Talk:EJ Wells and Samantha Brady/Archive 1

message: EJ Wells is a name, not initials.  The original article entry was correct.  Please reference http://www.nbc.com/Days_of_our_Lives/features/dimera/ej.shtml and http://iw.rtm.com/daytimefeud/videos.htm as evidence of the spelling of EJ.  Please redirect the page back to the correct spelling of EJ, not E. J. Thank you75.181.107.214 17:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already taken care of. — Moe ε 17:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Days has not made a concrete statement about the rape.  There was a reference in an article about another couple but there has been no stand alone NBC/Days statement to the effect that it was rape.  The more neutral title Soap Opera Digest article about Santo & Colleen addresses EJ & Sami controversy, the actual title of the article, would seem more appropriate than pulling one paragraph, editing out content not favorable like "people change" and slanting the quote changes the quote to opion.  It was, in fact, a quote, not a statement.65.13.237.254 13:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Statement" vs. Quote

message: The editor insisting on putting in copyright information violates Wikipedia:Copyrights.  For this reason it should be removed as the editor including it does not have permission to retype and put the article in this article.  Neither the piece under Luke and Laura or the piece that includes Wyman's remarks.75.181.107.214 13:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of actual SOD article

message: Hello, Flyer.  I just read your reply on your discussion board.  Thank you for the clarification, it affirms what my beliefs were.  That the wiki article is used primarily for education purposes and to provide a clear account of the events that have occured/are occuring between the two characters, regardless of whether it highlights why some view them as a viable couple or not.  Please let me know if I'm mistaken in that assessment.  But, you did not make mention to the image I added that was deleted.  At 16:34, 31 July, I contributed a single image that consisted of a series of four screencaps depicting "the incident" and it was repeatedly removed.  The first time, no reason was given.  The second time the editor claimed them as campaign material and that they were "taken out of context".  The last time "copyright" reasons were cited for its removal.  First of all, they are legitimate, unedited screencaps from the show.  Whether they have or have not been used in fan campaigns is irrelevant.  Secondly, all screencaps are "taken out of context".  As I noted on your board, the screencap identified as "one of several times in which EJ has saved Sami's life" is taken out of context in that the screencap itself does not recognize that it was EJ's actions that have placed Sami in danger.  Lastly, you've already settled the copyright issue.
I placed the image in the "controversy" section because it is directly relevant to that section and is relevant to the EJ & Sami article as  whole, more so than the screencap of EJ and Sami sitting and talking in his office (though I never removed/replaced that screencap, I simply added my image).  I would like the image to remain as a contribution.  If there is an issue regarding the number of screencaps, I will minimize it to one and contribute that. Esse123 01:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Screencaps of "The Incident"

message: I just wanted to say that I agree with Flyer22's assessment that this article should be neutral in nature and she knows that I have worked very hard to ensure its neutrality from the beginning. I have included events which are notable for this couple including the coerced sex/rape event which we have a completely separate section for.
The screen shots included currently were only intended as pictures to show the subject couple together and not in any attempt to depict a particular point of view other than that the subject couple has interacted on screen. I would prefer to keep the controversy section as is without pictures designed to sway a reader in a particular direction. It should be noted that there are no pictures of EJ and Sami kissing or making out on a couch or any such thing and I don't believe there should be pictures of EJ treating Sami horribly either. Both of these types of events are discussed in the text of the article but do not need to be embellished with pictures because this contributes to bias in the article.
As I mentioned on Flyer22's talk page, I have removed what I felt may have been embellishments by other editors in the moments section and tried to present the events as they happened on screen. The intent of this section and not the article itself was to show some notable events related to EJ and Sami being considered a romantic couple. I believe this provides a neutral account of those events and does not offer any opinion on them. Some adjectives have been used and can be removed if it is felt they are inappropriate. As I mentioned previously, if there are sections that are deemed to be "positive", please highlight those areas and we can work together to re-word them. This is better than adding negative events and text attempting to emphasize a particular opinion. The bolding of the word "rape" is one such instance that was simply a technique to try and imply that this point of view was more important than that of those people who do not believe it was rape. Both points of view *are* represented in the article and neither point of view is or should be emphasized.
The negative events that were added were provided with assumptions of intent and did not depict a neutral view of what I would consider insignificant events for this couple. Many assumptions have been made about EJ's motivation and intent but most of these assumptions have never been validated so they represent opinions and as such, should not be included.
Once again, if you feel that something is "too positive" in the article, please do not counter with something that is negative. Indicate what you feel is not neutral and we can work from there.
Flyer22, it's nice to see you again as well. I did get busy with some other things (vacation, day job :) ) but your thoughts on what I would think of the recent edits were probably correct. As you know, we have edited the wording in this article quite a bit to remove what I admit were biased references when I started this article just because I didn't fully understand Wiki policy but I think we managed to get the article to a state where it may not have been perfect but overall, it presented both sides of the controversy so that anyone reading it would know that there were definitely 2 heated viewpoints regarding this couple and neither viewpoint was presented as the "right" one anywhere in the article. The recent edits do not come across as neutral and that is my issue with them. Radiantbutterfly 02:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: I would suggest removing the "EJ saves Sami" screencap and moving the one of the two of them sitting and talking up into the spot where the "EJ saves Sami" screencap is currently. It doesn't make sense to include that screen shot in the controversy section, in my opinion. Radiantbutterfly 02:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screencaps 

message: So, some concerns have been raised about the formatting of the Wyman quote - the acknowledgement that he references rape four times and the bolding of the word.  I wanted to open this up to discussion and quickly outline why I support the formatting as it is.
Namely, it's because it speaks to what is already being noted in the article.  It is noted in the Controversy section that one point of discussion in the "debate" is that multiple words have been used to describe what happend - "rape", "deal", and "obliged" are specifically referenced.  This, imo makes the fact that Wyman uses the word rape and only the word rape significant to that section.  The number of times is significant because at any point he may have used another word but does not.  Though the quote is not deemed an "official statement", it is the only quote that exists (to my knowledge) from an executive of the show regarding the events between Ej & Sami.  This, imo, places increased significance on the quote, especially when it is questioned "Whether the original intent of the the scene between EJ and Sami on December 29, 2006 is ever confirmed by Days of our Lives executives or writers,..." under the "Luke and Laura topic" section. Esse123 03:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting of Wyman quote 

message: There seems to be some disagreement over this sentence in the "Romantic Moments" section.  It follows this sentence: "In numerous scenes, EJ makes comments to Sami about how he loves the good and bad in her and how she deserves to be loved completely and absolutely."
I have been watching this show since before Ali came on and I have personally witnessed Franco, Brandon and Lucas all offer the same sentiment to Sami on numerous occasions.  Attempting to single EJ out as the only man to have stated this is inaccurate.  None of these men are unique to her in this way.  Granted, if you want to get technical you can post the exact quote that EJ made and state that no man has said these exact words to her in this exact order with this exact inflection.  If you want to get technical.  But even then it must be acknowledge that pretty much all her suitors have expressed the same sentiment to her on numerous occasions. 
If need be, I can hunt down quotes from at least one of these men as proof but I would hope others who have been watching would acknowledge that several men have expressed these thoughts to Sami, EJ is not the only one. Esse123 16:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This is something that none of Sami's prior suitors had ever said to her the way EJ did." 

message: In at least 2 of the cases cited, the male character has apologized, acknowledged his crime and made efforts to earn forgiveness. I understand that some viewers do not agree that apologies/remorse is enough or they feel that it is not sincere and that is understandable but I don't think it can be disputed that the writers have redeemed the characters whether some people accept it or not. Even the fans of EJ and Sami's rival couple felt so strongly that the character was being redeemed that they launched an attack fan campaign called "Rape is not Romance" to try and persuade the show to stop trying to redeem him. I think if both sides of the heated debate agree that he is being redeemed, that is pretty strong support for stating the redemption as a fact for the EJ character. We can't project or speculate whether or not a redemption is sincere based on what might happen. In the case of Luke and Laura, I think it has been accepted that it was sincere. In the case of the GL couple, I'm not sure so if someone watches that soap and can state that it is widely accepted that no attempt was made to redeem the character on GL then I will re-word the sentence.Radiantbutterfly 16:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character Redemption 

message: Currently, the photo in this section is one from the photoshoot, I think a better image might be a screen shot of them dancing the Tango but I'm also aware that there are quite a few pictures in the article now and I'm not sure if Wikipedia limits the total numbers of pictures in an article. I'll see what I can find out. The EJ saves Sami picture is much clearer now, thank you CelticGreen. Radiantbutterfly 00:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo in romantic moments section 

message: So positive images (him saving her life) from their relationship are ok, but negative ones aren't? Either we get rid of the other images, or we keep this one; it's a screenshot that is relevant to the section that discusses that scene.
"EJ and Sami on December 29, 2006" was an important incident in their relationship (notice I didn't say he raped her in the caption, since that's something people still disagree on). --Silvestris 14:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Ejsami.PNG]] 

message: *The statement by Silvestris, that "This article is not neutral. If it gave as much attention to the negative side as it would the positive"...I must state is an off observation. What this article mostly addresses at this moment is this couple's negative history, and it does that in a way that is indeed neutral.
When it comes to the screenshots of this article, as in not having a negative screenshot of this couple, given the controversy surrounding their most negative night, then, yes, I can see how that is not seen as neutral by some editors similar in thought to Silvestris on that matter. Although, the decision not to add any negative (or positive) images to the Cultural impact section of this article is a well-pondered act. Flyer22 23:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is actually quite neutral right now, in wording 

message: It can be verified by a trip to any message board that EJami and LUMI are rival couples.  Many an edit war have been fought here over edits and the page was put up for deletion because of the rivalry.  It is undisputed that EJami and Lumi are rival couples.  Even the show has acknowledged such as is already referenced in the article.CelticGreen 00:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with Supercouple in the See also. Never did. 24.6.65.83 02:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and CelticGreen, "a trip to any message board" does not meet the threshold of a Reliable Source for Wikipedia. 24.6.65.83 03:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You speak for Flyer22 now? Interesting... 24.6.65.83
*Never.  I thanked her for her help.CelticGreen 13:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The entire meaning changes because of that 's'. How was I to know it was a typo, since nothing is misspelled? 24.6.65.83 17:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking through the edits to the article and the talk page, it's looks like the discourtesy started with the mass revert and the accusations of vandalism. 74.1.90.194 03:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rival couple

message: ===Redemption===
*Recently, viewers have been shown scenes depicting EJ and Sami scheming together. Also, the character of EJ is going through what some believe is a classic soap redemption and Sami is being shown to trust him a little bit more than she did before. She has not yet forgiven him for what he did, but the story is leaving it open for that to happen as indicated by former Co-Executive Producer Wyman.Soap Opera Digest, "New Twist in Days's Most Controversial Tale", week of July 17 2007.
*Recently, viewers have been shown scenes depicting EJ and Sami scheming together. The Suds Report: May 28, 2007 wonders if NBC is redeeming EJ. Sami is being shown to trust him a little bit more than she did before although she has not yet forgiven him for what he did. The story is leaving it open for that to happen as indicated by former Co-Executive Producer Wyman.Soap Opera Digest, "New Twist in Days's Most Controversial Tale", week of July 17 2007.
I contend the second is the better of the two because it provides a firm reference for the "redemption" rather than a vague "some believe," doesn't rely on the phrase "classic soap opera redemption," and doesn't start two consecutive sentences with a single word/comma combo that is stilted and awkward. 24.6.65.83 03:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The person who reverted to the capitalized version has just reverted back to the correct one. This has been resolved. 24.6.65.83 20:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You assume bad faith in my edits. "Lovely and flowing" is in the eye of the beholder, and we obviously disagree. I'm not so concerned about the first phrasing as the second, which is POV. Adding POV phrasing "due to previous editing wars" is not the way to create an encyclopedia-level article. 24.6.65.83 19:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Keeping it simple and in line with the MOS would discourage the sort of additions you mention. Neither side should be offering their POV in headers. (Not saying the above does, just that it's not according to the MOS.) 24.6.65.83 19:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Line by line comparison 

message: *Recently, viewers have been shown scenes depicting EJ and Sami scheming together. Also, the character of EJ is going through what some believe is a classic soap redemption and Sami is being shown to trust him a little bit more than she did before. She has not yet forgiven him for what he did, but the story is leaving it open for that to happen as indicated by former Co-Executive Producer Wyman.Soap Opera Digest, "New Twist in Days's Most Controversial Tale", week of July 17 2007.
*Recently, viewers have been shown scenes depicting EJ and Sami scheming together. The Suds Report: May 28, 2007 wonders if NBC is redeeming EJ. Sami is being shown to trust him a little bit more than she did before although she has not yet forgiven him for what he did. The story is leaving it open for that to happen as indicated by former Co-Executive Producer Wyman.Soap Opera Digest, "New Twist in Days's Most Controversial Tale", week of July 17 2007.
I contend the second is the better of the two because it provides a firm reference for the "redemption" rather than a vague "some believe," doesn't rely on the phrase "classic soap opera redemption," and doesn't start two consecutive sentences with a single word/comma combo that is stilted and awkward. 24.6.65.83 03:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redemption

message: *Their story is being told in a way some believe paralell EJ and Sami's story of last summer.
*nothing
Here again we have a "some believe" claim without any sources to back it up, thus crossing over into Original Research. The fact that the characters are being portrayed by the same actors (mentioned in the previous sentence) is sufficient information for the reader to draw their own conclusions. "Last summer" is a relative term that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, the preferred form being "summer of XXXX." 24.6.65.83 03:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Santo/Colleen comparison

message: *Lab Tech
*lab tech
A simple capitalization error, but it's been reverted so I bring it here. 24.6.65.83 03:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The person who reverted to the capitalized version has just reverted back to the correct one. This has been resolved. 24.6.65.83 20:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lab Tech

message: *This was a notable speech in this pairing's history because many viewers (not all) saw it as the first time a suitor of Sami's had expressed this level of acceptance of her true character and because it was the first time EJ revealed to Sami that he had feelings for her that extended further than just physical attraction.
*nothing
Where to begin? No citations to back up the claim it's notable, I guess. Then we get to the weasel words that are so weaselly they even have a parenthetical qualifier. Contentious does not equal notable. It's dependent on Original research because it requires an editors judgment of what exactly is "this level of acceptance." 24.6.65.83 03:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable speech

message: *Even with this seeming attempt to clarify the issue, an elaboration of the scene itself through flashbacks is likely the only thing that will convince many viewers to change their minds one way or another about what happened.
*nothing
More weasel words and original research. It draws conclusions about 1) the motivations of the show's creative team, and 2) what will "likely" change viewers minds. 24.6.65.83 03:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: *Actor James Scott, portrayer of EJ, was interviewed by Sympatico/MSN/TV Guide as to the subject of the highly debated EJ and Sami storyline, even referring to it as rape himself, though also commenting on how he truly believes that EJ is in love with Sami:
*Actor James Scott, portrayer of EJ, was interviewed by Sympatico/MSN/TV Guide about the highly debated EJ and Sami storyline. He referred to it as rape, though also commenting on how he truly believes that EJ is in love with Sami:
The first is a run-on sentence. "As to the subject of" is awkward phrasing and overly verbose when "about" will do. "Even referring to it" implies that this is an extreme statement, while "he referred to it" is more neutral wording. 24.6.65.83 03:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You assume bad faith in my edits. "Lovely and flowing" is in the eye of the beholder, and we obviously disagree. I'm not so concerned about the first phrasing as the second, which is POV. Adding POV phrasing "due to previous editing wars" is not the way to create an encyclopedia-level article. 24.6.65.83 19:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A portrayer's thoughts

message: *Days former Co-Executive Producer addresses EJ and Sami controversy
*Days former Co-Executive Producer
Simple Manual of Style edit. Basically, there is no need to repeat the name of the article or the superheader in a subheader. The entire article is about EJ and Sami, the entire section is about the controversy, so the MOS says to leave them out. 24.6.65.83 03:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keeping it simple and in line with the MOS would discourage the sort of additions you mention. Neither side should be offering their POV in headers. (Not saying the above does, just that it's not according to the MOS.) 24.6.65.83 19:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Days former Co-Executive Producer

message: *Some viewers who do believe that EJ raped Sami, and magazines, such as Soap Opera Weekly (editorial in magazine week of June 11, 2007), are comparing EJ and Sami to Luke and Laura from General Hospital (see section below, Soap Opera Weekly opinion column related to the controversy). Luke and Laura became a supercouple in part due to a reworking of the storyline as a "seduction", even though it is currently an undisputed fact that Luke raped Laura. Whether the original intent of the the scene between EJ and Sami on December 29 2006 is ever confirmed by Days of our Lives executives or writers, to be compared to such a supercouple as Luke and Laura arguably shows the potential for EJ and Sami to become a Days of our Lives supercouple, in spite of the controversy surrounding the pairing.
*nothing
The entire section looks to be an argument that EJ and Sami have the potential to become a supercouple. A comparison in Soap Opera Weekly is being used as evidence to support the theory, not as a source for the theory. I personally don't care one way or the other if they are, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox to present evidence for an unpublished theory. As WP:OR says, "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." In this case, the source does not say that EJ and Sami are a potential supercouple. That appears to be a conclusion of the Wikipedia editors. 24.6.65.83 04:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Luke and Laura comparison

message: *Soap Opera Weekly opinion column related to the controversy
*Soap Opera Weekly opinion column
Again, another WP:MOS edit. The entire section is about the controversy, so repeating it in the subheader is not necessary. 24.6.65.83 04:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Soap Opera Weekly opinion column related to the controversy

message: *Some viewers agree with the opinion presented by the author of the referenced Soap Opera Weekly column, but others do not agree that the controversial scenes are being glossed over by the soap operas in question. As yet, no publication has addressed this opposing point of view or the issue that in all 3 cases quoted in the column, the male character is going through or has gone through a character redemption. This is of no consequence to some, but is a key point for others.
*nothing
I think the second sentence sums up my objections to this when it says "no publication has addressed this." This is the very definition of WP:OR; "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." 24.6.65.83 04:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SOW column agreement

message: *Despite the heated debate circling the EJ and Sami pairing, the relationship between the two has been recognized as a top couple in viewing multiple times by Sympatico/MSN/TV Guide. And with the couple's growing popularity, the two have proved formidable to rival couple, Lucas and Sami.
*EJ and Sami have been recognized as a "top couple to watch by the Suds Report.
(Note: I've shortened the ref in the first sample)
"Despite the heated debate" is a mitigating factor introduced by Wiki editors; it implies that this can or should detract from their popularity. Although there are claims of "multiple" recognitions, only one ref is provided. The second sentence in the first paragraph is another attempt to promote an EJ/Sami pairing, claiming some "formidable" aspect that is not supported by citaions. Again, I don't care one way or the other about the rivalry; I'm after an article that conforms to guidelines. The second sample is clear, straitforward and makes no claims that can't be verified. Any additional citations can, of course, be added as they are found. 24.6.65.83 05:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Details on popularity