Talk:EJ DiMera

message: I added the information box, but I didn't know what to put for E.J.'s occupation. From , it lists his occupation as a racecar driver, but I do not know it if it's outdated or not. I'm unclear what is happening with Mythic Communications, so I don't know if he is no longer apart of his company or not. If someone could fix this, I'd appreciate it. --Miss Burkle 06:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupation 

message: Can you guys please not put that EJ and Sami are soulmates the wiki page is suppose to remain neutral, not put the incorrect information. Please just give it time these two will be together but be right about the information.Perfecttlovee 00:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's ridiculous. It's biased and it can't be on this page. Anyone who does it needs to stop! I'm getting tired of switching it around. --Miss Burkle 22:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soulmate 

message: Please stop putting Bonnie, Chelsea, and Billie as romances.  Bonnie and Chelsea grabbed EJ and kissed him, there was no romance. EJ kissed Billie to thank her. That is also not romantic.75.181.107.214 17:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romance 

message: Soap Central is a fan site like any other.  They are not prevy to "secret" information and has fan volunteers who create their pages.  The birthdate listed at SC is a fan decided date, not one presented by NBC.  They have been very vague about how old EJ is because of the SORAS situation and the ire it has created in some fans.  At this time EJ's age and birthdate are unknown.65.13.237.254 17:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the birthdate listed for the character at soapcentral.com is one presented by NBC -- because it's the date that the character was born on-air (20 February 1997). They don't give an age for how old he is supposed to be now, only when the character was initially introduced. Unlike many other fan sites, soapcentral.com is one of the few that is officially sanctioned and has a direct relationship with NBC. Their information regarding characters comes directly from what is presented on-screen, which cannot be said of many fan sites. D'Amico 08:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, soapcentral.com is not sanctioned by NBC and their information is often inaccurate.  They've often called for fans to help update character profiles.  A sactioned site would not ask for that and would spell the name the same way NBC spells the name.  The date of 1997 is not in dispute by this editor but there is another editor who keeps changing the date to 1979 and assuming the character's age now.CelticGreen 23:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is sanctioned, but that's an issue for another time. ;) Technically, the site does spell the name the same way that NBC does -- end credits show that he is listed as E.J. Wells. NBC is inconsistent with the way that E.J.'s name is referenced -- he has been listed as both EJ Wells and E.J. Wells. D'Amico 06:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Editted/updated to add: That's the downside of soaps. Even they can't decide who their characters are. ;) D'Amico 12:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age 

message: As the article starts out with the indication that this is an article about a fictional character it is redundant to use the word again and again in the article.  It is clear that this is not a real person and the information in the article is about fictional character.  Other pages for characters do not include an over use of the word.  I feel it is unnecessary to do so on this page.IrishLass0128 15:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant Use of the word '''Fictional'''

message: For one, it's victims.  Two, EJ has not been charged with any crime so you can not put assumptions.  You can only put verifiable information into a Wikipedia articleCelticGreen 23:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Victums

message: Can I have a link to this glorious discussion where EJ was said NOT to be a rapist. Sami said he did, Roman did, Lucas did, the man himself said he did. And I know if I pulled this in real life I would be a rapist. I just have to see the justification and fan wankery on this.70.19.29.65 22:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: haha, nevermind. I found it. lol. This is fantastic. 70.19.29.65 23:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Naturally, we don’t expect anyone to forget about the RAPE, nor do we expect anyone to take EJ’s RAPE of Sami lightly,” notes former CO-EXECUTIVE PRODUCER Stephen Wyman. “However, we know life goes on. People can change. At some point, the issue of the RAPE is going to have to be dealt with in the fundamental way, but meanwhile, there is the audience that wants to see EJ and Sami together. [But] they aren’t forgetting about the RAPE, either.” Wow, and this why I will never officially join wikipedia. Characters say scene is the one thing, the script implies the very same thing, it seems blatantly obvious, the executive producer verifies it and yet because the fans/wikiphiles say it is not so it simply is not so. Thank you Wikipedia for once again proving your worth. 70.19.29.65 23:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *My point is that it happened, it was rape. The characters say it was rape! How can it not be?  Does he have to hold her at gunpoint? Oh yeah he kinda did that. Knife point? Does he have to jump from the woods? Does it have to occur on Lifetime, where every woman is raped? I don't see why EJ can't be included in "fictional rapists" temporarily until it is proven that he did not do so (or retconned), almost everything implies it was rape from the crying to the testimonials. I have no agenda, I'm just perplexed by Wikipedia. I will retract my statement about the producer if it's true. Off Topic: Consensus? A consensus is used to keep order not determine facts. It seems to me information is decided by popular vote rather than being verifiable. When Jack dies (again lol) he should be listed as deceased, not MIA because we know (more or less) he is coming back and a consensus is reached that Jack is in Hawaii. 70.19.29.65 23:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The issue, as I see it, and yes, opinion could be used there, is that EJ has not been convicted of rape, it is hearsay.  It's he said/she said.  He only said it when pushed. Sami says it in defense but has told GOD that she made a deal.  She said she would do it again (most rape victims wouldn't say that) and it wasn't until Celeste said it was rape that Sami started calling it rape.  Since Ed Scott started the "r" word has only been said once, unlike under Wyman's control where it was spinkled like candy falling out of pinata.  That aside, she did unzip her own shirt, he did not have the gun to her head (btw, I appreciate you acknowledging that he didn't exactly have the gun to her head, most seem to insist he did when in reality it was not in his hand at the time), and she did conscent, even though it was unpleasant.  Is he a rapist in the purest sense of the word?  Not as I see it.  He did give her a choice.  Did she really have one?  That is one thing I don't think a consensus will ever be reached on.  I'm no expert, I understand consensus to mean an agreed upon resolution to a problem.  You make an intelligent argument, far more so than some I've encountered.  I do see where you are coming from.  It's a difficult issue at best.  When Jack raped Kayla, we saw it, it was rape.  When December 29th happened we were left with a gaping hole as to what really happened.  In the end, it's hearsay.  Legally, he didn't rape her.  Emotionally?  I still see it as up in the air.  Wyman's words at hand are difficult to accept as they were said as he was on his way out the door.  It's also difficult that it was said in SOD a publication wiht a strong bias toward it being rape, (see many Carol Hinsey editorials).  He could have not even used the word, but we'll never know.  
So, with all that said, I am just going by what others agreed to.  But I understand your argument.  Thank you for presenting it in an intelligent manner.CelticGreen 00:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EJ/ nonsense. 

message: "An affair is an affair?"  No, an affair is generally thought of as a long time occurrance between two people in love when it comes to soaps.  EJ and Kate technically only did it once so techically they are either a one night stand or short lived affair but they are not simply an "affair."  The section is to describe a character's relationship and generalized terms do not do that.IrishLass0128 19:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with Kate Roberts 

message: This article lacks real-world context and consists of only storylines, which violates WP:PLOT. Also, there are too many details about this fictional character. Also, currents sources may be unreliable and primarily affiliated with this topic. Reliable sources have yet to be found. I wanted to discuss this in any WikiProject, but any of their talk pages in this talk page appears obscure. --George Ho (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree it looks like its all unreferenced too. what did you want to discuss?? Bouket (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether I must removed the unsource statements, tag this article with PROD, or something else. Otherwise, first, we must find real-world context from third-party and independent sources to indicate this topic's impact on the media. I haven't been interested with this character, so I don't know what else to say or do. --George Ho (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Another thing: I think I cannot find reliable sources or significant coverages in Google to indicate notability for this topic. I barely have enough energy or interest to find sources in libraries. --George Ho (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, it's unbalanced: it needs the production information about    exactly which episodes he appears in and which not, and for reception there's probably something to say about the critical views, though the sources tend to be only borderline reliable.  Character articles, however, are essentially articles that tie the plot together: the subparts of our total coverage of the series, and NOT PLOT refers only to total coverage. . Myself, I find that the plot of a series such as this is much much easier to understand by going character by character than episode by episode. Going episode by episode has to deal with the fact the episode are written for suspense, and always leaves something inconclusive, and that series like this have multiple threads running at the same time. Wikipedia writes to be understood, andI think this means the arrangement of the material in a series must be divided up this way, If others think it better other ways, =let them write it the way they want--we're not paper.   The wording seems a little diffuse, as is common for plot, and can be tightened by maybe 10%, though it's actually better than most--many need tightening by 50%. As for references, all it has to be referenced to is the original work--plot elements are best sourced from the work itself, except for interpretation.  So just add the indication of just what episode the events come in. If I were a scholar of the subject I would want the exact timing for everything, but we usually do not go into such detail. There is, btw, no point tagging with prod, as episode article deletions are not uncontroversial and someone will surely remove the prod tag.  DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ...I have a tendency to remove all plot, but I can't yet until everyone agrees; unfortunately, everyone favors having fictional element first, which is very bad to begin with. I have tendency to tag it for deletion, but I fear negativity, despite my best intentions. Oh... if this article stays longer, then I won't know the real meaning of Wikipedia. However, this article does not meet the standards of encyclopedia. This character is significant to the DiMera/Brady feud, but no sources have covered him at all. Look at Marlena Evans; non-primary sources signify her notability, despite flaws in that article. Look at Mark Dalton (All My Children); short and stubby, but superior than a plot-only article like EJ article, right? Which one is more encyclopedic: this article or Mark Dalton? --George Ho (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it is desirable to find secondary sources for plot. It's certainly not absolutely necessary, for the work itself is a RS, but it is very helpful/  You assert there are none, but do you mean that there are presently none, or that you have verified that there are none to be had?  Or are you actually asserting you can find no secondary sources this, unlike other characters in the series.  Even without going further, have you checked the sources listed in the article you rightly like, to see if they cover this character also?  DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

text: I didn't mean that the importance of this character is greater than the plot--it can sometimes be so,   but I agree with you it is very unlikely to be so in this case. I meant rather that often presenting the plot character by character is better than episode by episode, or at least complements it, and that we should do both for fiction that is worth the trouble.  How they're divided up into articles is not critical; presenting the full information is critical. My objection to character lists is that they rarely present full enough information.  DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you elaborate "character by character" and "plot by plot" please? Do we already have EJ Dimera and Sami Brady? Well, I agree: character lists rarely present info, but they not yet have established notability as itself. There should not be currently list of characters without sources. --George Ho (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

text: One thing we almost always miss about the rules on referencing is that references are only absolutely required when a fact is likely to be challenged.  You don't have to reference that the sky is blue or that 2+2=4.  Hence it is not acceptable to blindly remove all unreferenced facts.  That said, the article as a whole needs a reasonable number of references in order to demonstrate notability and to provide a basic backbone of checkability.  Two references is far too few for anything much bigger than a stub.  IMHO, the plot stuff could all be removed - or at the very least, drastically pruned.  When that's gone, we have to ask what "meat" is left.  I suspect that at the end of that process, this article should probably be deleted - if there is so little written about this character - then it's hardly notable enough to be discussed here.  Simply listing the plot points at which he appears does not constitute an encyclopedia article.  SteveBaker (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem! There is EJ DiMera and Sami Brady. Maybe I must merge/redirect this article into target. --George Ho (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic issues of this article 

message: And already the unsourced edits come claiming Stefano is not EJ's father. But was there a DNA test? This is retconned, and bad story telling in my opinion, as Stefano ENGINEERED EJ to be his son. I say in the infobox section, we don't change anything and add unnecessary parenthicals. Obviously, the show is expecting us to believe yet ANOTHER ill conceived retcon, just like John and Hope being married. But we, the editors of this article, have the right to put in what we want to, as long as we all agree on it. What does everyone think? Rm994 (talk) 05:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well first off, parenthicals are not allowed unless they label (adoptive) or (legal) or even (miscarriage); all others are not to be used. So why people continue to use them is beyond my imagination. Do I believe they're retconning the storyline? Of course! Do I believe Stefano is EJ's father? No. I never believed it actually. It didn't fit at all. I think until we go further into the storyline, we leave Stefano as the father. And DNA tests, in soap operas, really prove nothing. They can be changed months/years down-the-line. It's usually never a set-in-stone idea. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 16:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  EJ's Paternity 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on EJ DiMera. 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/20130928213254/http://social.entertainment.msn.com/tv/blogs/tv-buzz-blogpost.aspx?post=62d4b39c-e9b3-4911-b476-0cf79e5ab753 to http://social.entertainment.msn.com/tv/blogs/tv-buzz-blogpost.aspx?post=62d4b39c-e9b3-4911-b476-0cf79e5ab753
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) 01:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified