what was even at that time a fairly minor item. And it does not seem to have had staying power. Tvoz | talk 22:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Home Purchase

I recently contributed a report that Edwards had purchased the largest and most expensive home in Orange County, North Carolina. I feel that since his campaign in based on poverty, and the "two different" Americas for the rich and the poor, that it is important to note this potential hypocrisy in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kishap5 (talk • contribs).

The home information is already in the article under the "early life, education, and family" subsection. Additionally, the wording you inserted did not adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

He did very well as a lawyer so what? He can't buy a house now? Where is the hipocrisy that you speak of? Ecostaz 21:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not feel that the current language in the "early life, education, and family" meets the standard of "unbiased". In particular, the long list of rooms in the house is out of keeping with the biographical nature of that section, and is clearly intended to make a political point about the size or purported extravagance of the house. Asa Hopkins, 23:55, 20 February 2007 (PST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.50.156.70 (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Would you rather he hoard all his money rather than pay the largest property tax bill in Orange County that will go to funding public schools? Has John Edwards ever said he does not believe people should be able to be wealthy? He's always stated that he wants people to have the same opportunities that he had. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Terando (talk • contribs) 20:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia articles are not the place for ideologues to express their feelings about the subject, especially when those feelings are based on something so blatantly irrational -- it's not hypocritical for rich people to decry poverty. Rather, it would be hypocritical for rich people who decry poverty to act as if they too were impoverished. Note that, in discussing health care, Edwards says that every American should be able to get the sort of health care that he and his wife do, not that his wife should forego treatment because there are people too poor to afford that sort of care; to call that "hypocritical" or "tone deaf" is inane. -- Jibal 05:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Anti-War activist

I deleted the Iraq war activist category. See discussion there. If all people that somehow criticize the execution of the war, although they initially supported and considered it a "cake walk" the category tends to become close to meaningless.

The category's definition drew my attention since people wanted to add Yaron Brook to it, which is pretty absurd.

Both Brook and Edwards would fit a category like: Iraq-war execution critics. A category that will contain a high percentage of US politicians, mirroring the polls anti-Iraq war sentiments. Helpful in the Iraq-war execution critics would be a subcategory like pro or contra an "ideological clash of cultures" or the "decisive ideological struggle against radical Islam. A narrative that feels a bit like a self-fulfilling prophecy, or a tool to raise the defense budget.LeaNder 16:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Marcotte and McEwan

Regarding the two bloggers on Edwards' staff who have recently come under fire, the article states that on Feb. 7th, Salon.com reported that they had been fired. But, today (Feb. 8th) I read a New York Times article that stated that Edwards had decided to keep them on his staff. Can someone verify this and elaborate as to the controversy? --Delong71487 03:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Charges of Bigotry Fly in John Edwards Blogger Flap

WASHINGTON — In response to John Edwards' refusal to fire two staffers for "intolerant" Web postings, the president of the nation's largest Catholic civil rights group said he will launch a campaign next week to point out "the double-standard that [Edwards] is the kingmaker of." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251009,00.html Crocoite 21:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that if we're going to take these charges of "bigotry" seriously, we need to note exactly where they're coming from, since Bill Donohue appears to be the main source of this thing. Bill Donohue, who has said "And then they wonder why so many people don't trust the Muslims when it comes to liberty, because they will abuse it" and "If you asked them [hollywood] to sodomize their own mother in a movie, they would do so", among other tidbits that are noted in his Wikipedia article, is crying foul over "bigotry". All this to say: why, exactly, is anyone taking what this guy has to say seriously? Methinks he's not a reliable source of anything. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's muckraking... political hay, with tainted and obviously POV source. /Blaxthos 19:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If conservative William Donohue was the only Catholic who thought that Edwards's bloggers had posted bigoted anti-Catholic comments, there would be no problem with calling this "muckraking" and ignpring the issue. However, when the leader of National Democratic Ethnic Leadership Council, Brian O'Dwyer, makes similar comments, it is clear that the issue is not merely one of right-wingers wanting to attack liberal bloggers (and Edwards by proxy). This article sums up the reaction to the story among many in the "Christian left": (removed copyrighted text) [3] AuH2ORepublican 17:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you may want to remove the pasted text from here; we can all click on a link, and it reeks slightly of copyright violation. In any case, I added the resolution of the story, noted that Salon was wrong when they reported that McEwan and Marcotte had been fired, and linked to the campaign's statements. grendel|khan 22:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. AuH2ORepublican 23:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This portion of the article needs to be more neutral. Right now it's basically alleging the Catholic League is making a big deal about nothing, yet the author of the blog reffered to the Virgin Mary taking an abortion pill, and reffering to "sticky white Holy Spirit." Are you kidding me? Make the article less biased, and stop taking the efforts to make it more neutral out. Johnnybgood1234 (talk 23:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You have a different definition of "neutrality" than Wikipedia does. Labeling someone as "anti-Catholic" or "anti-Christian" without a citation to a reliable source is not neutral. Bill Donohue is not a reliable source for this information. Actually, labeling someone as anti-Christian who is/was working for the political campaign of a Methodist is just illogical. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Given your unsupportable use of "anti-Christian" on the page, and your unsupportable use of "abortion pill" here (see emergency contraception), you should realize that you're bringing your own bias to the article. Marcotte is explicitly not anti-Catholic. The Catholic League is not an official organ of the Catholic Church; there are other Catholic groups (e.g., Catholics for a Free Choice) who have made their opinions clear on this, and come out in support of Marcotte. The result that we can draw is that Marcotte is popular with lefty Catholics and unpopular with righty Catholics, which we already knew (replace the word "Catholics" with "bloggers", "Jews", "baseball players" or whatever you want); if Marcotte were truly anti-Christian or anti-Catholic, she would likely not have garnered such support from Catholics. grendel|khan 14:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If someone mocks and attacks the tenents of someone's faith, then they are anti- whatever religion and/or political belief that details. As far as the "lefty Catholics" who agree with her, there are also Jews that deny the Holocaust. Just because you have the support of a radical, uninformed sect of the offended group, doesn't make the statements any less hate-filled or bigoted. Johnnybgood1234 talk 15:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

But you're still left with Bill Donohue being the instigator of the claim and the main person attempting to perpetuate the "outrage". Sorry, he's just not a reliable source to make the leap from what Marcotte wrote on a blog to being able to objectively label her "anti-Christian". Another problem is the claim that she's "notably" anti-Catholic". Hmm, when I think of someone who is "notably" anti-catholic, people like this come to mind. I disagree that someone can be "notably anti-Catholic/Christian" because of a blog post or two from months ago. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that citing the Catholic League as your source is exactly what I've been talking about in regard to Bill Donohue--it's not a reliable source for the claim that someone is "notably anti-Catholic" or "notably made anti-Catholic claims". · j e r s y k o talk · 16:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur. It's a reliable source for a claim that Bill Donohue and the Catholic League called Marcotte anti-Catholic, but nothing else. grendel|khan 16:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a fair compromise. The article previously noted that Donohue alleged that they made anti-Catholic statements on their blogs in the past, but it had since been removed. We cannot label them anti-Catholic/Christian objectively, nor should we call their alleged anti-Catholicism "notable". But the article should note what Donohue's general charge is, as it once did. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Allegedly" sounds over-weaselly; I changed it to specifically refer to Donohue's interpretation. I'm considering mentioning the letter from Catholics for a Free Choice with a "some Catholics disagreed" note on it, as well as the effort to initiate legal action against the Catholic League for getting into politics--there are rules about doing that if you're a charity--but I'm unsure whether we need to go into quite so much detail. grendel|khan 16:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I edited it to say "Donohue among other Catholics". I believe it's a fair play of words because it's stating that there are other Catholics who are pissed as well; however, not the entire demographic, as you pointed out. Johnnybgood1234|johnnybgood1234 19:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just cleaned it up a bit - it was really choppy. The Salon mishap was before any ref to anyone asking that they be fired so I tried to make it flow better. Bundas 01:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: The non-neutral POV tag currently on this section. I'm a Democrat, and a Catholic, and after reading this section several times carefully, examining the linked pages, and knowledge of the incident, I really can't see why this is tagged as non neutral. It's not flattering towards some parties, but I see nothing non-factual. The bloggers had made some remarks, they claim they were satire, Donohue claims they were not. None of those facts are in dispute. Further, Salon mistakenly claimed they were fired, they later resigned. Also facts not in dispute. The entire passage is footnoted as well. I think people sometimes confuse the presentation of unflattering facts as bias. I see no reason this should be cited as non-neutral. Grey Hodge 18:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Amanda Marcotte's episode with the Catholic League by no means can be construed as "harassment" by the League. Also, her comments on her blog are not "considered to be anti-Catholic". They ARE anti-Catholic. Verbage in the main article is biased heavily in favor of Ms. Marcotte. The neutrality of this part of the article is unquestionably tainted. Phil Faxio, Annandale VA 18:50, 15 May 2007

We're not here to determine if the comments were anti-Catholic - that is a matter of opinion. Verifiable fact is that the Catholic League's press release considers them as such, and that's what we say in the article. Similarly, Marcotte uses the word "harass" describing the treatment she was receiving - that's what is in the cited source, that's what we're reporting. Tvoz |talk 02:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter remark

Ann Coulter has recently alleged that John Edwards is a closeted homosexual. [[4]] I am unsure if this was said tongue in cheek, but the youtube tape seems to indicate she actually believes this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.232.222.5 (talk • contribs).

No way that's going in this article unless a big fuss is made, as Ann Coulter is perhaps one of the most unreliable sources imaginable. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• It was used more as a slur than as a charge. Anything to get a few headlines. Coulter is just a media whore. --DavidShankBone 19:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't an allegation, it was Ann Coulter being an ass to increase her noteriety and sell more books. However it is a notable campaign event in that John Edwards responded by displaying the video itself on his donation web form and is soliciting for "Coulter Cash". More information: https://johnedwards.com/action/contribute/coulter - AbstractClass 04:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The recently added section about Coulter is screaming "undue weight" at me. This isn't really about Edwards; it's about Coulter. I would be alright with not mentioning Coulter in this article at all, but the incident certainly shouldn't be discussed nearly as much as it is now (even having a subsection devoted to it is too much imo). · j e r s y k o talk · 00:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

She later said that it was a joke and she does not beleive that Edwards is not straight. She said that she used to word to mean "wuss" or pussy, not meaning homosexual. The remark definitely has no place in the Edwards bio. Ecostaz 00:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally disagree, particular as http://johnedwards.com/ has so prominently featured the video of her remarks. (→Netscott) 00:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Per my comment in the below subsection, do you agree or disagree that the incident is at least being given inappropriate weight in this article? · j e r s y k o talk · 00:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In the grand scheme of the article the section is likely too large due to WP:Recentism but again given the prominence and way that Edwards has himself responded to her remarks makes such a section completely qulalified to be in this article about him. (→Netscott) 00:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed undue weight and recentism might also be an issue. I will not push for total removal as per Netscott's comments, but Ann Coulter at most meant it as a bad joke and not a serious allegation of homosexuality. This is still a bio of a possible future president and such remarks should not be featured so prominently especially as they were not made seriously. Ecostaz 00:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think her alleged intent is of no relevance here -- it's the controversy that makes it significant, not how she justified her behavior. FWIW I agree with the undue weight argument below -- this should be two sentences. /Blaxthos 01:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight

I added a POV tag in lieu of edit warring because I believe recent edits (this series and this series) have caused this article to violate the neutral point of view policy by giving undue weight to the Coulter remarks (as I already mentioned in the above subsection) and the blogger stuff. I'm also concerned about recentism, which often accompanies undue weight concerns. My view is that the blogger edits be reverted entirely and that the Coulter remarks, if they are to be included at all, should be incorporated in a couple sentences in the Presidential campaign subsection. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree - remove section, add a few sentences in presidential campaign section; one about the remark, second about the reaction of the campaign. --DavidShankBone 05:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Also agree. Italiavivi 00:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to reduce the Ann Coulter paragraph and moved it to the 2008 presidential campaign section. Ecostaz 15:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I support the change. I removed the POV tag I added to the article, as I believe the undue weight concerns have now been addressed. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the actual language used by the bloggers should be included, especially since the article labels them "allegedly anti-Catholic" statements. It's like calling Mel Gibson's famous slurs allegedly anti-Semitic. Including the actual language is hardly undue weight. Indeed, the section is somewhat misleading without it. I would agree to a compromise: omit the offensive statements if the word "allegedly" is removed. Otherwise, leave the statements in and let the reader judge. Mamalujo 22:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, none of the text you've added gives the reader any more context by which to judge whether the comments are truly anti-Catholic than the text of the article without the additions does (the third example, "Bush's Christofascist base", doesn't even appear to be directed at Catholics on its face). Finally, using the word "retroactively" in regard to Marcotte's initial comment on the issue is pure POV, as it implies that Marcotte wasn't being truthful. Wikipedia should not judge whether the comments were truly anti-Catholic, as leaving out the word "allegedly" accomplishes. Wikipedia should merely report (1) that Bill Donohue thinks Marcotte made anti-Catholic comments and (2) that Marcotte says they were satirical. The additions to the article distort both. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Political views page?

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have their political views page. As the third-most popular Democratic candidate, shouldn't Edwards have his own page similar to these? If so, I'll put in a request. JeffreyAtW 18:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, he should have one. Edwards has perhaps been the most forthcoming on his views thus far of the big three Democratic contenders (though Clinton has a somewhat more extensive record to work with, I suppose), so I imagine the article would have a substantial amount of material to work with. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

All right, it's been created. JeffreyAtW 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I put in the health care edits that were taken down. I agree they may have been too much since their on the political views page. But I think what's there now is definately not enough since this is a, if not the defining issue of his campaign. Considering he's the only one with a detailed plan out right now and that most people will be looking here for his views rather than the political views page (is there even a prominent link for the political views page on this page?) I think there needs to be some happy medium between what is on the political views page and what is on this page. --Terando 03:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Bloggers section longer than Coulter mention?

Anyone else think this weighting seems odd? Italiavivi 01:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Coulter story wasn't really about Edwards. Sure he was the target of the term, but Edwards's involvement in the story ended with his response condemning Coulter's comment. The blogger incident, on the other hand, involved Edwards for an extended period of time and involved multiple actions by him and his campaign staff. So no, it's not oddly weighted.--Bobblehead 01:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Current Event

I'm putting a Current Event tag here. His campaign said they would hold a news conference in their hometown Thursday to discuss her health. Rumor is she has cancer again.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070322/ap_on_el_pr/edwards2008

Oh yEs itS caRly 04:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That made sense earlier, when it wasn't known what that announcement would be, but I removed the current event tag this evening, as the announcement was definitive that at this time although Mrs. Edwards has a health problem, the campaign is going on, at full stem. So it seems that at this time there is no more current event. Tvoz | talk 22:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Medical plan

There is a paragraph with 2 sentences in it. The 2 sentences contradict each other. One cites Edwards as saying everyone will pay. The other says only the high tax bracket people will pay (implying that it's free for everyone else??). I did not write the sentences. It has been there for a long, long time. It is possible that Edwards said both things.

The reference cited is a dead link. Therefore, a citation needed has been added. Another sentence has been clarified, i.e. single payor term is not defined so I made a slight change for clarity but left the wording largely intact. The word was to say that Medicare is the single payor.HumanThing 00:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Mrs. Edwards's cancer

Are we kidding ourselves?? The article puts a lot of stock into her cancer being completely treatable. The sad fact is that this is BAD, very bad news for her. Is it just a lawyer talking? I mean that phrase that all things are completely treatable. A gunshot to the head is completely treatable but often not curable. Do we even need to mention that quote since it's a bit misleading to the seriousness of the condition? Why not just cut it out (the part about the disease being completely treatable)? Of course we should leave in the part that it is stage UV metastatic breast cancer and that the campaign is going on. DelloJello 23:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

We need to report what can be verified in reliable sources on it. Going further, whether ultimately correct or not, steps into unpermitted original research. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - we are reporting what Edwards said at the press conference, not what our opinion is. Tvoz | talk 23:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Dereks1x's edit regarding "stress[ing] the positive about the cancer without misleading reader of seriousness"[5] is based on the original research that the cancer is "terminal". The link provided to cancer.gov does not discuss Edwards, thus the original research to invoke it here. The reader can click on the links to Wikipedia articles on the cancer to find out about it; there is no reason to emphasize that point here. Doing so, regardless of good intentions (e.g. to raise awareness of breast cancer) or bad intentions (e.g. attempting to make Edwards look bad by implying he cares more about his campaign than his wife's deadly disease), is POV. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

72% of women with stage IV beast cancer are dead within 5 years. That's a fact. I think a large % is 2 years or less. deletion of text can be vandalism. If you can find better data, put it in the article, not delete!

What bad intentions? His wife agrees with campaigning.Dereks1x 01:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did you focus on the bad intention? My point was that regardless of intent, it's POV and OR. My edits were not vandalism and I resent the charge that they were (please see WP:AGF); I've explained myself clearly here with reference to Wikipedia policy. Please demonstrate how the text does not violate the polices I've cited here instead of edit warring. The original research is the insertion of the survivability (or possible lack thereof, though possibilities weren't given, merely the word "terminal" was used) that is unspecific to Edwards but related to a cancer that Mrs. Edwards just so happens to have. That's an improper synthesis under the original research policy. It should go. I'm flagging the subsection as containing original research in lieu of continued edit warring. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

To sum my above comment up, the information you're adding belongs in the metastatic breast cancer article (or something similar), not here, as you're improperly synthesizing information about the cancer with the Edwards' situation without a source that already does so. I.e., no one has said how long Mrs. Edwards lifespan is likely to be in the sources cited. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The current version is NPOV. It even mentions Mrs. Edwards' public statements even though they are EXTREMELY optimistic by saying she might be a little tired. I've seen breast cancer in my family. If I heard grandma say "I'm just going to be a little tired", I would be very concerned that she doesn't realize the seriousness (or is just trying to put on a calm face). However, I've compromised and deleted the word "terminal", OK?Dereks1x 02:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You've missed my point about synthesis / original research entirely. I tagged the subsection for original research, not POV. Please do not remove the tag again. I'll let you know if these concerns are addressed by any subsequent edits, and will be happy to remove the tag myself if they are. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• I respectfully submit that this is not original research.
• 1. I did not do the metastatic cancer reserach or make up the statistics. They are already published.,
• 2. There is NPOV, nobody is saying Mr. or Mrs. Edwards is bad,
• 3. We are only stating the facts, i.e. she has stage IV metastatic breast cancer, a disease with a very low survival rate. However, we present the Edwards' positive characterization of it, even if it is, frankly, overly positive.
• NPOV is important. Otherwise, with Watergate, we'd only report what Nixon said, "I am not a crook, did nothing wrong and any wikipedia text about details of the break-in should be edited out." Ok, Nixon just said the first phrase about not being a crook.Dereks1x 03:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

To address the most salient point: yes, you did not make up the cancer stats, but you did improperly synthesize the cancer stats with Elizabeth Edwards when the sources cited did not do so. Improper synthesis = original research. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• There is no synthesis, merely stating the facts. The facts do not put the Edwards in a negative way. In fact, one newspaper article says "Attacks on Edwards -- either overt or covert -- will be more difficult for his rivals to launch. There is no more sympathetic figure than a husband taking care of his ill wife, so it would be highly risky for any of Edwards's opponents to say anything but glowing things about him and about Elizabeth's strength under difficult circumstances.
• I also found this though I don't think it needs to be added. "The average survival rate has been 2 1/2 to five years, CBS News medical correspondent Dr. Jon LaPook reports"
• Elizabeth Edwards's oncologist, speaking to reporters after the couple left, said the breast cancer has advanced to Stage IV and has spread to her bones and possibly a lung and other organs. Lisa A. Carey, the oncologist, said the disease has worsened beyond the point of being cured -- it is so serious that no surgery can treat it.
• She declined to address the question of life expectancy, saying that in some cases the prognosis is not good, whereas other patients live "a number of years." (those 7-20% of people who live 5 years).
• In short, this is REALLY bad. The current wording as of now is very positive, contains only the most relevant stuff. In fact, I'm surprised that people aren't editing it more frankly unlike the polite and very postive spin that I've written.Dereks1x 03:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Until a doctor has said "Mrs. Edwards has x to y amount of time to live", the information is synthesis / original research. The question of whether this is a "positive" or "negative" light for Edwards is another matter entirely, and one that I'm not addressing right now (please keep the original research / NPOV distinction in mind). · j e r s y k o talk · 04:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Believe me! The wording is very neutral and truthful. If you need them to admit it, then Nixon did not do anything wrong until a) he says "I am a crook", or b) he is impeached. The fact is "she has stage IV metastatic breast cancer, a disease that has poor survival rates". Orginal research would be "she has cancer and is likely die before the year 20--" which is NOT what is being said.

Furthermore, consider this from the Edwards wikipedia article "Before the 2004 Senate election, Edwards announced his retirement from the Senate and supported Erskine Bowles, former White House Chief of Staff". Why doesn't someone say that is original research, i.e., the former White House Chief of Staff part is further description of Mr. Bowles? All we are doing is defining the term, i.e. she has metastatic cancer, which (we don't use the word "bad survival" in order to be NPOV) 80-93% do not survive past 5 years". If we don't have this, it really is POV because then we are covering up and making it sound rosy. Cancer is bad. That's reality. That's like saying we are winning in Iraq. That's bad to be overly rosy. Dereks1x 05:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I strenuously object to the way this paragraph is now worded. This is not an article about metastatic cancer, it is an article about John Edwards, and by extension, about his wife. All that is relevant is what has been publicly, and verifiably, said about the Edwards' specific situation. What we said in the article correctly reflected what the Edwards are saying. Not anyone else's assumptions, research, analysis or synthesis of the facts, which is what these additions are doing. I think the text should be reverted to what we had previously. Tvoz | talk 05:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Dereks1x, you continue to have a poor understanding of Wikipedia's policies. The point of this article is not to cover anything up or to fully record every aspect of the events, that's why there are links to breast cancer and metastasis in the article. If the person is interested in finding out more information about those things, then they can go to the article about them, they don't need to read it here. It may very well be true that there is a 75% mortality rate for metastasized breast cancer, but that does not mean Mrs. Edwards has a 75% chance of dying. The original research aspect is that you're applying those numbers to Mrs. Edwards. All that is known at this point is that she has metastasized breast cancer and that it isn't curable, but it is treatable. You seem to be under the misunderstanding that The Truth overrides everything else. I could include in an article that someone is a complete and utter wanker and it could be absolutely true, but unless I could properly attribute that statement, it doesn't belong in the article. You seriously need to spend more time reading up on Wikipedia's policies. --Bobblehead 05:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! When I saw this talk page, I thought I was really going to see some horrible stuff. Yet, looking at the article, it seems fine. There's no spin, nobody saying the Edwards family is not telling the truth. It merely states that she has metastatic breast cancer but that she is upbeat. Where's this "original research" stuff? It's all well cited and written in a matter of fact tone. Peace, man!HumanThing 05:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. As a new editor, I recommend you take a look at this portion of Wikipedia's no original research policy and note that the article is essentially providing Mrs. Edwards with a prognosis regarding how long she is likely to live without a source that does so for her specifically. Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Bobblehead's latest changes are a big improvement. The only thing I would suggest is to not include the general prognosis statistics for the reasons Jersyko states: no one has indicated what her specific prognosis is at this time, and until that is made public, I think we should not state it. Linking to articles about the illness are fine, and readers can follow them and draw whatever conclusions they wish. But I think we should stick to what is publicly known and specific to Elizabeth Edwards, which likely will evolve. I also think we should replace this: 'Mrs. Edwards further noted a positive outlook on life when she stated that she plans to campaign with her husband.' with the previous: 'Mrs. Edwards stated that she recognizes that her medication may occasionally "make her tired" but plans to campaign with her husband' which comes directly from their press conference. Tvoz | talk 15:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all opposed to the suggested changes. The only reason I modified, but kept the survival rate was because it was still under discussion on this page. There are innumerable factors that can impact a person's survival rate, so applying the rate to a single person is extremely difficult. The American Cancer Society even cautions against doing so.[6] --Bobblehead 16:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This part is well sourced, every single statement of it. What's with all the talk about original research, stop it. Wikipedia also has a Ignore all rules policy to be able to use common sense instead of rules lawyering. Ecostaz 16:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

OR is still under discussion here. I added the transcript of the press conference as a reference and reinstated her name in the header. Tvoz | talk 17:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the compromise language, which I did NOT write, at least in the last few versions is what we should stick with. Of course, each of us would have written it differently but there is only 1 Edwards article in wikipedia, not 50. I think the OR claim is not valid enough to change the article.

Look at the phrase in the article, "While at UNC, he met fellow law student Elizabeth Anania, who is four years his senior". If one claims the cancer section is OR, how about "four years his senior"? No source says this. The editor just did some math, which is original research in the strictest sence. In the cancer section, there is mention to the effect "she has stage IV metastatic cancer, which has a 20% survival rate past 5 years." This is simply fact. It does not say if she is in the 20% or 80% group, nobody knows.

This also shows NPOV because the Edwards are giving an extremely rosy picture to the public. It could be just trying to have positive outlook...if it's that, it's great! However, it's potentially bad in terms of public education about metastatic breast cancer. What the press reports didn't say but Mrs. Edwards did say on TV was that she knows what she will die from (i.e. breast cancer).

How about calling the current wording as the one we stick with?Dereks1x 18:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Your analogy to Elizabeth's age is defective, as age subtraction is outside of the realm of original research since it is not being used to "advance a position" but rather to merely state an objective fact about the Edwards. Discussing the survivability of Elizabeth's cancer, however, in connection with discussing her particular condition without regard to her particular diagnosis goes beyond merely stating objective fact about the disease as it strongly implies that Elizabeth does not have long to live without a source that does exactly that. Thus, it is used to advance the position that Elizabeth will most likely pass away in the next 5 years (or thereabouts) through synthesizing two sources: (1) Elizabeth Edwards has x-type of cancer and (2) x-type of cancer has y survival rate, implying (3) Elizabeth Edwards has y survival rate. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Mention of Mrs. Edwards' being 4 years older may be intended as a slur about the Senator marrying an older woman???? There is no implying #3 as you state. This is your own fear. Nothing in the wikipedia article says her lifespan. Delete the mortality phrase and you really get distorted info (i.e. The Mrs. is only going to be a little tired, she has a completely treatable condition, etc.) Given that America is a big country, that could end up killing someone who thinks that metastatic breast cancer is nothing to worry about and a 1 or 2 month delay or missing doctor appointments is ok. The current language, which isn't my #1 choice, is simply factual and doesn't advance a position.

Actually, your #3, even if true, is not original research, it would be a factual statement (i.e. Mrs. Edwards has a condition that has a --% survival rate, if Mrs. Edwards doesn't actually have the --- disease, then her survival rate is different). However #3 has never been written in the wikipedia article. Dereks1x 20:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

But by even discussing my #2 in this article, #3 is automatically implied. In fact, if #3 is not implied, why is it even relevant to Elizabeth Edwards? It shouldn't even be in this article if it's not, not for original research, but for irrelevancy. Regarding your interest in advancing the cause of breast cancer awareness as part of including this information, please note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox; that's not a reason to include such information. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

How can anyone assert that Elizabeth Edwards is *asymptomatic* when she has a BROKEN RIB? Her rib snapped and that is what brought her to the doctor. A snapped rib, when one has bone cancer in the rib, is a SYMPTOM of the bone cancer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.65 (talk • contribs).

This too is OR. We cannot make assumptions or interpretations of the facts that are available to us. Unless a reliable source says what Elizabeth Edwards' specific case details are, we should not include anyone's suppositions. Elizabeth Edwards asserted that she is asymptomatic, and that is what we go with unless we are given other reliably sourced information. Not what is generally said about the disease - what is specifically said about her case. We are going around and around and around on this simple and clear point. I do not support the wording that includes any statistics about the disease - that is what links are for. This is not a matter of compromising, this is a matter of straight-forward wikipedia policy. Tvoz | talk 21:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I heard about the rib injury, too. (Accuse me of being a puppet, J. Charge me). and that other user who mentioned about the rib........I did not include the rib part in my revision because I did not think it was important enough. There is a real danger if we put too positive a spin on the cancer....oh, it's nothing, be happy, the show goes on, maybe even skip the doctor's appointment and reschedule it....NOT! The info presented in the article is fair and balanced. If we portray stage IV metastatic breast cancer as just making you tired, we are doing a disservice to America and are not telling the truthDereks1x 23:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

They also think it may be in her lungs, too.Dereks1x 23:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromise wording

How about this compromise?????It's all factual and very specific for Mrs. Edwards..... At a press conference[46] on March 22 (add 2007), John and his wife, Elizabeth, announced that she has stage IV breast cancer[47] (add with newly discovered metastases to her bone and a suspicious focal abnormality in her lung, conditions which reduce the prognosis keep citation, add more citations), (delete: a condition that has a 20% survival rate past 5 years.[48] They stated that the cancer was "no longer curable, but is completely treatable."[49][50] Furthermore, they also announced that the campaign was continuing full steam, and there would be no suspension of the campaign despite erroneous media speculation to that effect after the press conference was scheduled.[51] Mrs. Edwards further noted a positive outlook on life when she stated that she plans to campaign with her husband. Former Senator Edwards, for his part, stated that he would take an occasional break from campaigning when his wife requires treatment, but said "The campaign goes on, The campaign goes on strongly."Dereks1x 23:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest removing "conditions which reduce the prognosis" from that as well as "noted a positive outlook on life when she". The former remains OR without citation, the latter POV. Otherwise, the changes look good. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No: this is improved, but I can't agree to this and I don't thnk Jersyko meant for it to be posted and tag removed until we reached consensus so I am reverting pending the outcome of this discussion. Neither the press conference transcript, nor either of the two articles that were given as specific citations at this point in the article - the CNN and the USA Today - none of these say "a suspicious focal abnormality to the lung" as this edit implies. In fact the CNN piece does not even mention the word "lung" and the USA Today piece reports that her doctor said "it is possible the cancer had spread to a lung, but additional tests will be needed." All three sources say that the cancer had recurred in bone, specifically a rib. Can we please stick to what was said at the press conference and reported on regarding what the Edwards' and her doctor have announced? In addition to other concerns, we could have a BLP concern here if we go off making assumptions about diagnosis and prognosis. I am glad to see the suggested wording removed the "positive outlook" wording, but would prefer to also reinstate something from the press conference that the Edwards' actually said. That is how this section has been framed: that the Edwards' called a press conference to announce news about Mrs. Edwards' health and how it would affect the campaign and her, and his, participation in it. That's all. What the Edwards' press conference revealed regarding her medical condition and the campaign. When they announce other things, or verifiable reliable sources report other things, we will reflect it. I'm reverting back to the last version, pending consensus. Tvoz | talk 00:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I made the good faith assumption that the sources did support the assertions made. If they do not, I agree with Tvoz; the edits are not any better. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Since my edit was included in Tvoz's revert, how about:

At a press conference on March 22, John and his wife, Elizabeth, announced that she has stage IV breast cancer with newly discovered metastasis to the bone and a possibility that it may have spread to a lung. They stated that the cancer was "no longer curable, but is completely treatable." The Edwards also announced that they planned to continue campaigning together with an occasional break when Elizabeth requires treatment, saying "The campaign goes on, The campaign goes on strongly." This ended erroneous media speculation prior to the press conference that the Edwards would announce a suspension of the campaign.

--Bobblehead 01:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Again assuming the sources support the assertions made, sure. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Bobblehead's wording is fine - and those references do support this text. Thank you. And Bobblehead: sorry for stepping on your edit - my revert and edit summary were referring to Dereks1x's previous one - I didn't see that you had put one in as I was cutting and pasting mine. I agree with your removal of those extraneous citations. Tvoz | talk 02:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Your edit summary was equally applicable to my edit as it was to Dereks1x's. I didn't realize there was a discussion in progress about compromise wording and probably shouldn't have made the edit. Heck, I wouldn't have realized you had reverted my edit if I hadn't had to go back in to fix my horrible grammar. That being said, we should wait a bit and see if Dereks1x wishes to comment on the wording. --Bobblehead 02:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Cancer and death is a very serious matter. It is not a joking matter and nothing to be taken lightly. Therefore, I have requested an expert to comment on the phrase.

The expert could write something to prevent public misconception and complacency about metastatic cancer. For example, the expert could consider either the current compromise language or include some serious language to offset the comments of "completely treatable" and comparison to diabetes. A possibility could be "While the family characterized metastatic breast cancer as 'completely treatable' and made a comparison to diabetes, the public should be cautioned about the seriousness of the development and discuss it with their physician, if they are similarly affected."Dereks1x 17:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your suggested changes are blatant original research (experts can be responsible for OR, of course, see Frist, Bill in re Terry Shiavo) and your professed motivation involves soapboxing. I disagree with the request. · j e r s y k o talk · 17:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The safety of the public is of the paramount concern. The expert can decide the appropriate language. It appears that you are already rejecting expert advice even though none as been presented yet (in these 4 minutes). If even one person dies as a result of sloppy editing or hiding the serious of cancer, then we as wikipedia editors have done a grave injustice to society and have committed harm.

Remember, nobody is saying "Edwards is bad". We're simply saying "we need balanced language because of patient safety.Dereks1x 17:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take this personally. I'm not attacking you, I'm addressing your ideas as expressed on this talk page. You've got this all wrong. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and an encyclopedia only. It is not the proper forum to raise awareness about public health campaigns, as doing so involves original research and soapboxing. What I am rejecting is your attempt to use this article as a soapbox about public health when the article is actually about politician John Edwards. · j e r s y k o talk · 17:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, I understand what you are saying! However, patient safety is more important that hiding information. In the Saddam article, there isn't a reference to Saddam claiming victory after the 1991 Gulf War even though he said it. Similarly, just because the honorable Senator and his family said that metastatic is "completely curable" and compared it to diabetes doesn't mean that we have to report it (like Saddam's claiming victory). I think it is possible to tactfully mention the truth of that kind of condition in the same paragraph without calling the Senator a liar. In doing so, we are helping the public and maintaining patient safety.Dereks1x 17:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see you're willing to discuss this civilly, Dereks1x. And yes, I am being sarcastic. At this point you aren't adding anything to the discussion. If you feel that your issues are not being addressed in a satisfactory manner, you are free to proceed down the dispute resolution process, beginning with a request for comment. --Bobblehead 18:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I'll say once more that the purpose of this encyclopedia article is to serve as a biography of a living person (See WP:BLP), John Edwards. It is not a place to disseminate any information about cancer or any other topic other than about John Edwards. We do not need a "medical expert" to analyze Mrs. Edwards' statement - we are reporting what John and Elizabeth Edwards, and her doctor, have publicly stated. We are not charged with making judgments about it. Perhaps you can forward your suggestion to the Edwards campaign if you are truly concerned, and join the editors on the ncancer pages where such discussion may be valid. It does not belong here. Unless any other editors weigh in with a problem rearding Bobblehead's paragraph above, I am going to add the paragraph this afternoon and remove the OR tag. I appreciate Jersyko's evenhanded handling of this matter by adding the hidden language and expert tag, but I think it is unwarranted and I would also like consensus to remove the language and the medical expert tag. Tvoz | talk 18:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The request for expert tag just got placed. It should remain for 7-10 days, at least, to allow expert comment. After all, this is a potentially life and death issue regarding giving people a false and overly rosy picture of this stage of breast cancer. Removing the current language and replacing it with Bobblehead's draft is reasonable since it's been there (or similar versions) for a few days. Once again, there is more leeway to discuss editorial style. However, life and death issues take such an importance that we should allow an expert to give us advice and not take away the tag too soon. You may disagree with me about editorial style but I hope we are in complete agreement that we should err on the side of patient safety and allow expert advice on wording. Who knows? The expert might say "ok with me to say ...."Dereks1x 20:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No, we are not in agreement at all. This is not an article about breast cancer, it is an article about John Edwards. Read my last comment. Tvoz | talk 08:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt anyone agrees with that, Dereks1x, as you're inviting original research with a soapboxing motivation. Two policy violations. Wikipedians generally don't like those. · j e r s y k o talk · 12:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

An good expert could resolve the problem and not soapbox or do original research. That is what an expert is for. I hope you are not dismissing an expert's advice even before it's given. If so, that may be an indication of lack of impartiality and lack of NPOV. An expert is an expert for a reason, i.e. they do work in the field well. In fact, I already have an idea (not mentioned so far) but I'll won't mention it now while waiting for an expert.Dereks1x 23:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless the expert publishes his/her findings in a reliable source and somehow makes a connection between Edwards and cancer in the publication, it's still unverified original research. Please try to understand that. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The call for expert tag has been replaced. If Jersyko (one who deleted) is interested in reasoning, see Jersko talk page. Above comment by Jersyko appears to show prejudice even before expert makes comment. Jersyko is ASSUMING what an expert will say and is dismissing it or is dismissing anything an expert says (even if expert's edit fully complies with wikipedia standards) outright even before it's written. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dereks1x (talk • contribs).

No, I'm just "assuming" that, you know, an expert needs to say something in a published reliable source before we say anything about it in this Wikipedia article. I haven't the foggiest idea (unlike you, apparently), what such an expert might say. Calling for an expert to conduct an independent assessment because of a tag in a Wikipedia article then trying to include said unpublished opinion in this article is original research, and I can now say with confidence, politically motivated original research. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Blatant political motives

Based on this series of edits by Dereks1x, I think it is now clear that his motives are political and not in the interest of following Wikipedia policy.[7] [8] [9] In sum, Dereks1x is arguing to exclude basically the same information from the Tony Snow article that he's arguing to include in this article. He even asked me to help out at the Tony Snow article because he thought I was arguing effectively here on the same point. I see no substantive reason to take Dereks1x's arguments on Mrs. Edwards' cancer seriously from now on, as there is now evidence that compels us to refrain from assuming good faith in regard to these arguments. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith! The reason for the expert tag is because the Edwardses have released statements that I consider misleading and potentially a danger to the public. These statements included saying that the metastasis was completely treatable and comparing it to diabetes. Cancer is not diabetes. "Completely" treatable is misleading. Imagine if there someone was suing for malpractice and the defense lawyers said, "but Ma'am, cutting off your leg by mistake is COMPLETELY treatable, just buy a wooden leg"? Technically true, but outrageous.

Furthermore, comments should be limited to editing the article, not trying to "prove" political motives by providing links. This kind of attempt encourages fighting and edit waring, which is against wikipedia policy. Assume good faith!

Dereks1x 19:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Call for an expert has been put back because it was previously removed. We need an expert for verification. Patient safety is at stake. The expert may be able to improve the article in a very wikipedic like way.Dereks1x 20:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Message to Medical Expert/Physician

In view of the potential danger to public health and safety, an medical expert is requested to assess Senator Edwards' comment that metastatic stage IV breast cancer is "completely treatable" and his comparison of the condition to diabetes or if a comment in this wikipedia article is warranted. There is grave concern that the Senator's statement might encourage complacency (even in one person) resulting in their death. The expert should consider whether there should be at least a brief mention of the seriousness of metastasis and that such warning is in the best interest of patient safety.

Other wikipedia editors should be assured that the purpose of this message is purely in the interest of public health and patient safety. It should not be construed in anyway as a message of support or lack of support for Senator Edwards.Dereks1x 17:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

See above - this is not the place for public health announcements. Tvoz | talk 18:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems quite extreme. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a PSA board. By saying that this type of cancer is similar to diabetes in the fact that it is "treatable", how are the Edwardses encouraging complacency in any breast cancer patient? Diabetes can in fact be fatal if proper precautions and treatment are not taken. It is often not curable, but rather treatable, in most cases. The similarity is apt in that respect. A breast cancer patient (if she/he chooses to pattern behavior after Ms. Edwards) would be, if anything, more likely to seek treatment if she/he thought the cancer was treatable, rather than non-curable. That is the complete opposite of what you're saying. It's pretty NPOV to be saying that the Edwardses are creating a public health situation here with their public comments on Elizabeth's condition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gloriamarie (talk • contribs) 10:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/24/60minutes/main2605038.shtml The cbsnews.com transcript of the Edwards' interview with Katie Couric is a good place for direct quotes from John and Elizabeth Edwards. The bone cancer is in her rib and her hip; they have chose not to radiate the hip because of potential complications causing hip breakage and there is the suspicious spot on her lung, on which they are still conducting tests. BTW, my husband is a breast surgeon and deals with stage IV breast cancer. He doesn't want to do this article but has told me in the past that in his experience with breast cancer, the staging ALMOST doesn't matter: he's seen women with stage I cancer die quickly and women with stage IV cancer live past five years. However, that was speaking of the initial diagnosis. In his speculation, (just for information here on the edit page and not to be included in the main page OBVIOUSLY, an infection or the lung cancer is going to be the thing that kills Elizabeth Edwards before anything else does. Bone cancer is fairly slow-growing, though painful. Again, none of this is for submission... just for information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.130.43 (talk • contribs).

Reverted to droliver's text. The previous version is potential misleading and definitely spin. The campaign has every reason to downplay the seriousness of metastatic breast cancer, even if it misinforms the public and might make a few people with cancer complacent. I am not accusing the wikipedia editors of spin, just cautioning not to swallow the campaigns spin.Annalissette 01:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

More on cancer

I have seen the call for an expert a few lines above. I am a physician who has treated breast cancer in the past. I have publications about cancer (but not breast cancer) in peer reviewed journals and have made presentations at national and international meetings. I have no stake in this article. It is my intention to offer a medical opinion but not to become involved in a dispute of the wording or to take sides among editors.

I have paid attention not to use language that could be considered original research or soapboxing.

The use of the word "completely treatable" is inaccurate because there are certain treatment options that are no longer possible because of the worsening condition of Mrs. Edwards. Furthermore, there is a possibility of the public thinking that Mrs. Edwards' condition is less serious if there is mention of the condition being "completely" treatable, which the public may think is different from being merely "treatable". It is conceivable that a misunderstanding of disease by an individual could have a, to say the least, negative effect. A comparison of metastatic breast cancer to diabetes is very misleading because the only similarity of the two is that one should have regular follow-up with the doctor. A much high percentage of people do not live more than 5 years who have this stage of breast cancer compared to an extremely high percentage of people who have diabetes.

As further evidence that using the term "completely treatable" is ill-advised, consider what happened at the trial involving the pool which Mr. Edwards represented and won $25M. I very much doubt he would have said "this poor child has a condition that isn't curable, but completely, and I emphasize, completely treatable." "While it will be with her for life, the same thing could be said with diabetes. She has a condition just like diabetes."

The editors may wish to consider two version, which has intentionally used very similar language to the pre-existing wording:

At a press conference[51] on March 22, John and his wife, Elizabeth, announced that she has stage IV breast cancer with newly discovered metastasis to the bones (rib and hip ) and a possibility that it may have spread to a lung.[52][53] They stated that the cancer was "no longer curable, but is completely treatable."[54] Mrs. Edwards' physician, who spoke at the news conference, was not reported to have used the term "completely treatable", but gave more specifics of the different treatments that were posssible and treatments that were no longer possible . The Edwards also announced that they planned to continue campaigning together with an occasional break when Elizabeth requires treatment, saying "The campaign goes on, The campaign goes on strongly." [3][51] This ended erroneous media speculation prior to the press conference that the Edwards would announce a suspension of the campaign.[55]

At a press conference[51] on March 22, John and his wife, Elizabeth, announced that she has stage IV breast cancer with newly discovered metastasis to the bone (rib and hip ) and a possibility that it may have spread to a lung.[52][53] They stated that the cancer was "no longer curable" but "treatable".[54] Their doctor was at the news conference to describe that some treatment options were possible to slow or shrink the cancer. The Edwards also announced that they planned to continue campaigning together with an occasional break when Elizabeth requires treatment, saying "The campaign goes on, The campaign goes on strongly." [3][51] This ended erroneous media speculation prior to the press conference that the Edwards would announce a suspension of the campaign.[55]

I have added some references about the news conference.
I hope this helps.Doc United States 20:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC) I see that the references added don't appear. Here they are: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/26/us/politics/26edwards.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2981102&page=1 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032200155.html They are news references, not articles from research journals, to avoid an original research slant, although textbooks and peer reviewed journals are better sources for learning about diseases.Doc United States 20:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

As confirmed by checkuser, Doc United States is merely a sock puppet of Dereks1x. My advice is to not take medical advice from sock puppets. · j e r s y k o talk · 12:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• As someone who treats breast cancer regularly I too have found the way this has been portrayed in the media as very innacurate for describing the average patient with stage IV breast cancer. Depending upon the biology of her tumor, this is sometimes a process measured in months rather then years of expected life. However, I think delving into the issues of oncologic statistics and outcome measures of breast cancer treatment really has no place in an entry on an individual. This event (in the context of of Mr. Edwards biography sketch) merits a much drier and succint presentation at this point in time Droliver 23:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

We are in agreement that this article is not the place for speculation or what amounts to original research (i.e., comments based not on knowledge of her particular case specifics) regarding Elizabeth Edwards' illness by lay people or by doctors. The only exception would be the Edwardses themselves, as he is the subject of the article (and by extension so is she), so their comments about her illness, and its effect on her and their family, and the expected effect on the campaign, are reasonable to include with appropriate refs as we did - not as medical education, but as relevant subject-specific content. I think the previous edit made it a bit too dry, so I reinstated a little bit of what the Edwardses said, and I think this language is essentially fine as it is now, unless there is a change in the news. Tvoz |talk 05:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, certain general statements can be made about the natural history of metastatic breast cancer that would not necessarily constitute "original research." I agree with some of the editors here that the expression "treatable" can mean vastly different things to different people. Anything in medicine is "treatable" to improve the quality of life. Andrew73 12:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - but that's why the article includes wikilinks to metastatic, stage IV, and breast cancer - where these issues are or should be discussed with the depth that they deserve. This article is only about John Edwards and we have no information about Elizabeth's specific treatment protocol or prognosis. The article reflects what the Edwardses said about the impact of her diagnosis on them and the campaign. Anything more, to my mind, is speculation that doesn't belong here.Tvoz |talk 18:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To supplement Tvoz (I'm not really saying anything new), the article should talk about Elizabeth Edwards' diagnosis and what the Edwardses have to say about her diagnosis. As far as I know, no specific prognosis tailored for her has been published as of this writing. Thus, to go further here, in this article, and discuss general prognoses for people with X kind of cancer is original research if tied to Mrs. Edwards and both original research (implicitly) and irrelevant if not tied to Mrs. Edwards. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point, but this CNN article really demonstrates the futility of this whole conversation. Not only does it say that no specific prognosis has been given for Mrs. Edwards, it says that doctors think it might be impossible to give her one at this point since she didn't walk into the doctor's office with Stage IV cancer but rather had treatment for cancer previously and then came back with Stage IV cancer. Anyway, I hope this puts this whole issue to bed. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this whole concept of OR was taken to the point of lunacy in this case. You should not forget that this site tries to be an encyclopedia or close to it. The aim to be useful and accurate and common sense always trumps arguments based on the letter of policies (which could be changed any minute btw). The current state of the article states that she has Stage IV breast cancer but then the reader won't know anything about this mysterious stage IV, is it on a scale of 100, a scale of 10 or the most fatal most serious cancer there is? It's always useful to quickly explain the terms used like in this case stage IV cancer, else the result will be useless garbage no good to readers. Just delete outright any mention of stage IV if the readers are forbidden to learn anything about what is actually stage IV. Ecostaz 16:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not policy-gaming at all. There are wikilinks provided to articles that go into an in-depth discussion of the illness. The problem with including general information here, as has been explained, is that each case is different, and we would be more likely to be misleading than not, until people familiar with Mrs. Edwards' specific case were to speak about her case. If you do some reading, or have any experience with the disease, you'll find that cancer staging is an average, an attempt to differentiate in broad strokes - it is not something that can be pinpointed to a specific person with accuracy without knowing many more details, and in fact may not even be possible by her own doctors (see the CNN piece that Jersyko quoted above). All that should be said, in this article about John Edwards (not about Elizabeth I point out), is what they have announced about her cancer - and that was not done with her medical details by them. I'm ok with what we have now, but less would be ok too - I agree, however, that more speculation, which is all it would be, should not be added. Not policy over accuracy - in this instance policy supports accuracy. Tvoz |talk 23:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You bring up the wikilinks and that is exactly why this whole argument is WP:LAME. It's about one click. Should the reader learn in a couple of words what is stage IV here, or should he be forced to click through links. If you never explain the words used and the reader will be forced to click through every two seconds it will harm the usefulness and readability of the text. In any case the end result will be the same. Readers will wonder what is stage IV cancer read the same survival stats as before draw the same conclusion as before so you change really nothing. The only meaningful change would be to remove stage IV and the wikilink altogether. Ecostaz 11:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a way that some evil people do to censure information. They put in a wikilink and then justify not mentioning it. For example, in the Hitler article (it hasn't been done for this one but I won't say which article it has been done), you could put a wikilink about the killing of Jews then make an excuse to delete all references to genocide. The explanation would be "there's a link" but they know few will keep clicking all of those links. It's a sneaky way for spin. I'm not saying to have all the cancer statistics here, though. It's just an observation of how people deceive. My main point is that wikipedia should swallow anyone's campaign spin without critical analysis of what to include.Annalissette 01:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suspect this user is another sock puppet of User:Dereks1x. I offered the user a chance to confirm or deny, but I will continue with another SSP case if need be. Substantively, the edit the user made destroys the coherence of the paragraph, as it removes the statement that Edwards is continuing his campaign. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect you are right about this user being a sockpuppet. Even if that's not the case, the version this user has tried to revert to just doesn't make sense. Maximusveritas 02:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is "yawn". (And I see exactly why you're saying it J.)Tvoz |talk 04:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

some of you are edit warring. Instead of suggesting revisions, you just keep reverting to the campaign's spin and seemingly purposely ignore the expert's recommendation. As far as derek1x, I am not his sockpuppet. Besides, logical edits is the important thing, not accusations and possible attempts to wrongly smear other editorsAnnalissette 04:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing POV about that paragraph, and it doesn't need any revision, so stop it. Tvoz |talk 04:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

it's ok to disagree and discuss. however, it is wrong to censor and take off the POV tag. The current text is POV because it is just essentially an Edwards campaign press release and spin. Wikipedia is NPOV, not a division of the Edwards campaign. Why do you ignore the expert's advice?Annalissette 05:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

anti-Catholic bloggers

I think this section is being given too much weight in the article - it is hardly equivalent to his universal health care proposal or ELizabeth Edwards' health, yet it's up there as an equal item regarding the 2008 campaign. Maybe it was added in a fit of recentism, but I think that the story did not last the test of time and I propose removing it or boiling it down to at most a sentence. Tvoz |talk 20:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? I'm inclined to remove the section. Tvoz |talk 17:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought I recalled a talk conversation about this subject, but I must have been dreaming because I don't see it here or in the archives. At least, I don't see the type of conversation that I thought I remembered taking part in. Agreed that the section is the result of recentism. The whole thing really was quite short-lived; no one's talking about it now, just a few weeks after it happened. I'm not opposed to a very short summary in the 2008 section, but an entire subsection is overkill. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There was this one between myself and Italiavivi, but it was only in regards to the Coulter incident being smaller than the blogger incident. A sentence or two regarding the complaints and resignation in the 2008 section would be appropriate. --Bobblehead 18:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is now more balanced.Tvoz |talk 19:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Haircuts

nothing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.62.95.59 (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Right, nothing. Not even worth a discussion, in my opinion. Tvoz |talk 05:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Adherence to recentism would support inclusion. Not much else. · j e r s y k o talk · 12:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That "Recentism" link is an opinion essay, not a Wikipedia guideline or policy. I would also suggest that the essay you link directly contradicts official guideline WP:NOTABILITY, which states that notability is generally permanent. If the haircut incident has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject, it is notable no matter what an opinion essay says. Italiavivi 22:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My link to the recentism essay was meant to demonstrate how wrong it would be to include the information. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that it would not be wrong if the haircut controversy can be established as notable per WP:NOTABILITY, regardless of what's written at the "Recentism" essay. I was told for months that Barack Obama's smoking cessation "wasn't notable" or "just recentism," despite it passing every possible test. I am trying to be as consistent as possible in applying notability guidelines, is all. Italiavivi 23:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, I obviously misinterpreted. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it deserves a mention at this point. Edwards was asked about it at the debate and has also started joking about it in speeches. While it may have been a good idea to hold off on including it at first, I think it's reached the point where it deserves inclusion. Maximusveritas 02:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't hear of the haircut until my civics teacher mentioned it. Apparently, the issue is that Edwards used donated campaign money to pay for the haircut, instead of paying out of his own pocket (like Clinton did with the infamous $200 haircut). Since the story broke, it was mentioned in some major news sources. [10] Brian Williams also asked Edwards about the haircut during the first 2008 Democrat champaign debate on MSNBC. [11] It's also been the subjects of some political cartoons [12] and talk shows. [13] However, I believe it'll be safer to hold off mentioning the haircut until it's mentioned again in major news sources. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 04:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's news. Keep your opinion out. Its has been mentioned both in the Democratic and Republican debates. Lets be objective now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.158.103.10 (talk • contribs).

I would like to officially seek input on a way to include the haircut controversies in this article. Four months have passed since I last suggested inclusion, and this is still popping up as an issue for Sen. Edwards. I know this will be unpopular with some (just as my mentioning Sen. Obama's cigarette smoking was), but it meets inclusion guidelines. Italiavivi 22:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's covered, along with the cost of his house and other such things, here - the section on the presidential campaign is short in the main article and the forked-off article focuses on the details of the campaign, controversies, etc. Tvoz |talk 22:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Fortress investments

Maybe more information regarding his specific involvement with Fortress Investment Group (FIG). Give equal weight to this as his other endeavors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newboundry (talk • contribs) 13:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, I think the conflict between Edwards' campaign for eliminating poverty and his personal lifestyle choices has become a major story (if not the story) of his campaign. This topic should be touched upon in the article. Maximusveritas 01:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This page seems to ignore his criticisms like the Fortress situation and the haircuts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casdawg87 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Universal Health Care section

John Edwards' Health Care section reads like an ad. That's his promise, not his biography. If the information is there it should be moved to a separate article for campaign promises. See this interesting thing I saw about Wikipedia not being an ad agency. [[14]]Pipermantolisopa 03:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think too much was removed - I reinstated the introduction, which gives an outline of the program. The details don't belong here, I agree, but it is common practice to have outlines of political positions in the main article, with details in the "political positions" article. Tvoz |talk 04:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

To the anon editor who keeps putting that bulleted list back in the section - please see this on one of your IP talk pages, and please tell us explicitly what is bothering you about the section. I've incorporated the rest of what was in the bullets into that intro paragraph (altho I don't think it was really necessary) which is a short summary of what the plan is - and the Edwards quote is not vague, it is just his summarizing statement about the shared responibility that is outlined above it - and imediately after that I put the pointer to the other article, saying "further information" can be found at xyz. I do not think this is vague at all - especially after this last edit - and as you can see another editor originally wanted the whole section removed, but has accepted the compromise of a shorter summary here and longer details in the other article. But you just keep reverting back to your longer original, and that's not moving us along. So please, let's discuss it here. Tvoz |talk 08:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

i apologize. i saw someone place an out of context quote on "national service" and decontextualize the health care quote. this combination of edits looked like it was trying to push a POV. i realize the quote about national service was from another anonymous user between your edits. so i'm sorry i grouped your edits in with that revert. that was sloppy and irresponsible of me.

that said, the "burden" quote on this page is often offered as evidence that "john edwards has promised to raise taxes on everyone", which is not his actual position. hence why it's important to explain specifically where he has stated the tax burden will fall. if explaining that gets too wordy, i'd prefer to keep the quote to the more developed "health care" section, where it is clarified. 65.95.142.152 17:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

JUst saw this - ok, understood about the national service quote (which is out) mixup. Will look at the section again with this point in mind. Tvoz |talk 04:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Haircut

Why is there nothing mentioned about his $400 haircut scandal? It is constantly removed from the site, which challenges the neutrality of the article. Whether it is an important political determinant, in regards to pciking a president, it made news and should be part of his site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.146.203.159 (talk • contribs).

It is already mentioned in the 2008 Presidential Campaign section. I do think that section will need to be reorganized eventually into subsections since it is getting cluttered and hard to read. Maximusveritas 19:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The $800‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  Haircut

The $800 haircut needs to be part of the profile. If not, the objectivity of this article is questioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.104.170 (talk • contribs)

See above. It's already mentioned. --OnoremDil 17:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

uh, $800? Tvoz |talk 06:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The really expensive haircut is fact. However, it's more of a campaign news issue rather than a biography. You don't see how much Thomas Jefferson's haircut costs in his biography even though I suspect it was quite a bit. So it's inclusion in the campaign article is possibly ok but very gossipy to be in a biographical article.

photos

I was originally going to write, not about the hair, but how having 2 photos of John Edwards is distracting. One is obviously of him in his younger years as a Senator and one looks more recent. We should consider having only one of them so people don't get distracted. This is a very minor pointPipermantolisopa 04:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought - I don't see that this is a problem - one is clearly marked as his official Senate portrait which would be several years ago, and one is his current phonto. Lok t some of the other politicians' articles - it's pretty common practive. I'd leave them alone. Tvoz |talk 06:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversies Section?

I would have sworn that when I looked at this article a few months ago, there was a controversies section which included the information about his suits as a trial lawyer and how the claims he used to justify the huge settlements in at least one of the cases were completely unscientific; some scientists had spoken out against what he told the jury. Combined with the house and haircut, and now this UC Davis information (last year charging a public university $55,000 to speak about poverty), it seems there should be a Controversies section as there are with other presidential candidates. Was this information (about the legal claims) removed from the article at some point? In other candidate articles, this information is included in the biography, not just the Presidential Campaign article.--Gloriamarie 17:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been editing this article for quite a while - well more than a few months - and the only "controversy" sections I recall were one recently about the "anti-catholic bloggers controversy" which was felt to have been given inappropriate weight by having it as a separate section and was incorporated into the 2008 campaign section in this biography article and some time ago there was a "2004 campaign controversies" section (I may have the names wrong about the sections, by the way, it's from memory) - that included his debate comment to Cheney about how well Cheney's family handlled the fact that their daughter is gay and his campaign speech about stem cell research which would one day allow people like Christopher Reeves to walk again. The Cheney thing was a flash in the pan and hardly a controversy and the stem cell comment was meant metaphorically, if I recall, not literally about Reeves, and the efforts of a couple of commentators (was it Krauthammer and Drudge? not sure) to make it into a controversy was noted here for a while - the section had a notability tag and eventually it was decided that neither of those two items rose to the level of a controversy section. I do not recall there being a controversy section with anything about him as a trial lawyer, so I can't say - but if it was in, it was well more than a few months ago.

I don't object to there being a controversy section, if there are notable controversies to include. I very much object to the arbitrary creation of a controversy section just so that there is one here - I'm not making a judgment now on whether I think all the things you cite, Gloriamarie, are valid to include, as I'd need to read them, but I am cautioning against building something into a controversy that may not really be one in the long haul, and giving it too much prominence. Hillary Clinton's hairstyles comes to mind - and a number of other things that were in her article at one time that to my mind were nonsense and there to ridicule or disparage her, not because they were valid controversies of which Hillary has her share.

Articles about politicians, especially during a campaign, seem to alternate between being overly positive paeans to the candidate with anything controversial twisted around to sound like a positive trait, like Ron Paul sometimes is or beefed-up allegations that opponents (on and off wikipedia) try to twist into some kind of Major Controversy in order to get some more negativitiy into an article like Barack Obama's mother's ancestors owning slaves would be an example -- all in the name of "balance". I think we have to be careful of both extremes - sometimes not very important, but somewhat controversial items work better when incorporated into the text, sometimes they rise to the level of needing a separate section, sometimes they require a separate article. But I don't think we necessarily need a Controversies section in every one.

However.... I'm not saying we necessarily don't need one here, and I'm not directing this at Gloriamarie who is asking a legitimate question. My opinion is that the haircut, house and speaker's fee are not controversies on that level of importance - no one is denying that Edwards is wealthy, as are almost all of the candidates - to me these matters are being trumped up as controversies (not saying you are doing this) by opponents for political reasons, not because they are truly viewed as controversies. Tvoz |talk 18:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to recycle my standard response. A section purely for "controversies" is unnecessary as in most cases the "controversy" can be worked into the existing prose. IMHO, controversy sections are little more than glorified trivia sections that become dumping grounds for everything trivial that is brought up by the article topic's opponents. As an example, the faulty science or lack of science is already mentioned in the legal career section of the article. The issues with his haircuts and getting paid for public speaking could be included in the section or the sub-article for that section for which they are most appropriate. The haircut probably falls under the 2008 campaign section/article and the paid for public speaking probably falls under the Post-Senate section. Not that I'm saying either one belongs in this article, just that, if they are notable enough, there are ways to work them into the existing article or sub-articles without the need for creating a "controversies" section.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Points well taken. I'm not a big fan of the "controversies" section either, but it doesn't seem equitable to not mention controversies at all as a result. I don't think the house and haircut are a big deal at all, but they should probably be mentioned because people have made a big deal out of them, but the UC Davis poverty speech given for $55,000 seems like it's going to be a field day for those who thought the house and haircut were a big deal. I added information from a NY Times article from 2004 about his trials. I noticed that some of this information was included in the article before, with a citation tag, and user Jgwlaw removed it in July 2006 with the edit description "Remove unsubstantiated slam".--Gloriamarie 19:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I reworked the legal career section - kept some criticism, but removed some of the longer passages about caesarian sections and whether or not they are needed and the causes of brain damage - this is really not the place for that and to be fair to that topic we'd need to say a lot more than what the NYT article said. The relevant point in this biographical piece, it seems to me, is that questions have been raised about the validity of his argument, but that his lawyering style won him cases despite what some consider to be controversial medical claims. Of course that's what lawyers do - that is their job - they advocate on their client's behalf, even though sometimes their claims are erroneous and sometimes their clients are guilty (in criminal cases, not here) - and I don't think we can have a long discussion of that issue here. So I tried to keep in some of the critical aspects, but focus more on Edwards and what he did and said than on the larger argument. Also rearranged the section to be more logical. ANd I fixed a bunch of references that were not working - have to have a title if you use the cite web format, for example, and I think the ref name has to be in quotes, but not 100% sure if that's necessary. Tvoz |talk 08:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It looks pretty good.--Gloriamarie 17:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the section about his criticism by the WSJ on his Medicare tax loophole as well as Bill O'Reilly's criticism on how he failed to handle the Christian bloggers.Arnabdas 21:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that Bill O'Reiley's commentary on anything is worth including in an encyclopedia (I exaggerate . . . a little), but I don't have any further comment until I take a longer look at the additions. · jersyko talk 22:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont necessarily care if there is a convtroversy section or not, but criticisms should be there. Where is the mention of the anti-Christian blogging? It was there before. Maybe some pro-Edwards vandals are trying to hide his unpopular and controversial (in)actions?Arnabdas 21:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

House

The Edwards' house was listed as being in the Chapel Hill/Raleigh/Durham metro area. This isn't quite accurate. The Edwards house is actually in a rural bit of area that is technically in Chapel Hill but is in the part of Chapel Hill that is separated from the actual town of Chapel Hill by Carrboro. It's an odd bit of layout. While technically Chapel Hill, it would give people a misleading impression to say that they lived in Chapel Hill because they're closest to Carrboro. Not sure if this makes any sense to anyone who hasn't been there, but I wanted to mention it on the talk page so someone didn't change it back to Raleigh-Durham. I'll find a source as well.--Gloriamarie 19:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the extra location detail - I don't think we need such specifics about where they live: it doesn't mean anything to most people in such detail and theoretically could be a question of privacy. Seems to me the county is enough information - am I missing something of some significance here? Tvoz |talk 04:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that's fine. I just thought the previous location saying Raleigh/Durham was a bit misleading. It's OK just to say Orange County.--Gloriamarie 17:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

birthname

I posted this on an editor's page regarding repeatedly changing "Johnny" to "John" in the intro. My understanding is that his birth name is "Johnny Reid Edwards" and he uses "John Reid Edwards" or just "John Edwards" now. I believe the way it is rendered in the article is therefore correct and consistent with Wikipedia BLP style - the first sentence includes the birthname in bold, other places use the common name. I don;t know why the editor keeps changing it, as he or she has not left edit summaries or notes here to my recollection, so I hope my note will put an end to the changing (which could be construed as vandalism) or maybe will yield some kind of explanation. If anyone has any other info - please share.It's not a big deal, but it's an annoyance, and it makes work for other editors for no reason. Tvoz |talk 21:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Reid Edwards is his birth name, but I remember reading somewhere that he legally changed his name to John Reid Edwards shortly after her graduated from college. Granted, I haven't looked for the cite to support that claim, just going off memory, so I could be wrong. If what I said is true, the question is, should the article lead off with his birth name or legal name? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Could be done either way, from what I've seen, but in "normal" situations I think the way we have it is most common - Jimmy Carter being a good example. I don't much care - just would like to settle on something that stays stable. Tvoz |talk 22:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Reinstated the name the way it has been rendered - if anyone finds out anything sourced about legal name we should decide how to handle. Meanwhile, I do note that his official signature leaves off the "Reid" so I wonder if the infobox header ought to match the article title and the way he renders his own name? Tvoz |talk 17:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd go with John Edwards in the infobox. I'll see if I can find a source for the name change.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, about the infobox header Tvoz |talk 04:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at wp:mosbio about how the lede of this article should present his name. The discussion is here.Ferrylodge 04:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Health care

I like Edwards more than anyone except maybe Richardson. I'm not trying to smear him. I've re-edited the health care part to show that his plan is a true universal plan while Obama's is not. Hillary Clinton hasn't released any details yet. There is a difference in health care plans.

In terms of a biography, I orginally thought there should be no mention of health care, except to say that it is a major issue of the campaign. Then someone edited a huge text which I thought almost was an ad. Yet another editor trimmed it. If there is going to be a short description, I think a description of the scope of the plan (which is best measured in costs as no details such as deductible is available. Nobody is saying Obama's plan is streamline and Edwards' plan has administrative waste. Both are probably the same in administrative costs, just that Edwards' covers more of us and Obama is a mini-plan.

If we are to have a description, I think the scope of the plan (i.e. costs) is one of the key points. (Although it won't be mentioned in the article, if Edwards' plan is passed, I may be covered by it but if Obama's plan is covered, I will pay for it as a taxpayer and get nothing in return)Pipermantolisopa 01:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I respect your opinion. But in order to keep this article neutral, I suggest we avoid the slippery slope of comparison shopping. The actual campaign and primary pages will likely get swamped with comparisons. Let's keep this page clean. 67.70.13.72 02:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope this is not degenerating like the Ron Paul article. Do we need to lock this article so that more seasoned editors can edit?Pipermantolisopa 03:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not because of the edits made by 67.70.13.72, if that's what you're suggesting - they were sound. And your own OR and opinion on the relevant merits of the 2 plans, as described above, is really outside the scope of our article. This is not the place for a comparison between Obama's health care plan and Edwards', especially not only on a few selected points. I also object to the CNN piece as a source for this article, because it is a piece almost completely about Obama's plan and not the best source for what Edwards' plan is about. I believe the sense of the editors is that we need to talk a little bit here about Edwards' universal health care plan because it is one of his main campaign issues, but the more detailed material should be in the "political positions" separate article, as the pointer says. Tvoz |talk 03:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Accordingly, I replaced the CNN ref with one from USA Today which was less slanted toward any one candidate but gave the same information about Edwards, and I reinstated some material that had been removed and by doing so lost some of the logical sense (e.g., in what way it is "universal". And did a general edit of the section for clarity, flow, and sense. It's pretty lean, but I think adequately summarizes the plan, leaving details for the other article. Tvoz |talk 05:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, the USA Today article is not slanted toward one candidate as the CNN piece is, and the exact same points are verified by the USA Today piece. The CNN piece is a good piece for Obama's article, not for this one. Tvoz |talk 06:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't change the correct format of references that I had when you make your edits. And since I had commented on the CNN reference here more than once, I think you should discuss it before reinstating it again and again. Tvoz |talk 06:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I read both. I think the CNN article is better than the USA Today but let's keep both. The USA Today article is unfair to Edwards and slams him by saying "Edwards has not offered as much detail...". Edwards was number one and for months, nobody else presented a plan. USA Today has a subtle anti-Edwards message while CNN has a fair message even though it's only in the last third. Instead of fighting, why not keep both even though the CNN one is better.Pipermantolisopa 06:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Slamming" Edwards or supporting Edwards is completely irrelevant, and I don't agree with your characterization anyway. The CNN article is about Obama's plan - around 12 paragraphs out of the 14 or 15 in the article are specifically about the Obama plan. The only thing it says about the Edwards plan is two short paragraphs and a short quote - and that material is completely covered in the USA Today piece plus the USA Today article has a good deal more about the Edwards plan beyond that. Adding the CNN article is approaching POV pushing, as evidenced by your comment directly above. In fact the USA Today piece is neutral and more comprehensive, and the CNN adds nothing. Since I raised this issue earlier tonight, before you re-added your CNN reference, I think the proper thing would have been for you to discuss it here first, rather than reverting with edit summaries like "Let's not fight". PLease stop pushing your POV here. Tvoz |talk 07:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

References are not picked because the whole of the reference fits the wikipedia sentence. That's what you are saying when you say "around 12 parargraphs out of 14 or 15 in the article....about Obama".Pipermantolisopa 12:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at the 1st reference. The reference is a New York Times reference about Edwards' swift ascent into politics. There is only 1 sentence about Edwards' name. By Tvoz' logic, this New York Times reference is no good. No! It is a good reference, one of the best you can get.Pipermantolisopa 12:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, as a matter of article relevance, the comparison to Obama's health plan is out of place in this article. · jersyko talk 12:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding CNN article is not approaching POV pushing. The proof of POV is the content of an article and its references. Here's an example: By nature, all politicians are POV. What they say can be neutral and not POV (for example, if Bush said orange juice is good and cited neutral references, even he said it on an orange farm in Florida). Back to the references, we have little to no disagreement on the text of the wikipedia article (that section). We have little or no disagreement that CNN is good as a news organization. We have complete agreement that the CNN reference is good, as far as the last few paragraphs. We make no mention of Obama in the article. There!

As far as Jersyko's statement, I've already said "ok", there is no comparison with Obama in the wikipedia article. Jersyko should refer to the logic to reference #1's inclusion. Will you stop arguing and let me work on the Ron Paul article instead of keeping on eye on this?Pipermantolisopa 12:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You're free to edit what you wish. No one is preventing you from making constructive edits to another article, nor is anyone forcing you to continue discussion at this talk page. Thus, your comment is puzzling. · jersyko talk 12:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing puzzling. Tvoz and I had a little spat a few hours ago but not really a fight. Usually, Tvoz and I have been working together on both articles, Edwards and Paul. I usually agree with Tvoz. Tvoz first told me about how bad the Ron Paul article so I then starting looking and writing therePipermantolisopa 13:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not working with you on any article - Ron Paul is just another article I sometimes edit. Tvoz |talk 15:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

To summarize: the CNN reference is all about Obama's health care plan, and it includes a minor mention of Edwards' plan as comparison. Several editors have agreed that our John Edwards bio article should not include comparisons to Obama's or anyone's plan, as we are simply making a short statement about Edwards' plan here. The USA Today reference is a solid, fair article that talks about the health care plans of several candidates including Edwards. It completely verifies the points made and encompasses and goes beyond the CNN piece. It is a better source for this article; despite the claims above, it is a neutral source, and more than sufficient for our purposes. Adding the CNN source is inappropriate because it appears to be a back-door way to get in an article about Obama's plan. At least four editors have expressed opinions or edited the page in a way that supports this position; only one has insisted on including the CNN reference, with no valid reason given. Unfortunately, i see that editor has once again reinstated this reference, despite it having been removed by more than one editor, and despite the discussion here. Can we now move on please? Tvoz |talk 02:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody else has addressed some key issues:

1. The USA Today article is unfair to Edwards and slams him by saying "Edwards has not offered as much detail...". Edwards was number one and for months, nobody else presented a plan. USA Today has a subtle anti-Edwards message while CNN has a fair message even though it's only in the last third. The USA Today article doesn't slam the other candidates. That's why the USA Today reference is good only as a secondary reference to back up the CNN reference.

2. CNN article is about Obama's plan - around 12 paragraphs out of the 14 or 15 in the article are specifically about the Obama plan. The only thing it says about the Edwards plan is two short paragraphs and a short quote ....writes Tvoz. It appears that Tvoz is saying that if an article is primarily about something else, you cannot use the last few relevant paragraphs as a reference. I disagree.

3. Ideas are the most important thing, not votes. The John Edwards article is capable of attracting some anti-Edwards people who have to benefit if there are anti-Edwards references and neutral ones are eliminated. Pipermantolisopa 03:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

First, you haven't demonstrated why this reference is useful in this article. You want to include it even though the sentence it is attached to is already completely sourced to a different source (which, might I add, is actually about Edwards). Second, we don't choose our sources based on whether they support or oppose a candidate, we choose them based on their reliability and relevance. Thus, your complaint that it is somehow mean to Edwards isn't relevant. Finally, frankly, I'm baffled as to why anyone would decide to write paragraphs about this on a talk page in an attempt to justify including it. Any attempt on your part to answer that question would only further ingrain it in my mind. · jersyko talk 03:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Editors interested in this subject might like Amanda Marcotte

She's some sort of blogger connected with his official campaign. But the article is a hatchet job (see WP:Coatrack) and would benefit from some balance (or probably a blowtorch).--Doc^g 20:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kerryedwards.JPG

Image:Kerryedwards.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a Pie Chart Showing the Number of Delegates that Clinton, Obama and Edwards Based on Polling Data and DNC's 15% Threshold Rule

I've added a Pie Chart Showing the Number of Delegates that Clinton, Obama and Edwards Based on Polling Data and DNC's 15% Threshold Rule

Pie Chart Showing the Number of Delegates that Clinton, Obama and Edwards would earn Based on Polling Data in all States (states without polling data are counted as "Undecided") if the Democratic National Convention were held today in accordance with the DNC's 15% Threshold Rule (click to enlarge).

--Robapalooza 21:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of edits

I was going to write an edit summary for this, but it was getting way too long. So anyways, here's an explanation of my recent edits and why I did it:

• 2008 presidential election section is against MOS. John Edwards presidential campaign, 2008 is the main article and it should cover all of the details related to his campaign. The 2008 Presidential election section in this article should only cover the "high" points of the campaign. It should definitely not have more content than the main article, which was the case prior to my copy and paste moves.
• Controversy sections are evil and the controversy section in this article only proved it. There is no reason why criticisms/controversies can not be worked into the text of the main article and that's what I did. The criticisms either ended up in this article or in the 2008 campaign article. The criticism section also is by definition, only the criticism part which violates NPOV. A perfect example of this is O'Reilly's complaint about the bumper-sticker reference. There was no attempt to be NPOV, just that O'Reilly referred to Edwards as being a phony due to the comment. I'm not even sure O'Reilly's criticism of the comment is notable enough to be in the article. I'm going to rework the bumper sticker back into the campaign article as it did get a fair amount of response, so while it is missing now, it'll be in the appropriate article shortly.

All in all, the majority of the changes were moving content to the proper article/section. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Good job, B'head. I'll probably have a nitpick or two, but this job really needed doing. Thanks. Tvoz |talk 00:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Nitpick away. Heck, hack and slash away. I would have done some trimming on the universal health care section per WP:SS, but given the discussion higher up on this page, I left it for now. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to put the bumper sticker reference in shortly then that is fine. It is important because it just shows his mindset, good or bad, of what he thinks of the War on Terror. People can form their own opinions afterwards. However, I think O'Reilly's point about the bloggers should be involved because the point is O'Reilly alleges that Edwards only brought it out in the forefront when he was found out and exposed. The argument wasn't about his record, it is about his reaction time and response only when he was being found out. O'Reilly argues that Edwards doesnt want to hurt his left wing base and that is why he didnt get rid of them trying to just not bring attention to it...that people shouldn't vote for him because (according to O'Reilly) if Edwards can't stand up to the far left then how will he ever stand up to al Qaeda? Arnabdas 19:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

O'Reilly's non-subtle attempt to equate the political left in the U.S. with al Qaeda doesn't belong in this article. I don't understand the argument is to include it. On a completely unrelated note, hasn't it been a conservative strategy, not a liberal one, to unwaveringly do what the base wants over the last decade or so (e.g. Rove)? Quasi-rhetorical question. · jersyko talk 19:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Since your question was "quasi" rhetorical, my "quasi" answer is that you or any of us are free to edit pages to include this about those candidates on the Republican side that only pander to the far right. I believe both are relevent and people should note how politicians deal with the fanatics in their party, regardless of what party that may be. O'Reilly's point is the pandering that Edwards seems to be doing. He has gone from being moderate to very liberal with some potentially irresponsible and unsubstantiated statements and that is being pointed out. If you want to go and point out all the conservative politicians who voted for pre-emptive action in Iraq yet criticized Clinton's pre-emptive action against Serbia then I would support you there too. Arnabdas 21:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It was quasi-rhetorical because I didn't want to get into a political debate on a talk page. I should have left it out, actually, sorry. My main point is that I don't understand why we should be including Bill O'Reilly's criticism in this article. I understand his point. I just don't understand why it's worth including. · jersyko talk 21:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

We should include it because it offers a manner of motive. Politicians of both sides should be held accountable for statements. Wiki's role is to provide correct and transparent information so that people understand motivations of the person as well as criticisms of their ideas, stances and actions, and even counter-arguements against those criticisms. As I said before in my last post regarding this topic, it has nothing to do with politics themselves, but rather a clear understanding of the person's actions and citing them...say the same thing about the Republican politicians who voted for pre-emption in Iraq but voted against it in Kosovo.Arnabdas 19:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with those edits, but I'm not sure why you didn't move the rest of the 2008 Presidential section over. All that needs to be left there is the sentence about his announcement and perhaps a sentence about the polling. The rest could easilly go in the other article. Maximusveritas 05:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Main reason I left the other bits is because the intent of a summary section is to wet a reader's appetite to want to read the other article, yet give them enough information that they don't have to read the article. However, if you feel further trimming is necessary, go crazy.;)--Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Mary Cheney Lesbian Mention

Wasn't John Kerry the one who mentioned Mary Cheney as a lesbian and tried to use it to a political advantage? I don't think Edwards was involved with that.Arnabdas 19:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Edwards brought it up in his debate with Cheney. Kerry did it first in one of his debates with Bush, but Edwards did the same later. I recall Cheney simply saying "thanks for your kind words" and not wanting to comment further on point (properly so, imo). · jersyko talk 20:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Edwards is not crazy

Original version made Edwards look like he was hearing voices, a sign of mental illness. This is not true (he is not crazy)! Fixed this.Spevw 00:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope that is a joke. Please read Wikipedia's original research policy as well as the neutral point of view policy. "This was a sign of courtroom melodrama" is not neutral; the entire idea of referencing a website about schizophrenia in this article to prove that Edwards isn't schizophrenic is the essence of original research. Please do not add these edits again, as they are toeing the line of vandalism, frankly. · jersyko talk 00:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but I originally thought someone was trying to make Edwards look bad by hinting that he was hearing voices.Spevw 01:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Edwards did not win money for clients

Clients are awarded damages or reach settlements. They do not "win $-- million". Fixed this. Spevw 00:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Attorneys win cases, clients are awarded settlements. Like it or not, that's common parlance. attorney --> · jersyko talk 00:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Cesarian-sections are not unnecessaray

Even Edwards said so. What he did admit was that if it saves a few babies from birth injuries then more cesearean sections are ok. I agree. Spevw 00:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. He's not saying C-sections are unnecessary as a whole, only that sometimes they are performed when they shouldn't be, making them "unnecessary" in specific circumstances. I believe you have misread the source. · jersyko talk 00:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought that someone was trying to make Edwards look bad by hinting that he caused unnecessary ceserian sections. Since you brought up the original research topic, it's original research to determine that they are unnecessary. Did anyone present expert evidence (of someone who reviewed all the records) as well as presented expert rebuttal evidence? So I made a minor word change.Spevw 01:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You're not understanding the concept of original research. The source reports something, so we report it in the article. Sources are allowed to conduct original research, we (wikipedia) aren't. · jersyko talk 02:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the facts - Jersyko is reading the source correctly. No one is trying to make anyone look bad, and Edwards didn't "cause" any caesarians in any case. Tvoz |talk 02:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that it would be worthwhile to point out that a significant number of medical and legal experts feel that Edwards manipulated the jury into awarding money to the plaintiff. There is a great deal of debate in the medical field about the cause of cerebral palsy, and the article is written without any mention of that. 29 August 2007

Robert Shrum Gay Rights Quote

I added a quote attributed to John Edwards by Robert Shrum in his book "No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner". A fellow editor undid this addition claiming that it was "unverifiable" and not a "political view". As for the former, I will cite a quote attributed to Trent Lott by John Coburn in his book "Breach of Trust". That quote is as "verifiable" as what I added here yet no one has undone it. Thus, I am reverting the edit and adding the sub-section Gay Rights to qualify it as a political view.Light Bulb 05:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This seems reasonable if it's verifiable. A NPOV requires all sides be presented. Rtphokie 02:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no comment at present on the specific Shrum quote. I did want to note, however, that the above comment presents a fundamental misunderstanding of the NPOV policy. NPOV does not require that all sides be presented. NPOV requires that only significant views that have been published by reliable sources be presented fairly and without bias. That said, again, I have no comment right now on the Shrum quote. · jersyko talk 02:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Edwards Home

Why don't we all list the costs of Barack Obama's home, or Hillary Clinton's homes? How about all of the Republican candidate's homes? It is entirely irrelevent.

Information about the home the Edwards family built was removed with a note stating that it wasn't particularly notable. Given the controversy this trial lawyer has generated about wealth he has generated from high profile personal injury cases, such an ostentatious home seems pretty notable to me. Rtphokie 01:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You believe it's notable because it's "ostentatious". That may be your characterization, however we will adhere to WP:NPOV. It's certainly not notable because you think it's more house than he should have, and absent such POV characterization it has no place in the article at all. /Blaxthos 01:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's notable because it's the largest home in the county and because It's been the subject of criticism. Rtphokie 02:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If you believe that being the "largest home in the county" conferrs notability (not sure where you're drawing that from), then that is about the home, not about Edwards. Write an article about the home, if you think it will withstand WP:N guidelines. However, you've got a large burden to overcome (with reference to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP) before it has a place in Edwards' biography, which hasn't come close to being overcome. /Blaxthos 17:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, it should be noted but very carefully as to be in NPOV. He is the one talking about "two Americas" and the growing divide between the rich and poor. Building a house like this only adds to it. In fact, his neighbors, whom have far lower incomes, do not like him or the way they have been treated.Arnabdas 16:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh. A short blurb on his home is a worthwhile contribution to the article, but much more than that will violate undue weight. Being wealthy and living in a large home describes nearly every viable presidential candidate in last 50 years. Dman727 17:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether his neighbors "like him" is rather irrelevant to an encyclopedia article about him. The size and cost of the house are amply covered in the article. Tvoz |talk 17:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Not so sure about that. After all, he is the one talking about the "two Americas" and the growing divide. He himself didnt address the tax loophole he used to dodge Medicaid/Medicare taxes. I agree with you that normally it wouldn't be, but given the nature of his campaign stances it really should be. It would be the same thing for a very religious, family value promoting Republican who does something that isn't so. Politicians actions should be noted if they are contrary to what they preach.Arnabdas 14:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, please see our original research policy,, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not going to become a forum for criticising a candidate you believe is being hypocritical. As an irrelevant side note, I don't think his discussion of the "two Americas" is with the message that "rich people shouldn't be rich" -- I believe he's advocating that there is a more equitable collection and disbursement of taxes. Either way, this isn't an appropriate focus of a Wikipedia article. /Blaxthos 15:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, you talked about Original Research yet gave your own opinion just now by saying "I believe..." and, again, I wasn't trying to say it should be worded critically, but it definitely is worth mentioning since it is his own platform. There's the whole "Do as I say, not as I do" attitude that can and should be challenged by other politicians and political commentators. The point is that he is advocating some type of reform of what he calls a divide yet others are aptly criticizing him by pointing out that some type of divide will always exist in capitalistic society and how many people are becoming successful entrepreneurs. It's a flaw in policy according to some and thus should be notable.Arnabdas 16:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no irony -- I clearly stated "As an irrelevant side note", which was included simply to try and help you grasp the Senator's point. Regarding the rest of your tirade, I remind you that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. /Blaxthos 19:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, pointing out your own bias doesn't mean I am on any soapbox. You trying to tell me that my so called tirade (I guess it is a "tirade" because I pointed out your mistake?) this isnt a soapbox pales in comparison to wiki not being a political promotion of any politician. Not pointing out relevant information to the point is dishonest and not up to journalistic standards and only gives readers a slanted an biased POV. Arnabdas 18:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see the mistake -- see my previous comment regarding irrelevant side note. I'm not sure what school of journalism has standards that include your opinion regarding his positions regarding poverty, or whether his neighbors like him. In either case, as many editors have now pointed out, it is irerelevant information not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. /Blaxthos 19:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And honestly, with all due respect, I would suggest you examine your own personal bias here. The issue is not about one's neighbors, it's about promoting one political philosophy and not living up to that particular philosophy. I submit to you once again that you would hastily submit a conservative politician's hypocrisy if he was one to promote family values and then make questionable personal choices (which I would agree that you should do btw). Readers must get ALL sides of the issue REGARDLESS of candidate or political affiliation. Edwards promotes a certain vision with regards to this particular issue, but does not live up to that vision himself from his actions. That is VERY noteworthy. But of course if you wish to laugh in the face of journalism and suppress any critical points of view of the Senator I obviously cannot do anything more. I just never thought wikipedia would be so fascist by suppressing points of view according to ideology.Arnabdas 15:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, for the last time, Wikipedia is not a soap box. This isn't the place. Thanks. /Blaxthos 17:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not promoting any POV so saying this is not a Soap Box statement. It is a discussion about improving this article of what should or should not be included, not my POV. I also ask that you follow the WP:SOAP policy as well by not ommitting valid information about a candidate. Ommission of pertinent and noteworthy information is promoting. Arnabdas 19:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

2008 Presidential Campaign section

I can understand needing more than just two lines here if there was something notable enough to add. The stuff I took out however, was all way too detailed and non-notable to belong in this article. Much of it was outdated as well (like the graph and state polling data). If I had to say what the most essential facts about the Edwards Presidential campaign were to date, I'd say the announcement date and the current national polling. And maybe something about fundraising and the controversies around the campaign (Coulter, haircuts). Anything else really belongs in the main article. As far as the HRC and Obama articles, I think they could do with some trimming as well. -Maximusveritas 17:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately your edit cut a bit too deeply, but you're also correct in that the current section is a bit too detailed and dated. I'm thinking somewhere in between the current content and the content from your edit is a good place. The summary for the presidential election article should be able to stand on its own while not providing too much detail. I've always viewed the summary in the main article to be the same as the intro to the sub-article and in the past I've copied and pasted the intro into the summary or vice versa and made some minor edits so that they are not identical. So if we use WP:LEAD as a template that'd put the length of the summary around two paragraphs, but three would be acceptable. The announcement date/location is important, but I'd also include a very short blurb about the early release as a point of interest, maybe something along the lines of "After prematurely launching his campaign website the day before, on December 26 2006, Edwards officially announced his candidacy for U.S. President in the yard of a home in New Orleans, Louisiana that was being rebuilt after it was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina." (or shorter, whichever) Followed by a sentence or two summarizing his major campaign themes. Then sentences for a summary of his standings in the current opinion polling and the total amount of campaign funds so far. Controversies can be a sticky wicket to adequately cover in a summary lead as it can be difficult to keep in line with NPOV and yet maintain the summary nature of the whole section, but if someone can do it, more power to them. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful suggestions. I've taken them on board and did another edit. The section is now about 2 paragraphs long and hits all the points you mentioned. I could potentially see a couple more sentences being added, but I think this is a good baseline. - Maximusveritas 20:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Political Views Section

Edwards has made poverty the central theme of his 08 run. Does anyone know what he did about poverty when he was a US Senator? And links to speeches he made as a VP candidate mentioning poverty? When was the first Edwards public mention of poverty as a polictical issue?

---

I propose that there be no mention of his political views but rather just the link to the page linking to his positions. Much like how Bill O'Reilly's page has his positions listed.Arnabdas 20:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, because that's simply not how summary style works. Shorten the section if you like, but using O'Reilly as a precedent here isn't a good idea, because it's simply not in line with the mechanics of summary style. · jersyko talk 20:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There ya go. Much shorter. Let's see how long it lasts. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking good Bobblehead, thanks! Arnabdas 15:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Should this be referred to?

Should there be a mention of how conservative talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh often refer to Edwards as "the Breck girl"? WAVY 10 14:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a point in mentioning something disparaging unless if it points out a specific hypocrisy or lack of understanding in Edwards' political positions or something that can specifically call for his being unfit to be an elected official. Namecalling itself seems childish.Arnabdas 15:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Then why is there a whole category in Wikipedia dedicated to listing all of the derogatory nicknames that Bush-haters have for George W. Bush?--Getaway 14:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That has no relevance here. Let's stick to keeping this article neutral and compliant instead of using the talk page to pontificate about why something else exists. /Blaxthos 21:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course it has relevancy here. If a neoglism attains a certain level of notoriety, then its fodder for the cannons, i.e. Santorum (dont tell me, that’s somehow “different”)Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that if elected, John Edwards' critics would label him the "Breck Girl". Although the term originated with Rush Limbaugh, it has been used by several critics of Edwards. It should be included. Excluding it would be biased. Saying that you can include negative nick-names for George W. Bush on wikipedia and that you can't include such jabs for John Edwards is, in itself, biased. DreamTrain 02:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions? Ask them through Wikinews

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

• n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Democratic Party
• n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Republican Party
• n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Third Party or Independent

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.

Thanks, Nick -- Zanimum 19:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Mandatory Service (be it Military or National)

Some contributors (and an admin) have taken objection to my plainly pointing out two plain facts regarding candidate Edwards: (1) He has not served in the military, and (2) he has commented on-the-record as being an advocate of "some level of mandatory service", and the context of these remarks was quite specifically regarding military service.

I harbor no ill will toward this candidate for not having served in the military, but given national security circumstances I do believe that it is relevant. BTW, this is the common circumstance for nearly all current U.S. presidential candidates, so Edwards certainly has plenty of company there.

Also BTW, it is quite a stretch of the truth to say that Edwards advocates mandatory 'national service', but to avoid edit warring I've done that here. The context of his remarks is quite clear that he was speaking of mandatory *military* service, otherwise his remarks regarding only the poor kids going off to war make no sense whatsoever...but I'll grant him the benefit of the doubt that he would have extended his remarks if focused on this topic to include national service of some form or another.

IMHO, all candidates – not just Edwards – need to speak with clarity regarding this topic (military service). If someone feels that there is an unnecessary tone in my contribution, feel free to edit (of course)...but the fact remains that this is in any case highly relevant content for a presidential candidate.--24.28.6.209 23:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that your addition ties the lack of military service and his call for mandatory national service together in a manner that the sources do not make. It's at that point that WP:SYN is violated. As such, I've removed the lack of military service from your addition but left the call and quote. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

By saying something to the effect of "He calls for service but never served" in the same sentence, you imply that it's a requirement to have served in the military to advocate for military service. That's a logical fallacy and used as an ad hominem attack which violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. You might as well take it to the illogical conclusion and say that he's no a legitimate critic of the war because he hasn't done multiple tours of duty in Baghdad. --waffle iron ^talk 13:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Poorly sourced Edwards quotation

Pursuant to the official policy stated in “Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons,” I have removed a weasel-worded and biased statement that includes a quotation attributed to John Edwards but that is not properly sourced. The source given is not known to be trustworthy or authoritative. Furthermore, upon inspecting the article referenced, I find that there are at least two additional levels of indirection before one would possibly arrive at a reliable primary source for the quotation. If there are objections to this deletion, I would be glad to explain my reasoning in detail.

Wikipedia policy states: “Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles...” This policy is further detailed in “Wikipedia:Attribution” in the section “Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources.”

Although I do not necessarily disbelieve that Mr. Edwards may have made the statement attributed to him (or something similar), it is important that all such statements be properly sourced. It has become a commonplace for persons with positions of leadership in the Democratic party to be widely misquoted and/or quoted out of context, creating and reinforcing misleading and damaging public impressions of what their actual beliefs and opinions are. One can hardly blame readers who are confronted with a potentially unflattering statement purportedly made by a leading Democrat for wanting to reference a reliable source that confirms what was actually said and in what context. Piperh 19:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The section on John Edwards period as a trial lawyer

The whole section has been written as if it is one big "happy ending" for Edwards. After reading it, I feel dirty all over. It is full of commentary by Wikipedians. No sources, just laudatory petting. It needs work.--Getaway 14:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I count four sources and twelve citations in that subsection. I have not read it recently to determine whether I agree with your implication that it contains POV, so at the moment I do not have a comment on that portion of your comment. However, I wonder if you could be more specific as to what your concerns are, exactly? · jersyko talk 15:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Spousal abuse

I found this. Edwards admits beating his wife causeing broken bones. His wife denied this. I am shocked. This is not a joke. Newsjunker 21:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It may have been a bad joke, but it was still a joke. It's been removed. --Onorem♠Dil 21:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Name

I have started a discussion at wp:mosbio about how the lede of this article should present his name. The discussion is here.Ferrylodge 04:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Name

What do others think about changing the first sentence to match Fred Thompson? Edwards' congressional website doesn't mention "Johnny". And there are 3 times as many google hits for "John Reid Edwards" as there are for "Johnny Reid Edwards". Just a suggestions. If this is controversial, I'd kindly withdraw the proposal, because I do not intend to start a huge debate like the one that recently happened at Talk:Fred Thompson.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha, you and me both (about the debate) - let's not open it. The decision at Fred Thompson, in my view, was not consistent - although not a big deal. I think we should leave it as it has been here since standard style all over Wikipedia is as is laid out in [{WP:MSBIO]], and is reflected properly here. Again - it wasn't worthy of a huge debate there or here. Tvoz |talk 18:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

sentence in this article not reflective of full picture:Campaign in trouble

This article now says "As of July 2007, the Edwards campaign raised a total of $23 million from nearly 100,000 donors, placing it behind the Obama and Clinton campaigns in fundraising.[50]"

Today's newspaper says the campaign is in big trouble. Citations to be provided. Republic of One 16:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

John Edwards and John Kerry.

surftofind.com/ticket (disabled link --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)) John Kerry and John Edwards were a powerhouse team who terrified the opposition to the point where everybody tried to derail the ticket through Howard Dean.]

Infobox image

User Dvfinnh has added several GFDL-licensed photos of Edwards to Wikipedia (many thanks). At issue, though is whether any of these photos should be used in this article's infobox as a replacement for this portrait. The proffered replacements are these: [15], [16], [17].

At my talk page, Dvfinnh explained that official governmental portraits lack neutrality because they are carefully crafted to project a controlled image for an ideological purpose. Thus, Dvfinnh concludes that journalistic photographs of, for example, Edwards at campaign events are preferable, though no photograph can be entirely neutral.

While I agree with Dvfinnh that it's quite possible that no photograph can be entirely neutral, I'm unconvinced that a Congressional portrait necessarily is designed to further an ideological goal or is less neutral than a campaign-stop photograph. In any event, the most important aspect of a photograph of a person for an infobox photo is that the photo be clearly focused on the subject. Thus, I would be opposed to Dvfinnh's first two photographs because the backgrounds are rather distracting in each photo. Though the third photo, the closeup of Edwards' face, is clearly focused on the subject, I'm not necessarily convinced that it is the preferable photograph (between the Senate photo and the closeup) as a matter of simple editorial judgment--the photo cuts off portions of Edwards' head. In any event, further comment on the photo would be useful so that a protracted argument can be avoided. Yes, that has happened on other candidates' articles, and yes, it was lame . . . · jersyko talk 03:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jersyko's point here. I see that the cut-off picture (3 above) has been re-posted, with the edit summary "As argued previously (to satisfaction of inital skeptics), official portraits, the visual analogues official biographies, intrinsically lacks neutrality. Should do same for other candidates.". I disagree that official portraits lack neutrality and don't see that consensus has been reached about which photo we use, so we should talk about it. This is an encyclopedia biography of an individual, not a piece about a candidate or a campaign piece, and as such, it seems to me the most appropriate infobox image may indeed be his official Senate portrait. Including the better photos of him campaigning, in the appropriate campaign section, is a good idea and I like both 1 and 2 above - but I don't buy the argument about neutrality for the infobox. Tvoz |talk 00:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[moving this from my user talk Tvoz |talk 05:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)]:

(I'll start by leaving a comment persuasive to Jersyko on a previous occasion.)

I argued that official photos carry a POV incompatible with the Wikipedia philosophy and you asked me to elaborate.

Photographs tell a story; official photographs, whether distributed by government organizations or political campaigns have undergone careful crafting to project a controlled image for an ideological purpose. While no photograph (or statement for that matter) realizes perfect neutrality (because, even with attestible assertions, willful inclusion and exclusion shape a message), an official photograph in a Wikipedia biography counts as the visual analog of a subject writing his or her own biography.

I have attempted to offer photographs I took at a recent event meant to capture Edwards as he seemed on that day, attempting neither to vaunt him nor to paint him in an unflattering light. In the spirit of full disclosure, I have neither decided to vote for him or not, so I avow that I do in fact portray him from a neutral viewpoint. Dvfinnh 03:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

...Additional remarks: The entry for John Edwards profiles the man in many roles - senator (yes), but also presidential candidate, vice-presidential candidate, lawyers, husband, father, son, etc. An informal photograph of the man (as opposed to the senator) better projects the intended scope. Dvfinnh 01:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved this from my talk page because I think this is something that should be discussed by the editors on this article together, so that we don't get into reverting back and forth any further. I'd like in general to see more photographs, not fewer - in agreement with your last comment - so I'd include all three of yours actually in the article, but not because the official portrait is not neutral - and I would leave the official portrait in the infobox. But I'd like to hear what other editors think about this. Tvoz |talk 05:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually just realized why it makes sense for the infobox to have the official Senate portrait: when you look at the infobox, it identifies him as Senator and so the picture associated with that title makes the most sense there, with "Junior Senator from North Carolina" serving in effect as its caption - it's all one unit. A later picture would not illustrate the infobox. As far as I can see on a quick look, just about all bios of politicians and their spouses use their last official portraits as the infobox in the same way - the picture reinforces the caption with their current or latest official position that the picture represents. Tvoz |talk 07:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

However the infobox may identify him, at this point in time most readers of Wikipedia will know John Edwards not primarily as a senator, but as a former and current presidential contender and a former vice-presidential nominee. His holding the office of senator certainly has some relevance to those other capacities, but all other things equal, a mere junior senator from North Carolina would typically carry a fraction of his fame, or its objective correlate, name recognition. I feel confident in guessing that the great majority of Wikipedia readers who will come to this page in the near future will come wishing to learn about candidate Edwards first and Senator Edwards only second.

But my primary point remains. The official photograph constitutes propaganda, crafted image control cleared for distribution by the politician himself. Look at the strategically placed flag in the background. If the text of the article said "Americans universally recognize Senator Edwards as a dedicated American patriot," that would strike most readers as subjective, possibly irrelevant, impossible to source and probably bizarre. I don't think a picture that says exactly that has any better purchase on a place in the Wikipedia.

I should add that it should matter that Edwards no longer holds his senate seat. I appreciate the courtesy of granting him the title "Senator" for life without the qualification "former," and likewise the Wikipedia policy that reflects that principle of courtesy. But picturing him in an official capacity he no longer retains while he remains very much in the news in another capacity gives a confusing impression to the reader in a hurry. As for consistency, Mike Gravel's biography doesn't use an official portrait either.Dvfinnh 07:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Mike Gravel is not on the same tier as Obama, Clinton, and Edwards. The first two have their senate photo used, as it is the best option, and not propaganda. Edwards should have his senate photo used as well, as it is consistent with Clinton and Obama, and is the most relevant option we have. 71.113.62.145 04:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop reverting to your picture, DVF - we haven't reached consensus on this. Perhaps Mike Gravel's article does not have an official photo because he has been out of the Senate for over 25 years and it may not be readily available. But take a look at the pages for other former Senators - just for starters look at these: Rick Santorum, Tim Hutchinson, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Max Cleland, Bob Graham, Jon Corzine - and there are many, many more former Senators whose pages use their official portraits. This is not propaganda, it is Wikipedia style. As I've said before, this is not an article about a candidate - it is a biography of a notable individual in an encyclopedia. That individual is a former Senator, his highest post to date, who happens to be in a presidential campaign right now - but this is not a campaign piece, for or against him, and it is irrelevant why people are coming here to read it. It is in line with most other articles covered by the Congressional Wikiproject, and use of the official photo is well-established. In fact replacing it might be construed as imposing a POV on the article, in my opinion. So although I do like the idea of more informal photos to illustrate articles, I think they should be in addition to the official photo in the infobox, not in place of it. I believe I made this suggestion previously - I personally would not object to any of the 3 photos you've contributed to be included in the article at appropriate places - other articles have campaign shots to illustrate those sections - but the infobox, I believe, should continue to use the official Senate portrait for this article about the life and career of this former Senator. I'm interested in the opinion of other editors - and let's see if we can reach consensus. Meanwhile, please leave the original picture. Tvoz |talk 05:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI: National Enquirer story, BLP issues

Get ready for a deluge of edits. DrudgeReport is carrying this image:

http://drudgereport.com/ne.jpg

Which indicates the Enquirer is about to go to press with a story about a "love child". Lawrence Cohen 23:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Lawrence. Tvoz |talk 00:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC

Story is located here: http://www.nationalenquirer.com/john_edwards_love_child/celebrity/64426 Whatever you think about the article, it may be relevant to the campaign. Suggest mentioning something to the effect of "On Dec 19, 2007, the National Enquirer reported that Senator Edwards had a pregnant mistress." Something even-handed, non-inflammatory, and factual. Then protect the article. 5minutes (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a statement. Let's see if it holds and if we can stave off flame wars. 5minutes (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriously?? You post a comment in a section that makes it clear that the national enquirer is not a reliable source and wonder if it will stay? Heh. Find a reliable source. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. NE isn't a reliable source, and there's essentially no argument to the contrary. Reporting this here right now is a simple violation of WP:BLP. · jersyko talk 22:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. Can you guys post up a list of sources "not considered to be reliable" so that there won't be any further confusion? So far, all I've gotten is "it's not a reliable source" and "it's not a reliable source, dadgumit". Or are you guys just being overly defensive about a statement that, as I said earlier, was even-handed (I did not say it was true or not), non-inflammatory (no allegation against Sen. Edwards), and factual (the Enquirer DID report a potential scandal)? 5minutes (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Wikipedia's BLP standards state the following: "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." Sounds like right now the only debate is to whether the Enquirer is a reliable source. I'm still waiting on you guys to provide a list. 5minutes (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SOURCES: "mainstream newspapers". Supermarket tabloids do not qualify. Drudge does not qualify. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Define "Mainstream". There's several "mainstream" newspapers that I would be hesitant to call "reliable" - my own hometown newspaper being one. 5minutes (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Then err on the side of caution, and keep material like this out of articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just drop it, 5minutes. You now have three very experienced editors telling you that The National Enquirer is not a reliable source and can not be used to include this material in the article. Frankly, you aren't going to find anyone that is going to support you on this. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not our job to prove that NE and Drudge are unreliable or otherwise provide a list of reliable sources. Rather, per Wikipedia policy, the burden is on the editor wanting to include the material to demonstrate the material's verifiability and the source's reliability. · jersyko talk 01:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but it sure would be nice to have a list of sources that are considered "acceptable". I wonder how many of you guys would accept reports from Fox News, for instance? 5minutes (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Although Fox News has a political slant, it is still a reliable source as it is an actual journalistic outfit. The same cannot be said of the National Enquirer. There are plenty of resources on Wikipedia if you're interested in learning what constitutes a reliable source, but the core principal is that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Are you actually trying to make the case that the National Enquirer fits this description? Really? Anyway, the issue is pretty much moot at this point as the "story" has already died for lack of evidence. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)5minutes, as I pointed out on your talk page, read the verifiability, reliable sources, and biographies of living people policies. They do a fairly god job of defining what a reliable source is. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The one thing I'd add to Loonymonkey's assessment of Fox News is that one should be leery of using things said during the crosstalks on their punditry shows (O'Reilly Factor, Hannity & Colmes, etc), because those are not fact checked. This is particularly true if the person saying it is not the host of those shows or a Fox News reporter. It is also not unique to shows on Fox News. I'd be leery of anything said on a punditry show on any channel if the person saying it was not the host of the show or an reporter for that station. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've sourced things from foxnews.com many times. They actually run with AP stories a lot. As Bobblehead says, pundit shows are completely worthless as sources, no matter what channel they're on; they are staged hot-air-fests for infotainment purposes only. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I attempt to watch/read as many media outlets as humanly possible. I disagree that Fox News is starkly different than most other media outlets. Last week I watched Andrea Mitchell (on Chris Matthews program) describe how horribly Romney performed on the last Iowa debate. I've not seen a similar assessment in other media. Having lived in Philadephia at one time (where Andrea gained her journalism skills), I couldn't help from feeling a bit dissapointed in her injecting a personal bias on national television. So, the pundits exist everywhere - as does fairness and level-headedness. It truly is a full-time job to separate truth from diminished truth. (Oxfordden (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC))

This conversation appears to be becoming irrelevant to this Wikipedia article. Please see WP:FORUM. · jersyko talk 13:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought we were discussing the validity of media, such as, National Enquirer, Drudge, Fox News, etc - as it relates to determining whether these sources are of validity in a WP forum. Where did the conversation go askew? (Oxfordden (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC))

The news items aren't being discussed by Fox News, but rather by Matt Drudge and The National Enquirer. Thus, further discussion of Fox doesn't appear to be particularly relevant. · jersyko talk 00:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

According to you, of course. One just needs to read the comments of Bobblehead, Loonymonkey, and others to see that others are discussing media outlets other than Drudge and NE. I've responded to existing comments on Fox News reporting - I didn't inititated it. Please let the rest of us know when you add another outlet to your approved list of relevent sources. I sincerely do wish to conform. (Oxfordden (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)).

Your comment above that Jersyko was responding to was veering off into commentary on your disappointment in Andrea Mitchell, which is, I would guess, where the conversation went "askew". Tvoz |talk 05:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Which was in direct response to Wasted Time's comment on worthless sources - so - completely relevent and within context (IMHO). However, I'll choose to complete my comments on this thread because I think they are becoming a waste of time (in and of itself) discussing who's right and wrong. I have bigger fish to fry. Uncle :-) (Oxfordden (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC))