Talk:John Edward

message: Was pretty sure before he became a psychic, Edwards was involved in some sort of financial scam that lead to fraud charges and perhaps even a conviction. Was this whitewashed out the article by fans?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.214.103 (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Scam/Fraud Charges

message: Categories have been changed in accordance with the recent Arbitration on the paranormal, specifically 6a) Adequate framing, and Cultural artefacts. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category change

message: So as not to introduce unsourced info - has any in-print discussion been made about the drastic format change of Cross Country in the second season? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Format change for Cross Country

message: Edward is doing a bit on his Cross Country show of 'contacting' a firefighter who died on 9-11. Lots42 (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The 9-11 Controversy

message: Isn't it a bit much to call him an entertainer or psychic medium?  I mean, is exploitation an approved form of entertainment? And giving him credit as an actual psychic medium - seriously? --Riluve (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't the place to debate the right/wrong of Edward's work.  He is by definition a television performer/entertainer, whose show revolves around his being a medium, a title he readily professes for himself.  I think the current wording is fine. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's like letting an article on Hitler entitle himself a "Social Engineer" because that is how he thought of himself. 50.224.24.38 (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: But seriously

message: I've protected this for 3 days to stop a looming edit war. Work out issues on the talk page.  — Rlevse • Talk •  21:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: This happens about every 6 months... a John Edward fan finds his Wikipedia article, and starts kicking up a stink about this or that. Now someone has tagged the entire article citing non-POV and factual accuracy, without any word of explanation or justification. If no explanation is forthcoming in 3 days I'm removing the tag. JQ (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is POV because of the blatant hints at him being a fake, and any attempts to reduce the bias of the article are an uphill battle, and met with hostility. The article needs a rewrite. Phallicmonkey (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is about presenting facts, not opinions or professions of faith as facts. As I think was mentioned earlier, Edward's ability to talk to the dead is inherently untestable so cannot be presented as fact. And funnily enough, not everyone subscribes to Edward's explanation that his ability is genuine. Presenting an untestable, subjective, ad-doc psychic faculty as fact is about as biased as you can get. JQ (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually now I think about it, I agree the article's opening statement should describe Edward as a "psychic". Along with all the connotations attached to that word. JQ (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You say it is not about presenting opinions, yet your previous comment shows that this is exactly what you are going to do. Yes, not everybody agrees with his claims, but that is still what he professes to be and his 'act'is presented as psychic. And the connotations associated with 'psychic' are again a matter of opinion. This is precisely why i have flagged the article as POV, just read the article and it very clearly puts across a viewpoint. Phallicmonkey (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Edward should not be described as a "psychic"...I disagree with Phallicmonkey's claims about the article's neutrality, but describing him in that manner implies a belief in the opposite, which is definitely POV.  Willbyr (talk | contribs) 14:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Fair enough, Willbyr. IMHO since the term "psychic" can only be self-styled anyway, and does not infer any kind of professionalism like a doctor or engineer, I can't see the harm in having it in the opening paragraph. On the other hand many readers are very gullible. As far as POV is concerned, yes this article if very POV -- in favour of Edward. JQ (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

text: What I do not get is: why not call him a television personality that claims to have psychic power thats absolutely factbased. He is a television personality and he does claim to have psychic power. If he really is a psychich than is up to the reader to decide. --Gag101 (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "Claim," in this instance, is a loaded term per WP:CLAIM.  This issue was so contentious that it went to ArbCom; Adequate framing.  Dreadstar ☥  13:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Here We Go Again

message: Originally: Readings in Crossing Over involve Edward questioning audience members with what is presented as information being communicated by their deceased friends and relatives. Edward says he receives images and clues from "the other side" which the audience must assist him in interpreting. Aside from questionnaires filled out prior to taping, the audience is not supposed to supply Edward with any prior information about themselves, their family or whom they are trying to connect with "on the other side".[8] Audience members respond to Edward's statements and questions, adding any details they feel are appropriate.
Change to:  Readings in Crossing Over involve Edward presenting audience members with information being communicated by their deceased friends and relatives and asking them for "yes" or "no" confirmation and validation of that information, but sometimes receives more information than requested, which he often clarifies as information given to him by the audience member and claims he can no longer use that piece of information as validation. Edward receives and interprets information through clairsentience (clear feeling), clairaudience (clear hearing) and clairvoyance (clear seeing) in which he feels, hears or sees images in his mind's eye from the other side  which the audience must validate as pertaining to them. Edward has no prior information about audience members, their family or those in spirit with whom they are trying to connect.  
--I've seen John Edward live and there are no "questionnaires" that people fill out.  John Edward does not "question" audience members, he presents them with information and then asks them to confirm the information. I've also added the three "clairs" which Edward uses to receive his information. -- bigcaat - Aug. 21, '09 (sorry if I haven't done this exactly right. I've not done this 'talk' thing before.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigcaat (talk • contribs) 06:33, 22 August 2009
 Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this article. One of the key principle in Wikipedia is presenting information with a neutral point of view. In this case, that means neither accepting nor rejecting the claims made on the show, but presenting them as being the claims made on the show. Rewording it as you suggest would accept and promote what is widely held as being false. Also, we do not allow original research, like your having seen the show live, and prefer verifiable reliable secondary sources. The current sources for much of this article are interviews and the shows themself, which are primary sources, but can at least be verified and used in a limitted way. Please read the linked articles to learn more about these policies. Celestra (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Show format

message: Should his appearance(s) on QVC (peddling ostensibly blessed jewelry and such) be included? George Lee 07:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: QVC

message: "So whether it's in a physical vehicle or not, there is still the ability to connect [...] But she's clear on what's going – and I can tell you that she's definitely clear on what's happening now around her."[27] Edward was criticized for this statement because Schiavo did not have proper brain function at the time.[28]"
Does it matter that the complaint is that she did not have proper brain function at the time? This is a man who claims he can talk to dead people who don't have a brain in the first place, let alone brain function. I'm not saying I believe Edward has psychic powers, but it just seems like a silly criticism. You might as well criticize the fact that he thinks he can talk to dead people. ScienceApe (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Point of the Terri Schiavo controversy?

message: I've edited the lede to say that Edward is a "self-described psychic medium". This should be acceptable to both sides of the controversy, no? 209.105.199.39 (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah you'd think so; but, predictably, some Edwardphile has changed it back to "professional psychic medium". And another piece of me dies inside. JQ (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think "professional psychic medium" sums it up perfectly, or is there another reason he's a psychic medium? Mighty Antar (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bravo! Xardox (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think there is some confusion here with english usage. If the article stated John Edwards is a professional, that would imply he is someone particularly highly skilled at something, but when "professional" is used in conjunction with a trade e.g. "professional psychic medium", it simply means that the person is paid to do the job rather than doing it as an amateur or unpaid. "Psychic medium" may be a valid epistemological subject, the fact that such effortless and magical gifts are rarely demonstrated or offered free-of-charge by those who are purported to be the most gifted should not escape unremarked.Mighty Antar (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've reverted the removal of "professional" once again. The removal is based on what people think (or don't think) a psychic medium actually does. What Edward does as a psychic medium is obviously very important and pertinent to this article, but it's a whole different thing as to whether or not he gets paid for doing it. I've amended the title of this section accordingly.  Mighty Antar (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The controversy over calling him a 
psychic
 professional psychic medium

message: Dreadstar I have readded the reference without the blog citation. Sgerbic (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure why, the group and their 'spokesperson' don't seem at all notable.  What expertise and notability do they have to rise above the threshold set by WP:BLP?  I'm not seeing it.  Dreadstar ☥ 18:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Activism against Edward is noteworthy, even if it had been Anonymous activism.  The newspaper that reported it is newsworthy.Sgerbic (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like OR to me.  And I'm talking about "Activism against Edward is noteworthy, even if it had been Anonymous activism."  I think it's clear we're now deep into WP:BATTLE.  The group, the spokesman and the opinion are non-notable and violate WP:BLP. Dreadstar ☥ 00:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No battle from me Dreadstar.  I'll play nice.  I still totally support my edit, but will back down unless I feel I can better support my position. I still feel that a activism section against Edward is noteworthy even if the activism comes from many un-noteworthy sources.  Sgerbic (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Granite State newspaper article  

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:JohnEdward.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Dreadstar what do you mean by a "bridge too far"?  I have no idea what you are talking about. Is this one of those inclusive WP editor terms that shuts out newer users?  Your "talk" page says you are not editing WP and on a break so I am asking for clarification here.  Sgerbic (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Bridge too far" was in reference to my own earlier edit which accidentally re-added material when making another change.  Your content had several problems, primary one being that Edward was not mentioned at all in two of the sources and was only mentioned by name once in the third source.  The third source made no commentary on on Edward besides the mere mention of his name.  The content was a clear violation of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE.  Dreadstar ☥ 02:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did you remove my citation? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on John Edward. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_1_26/ai_80924575
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on John Edward. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061222194125/http://www.johnedward.net/about_John_Edward.htm to http://johnedward.net/about_John_Edward.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607014609/http://dir.salon.com/story/people/feature/2002/06/13/probability/index.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/people/feature/2002/06/13/probability/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on John Edward. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130104233353/http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0%2C8599%2C100555%2C00.html to http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,100555,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100412161943/http://infinitequest.com/ to http://www.infinitequest.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100412161943/http://infinitequest.com/ to http://www.infinitequest.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified