Talk:John Edward/Archive 3

message: While I'm glad the article has two good images at the moment, I think it could use a couple more, including:
* An actual screenshot of Crossing Over or Cross Country. This would qualify under fair use.
* Images of Edward's most notable media appearances. One of these is surely the South Park episode, so a screenshot would be appropriate and would (I believe) qualify under fair use as long as the episode is discussed (as it is now). The episode shows Edward in several scenes, most notably on the set of Crossing Over and also at the intergalactic awards ceremony where he is crowned and given his "award". We could use an image of either scene.
If other media appearances deserve to be pictured, I'd like to know so I can try to track down images from them. — Elembis 16:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Wikipedia:Lead section is a guideline for introductions. Since the neutrality of the lead is disputed at the moment, I'll offer my suggestions for discussion and amendment here on the talk page until the current dispute is resolved. In part, the guideline reads:
:The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article.
One suggestion the guideline makes is to "try to have a sentence, clause, or at least a word devoted to each of the main headlines in the article." I think this is a good idea, so here are the sections and my suggestion for each:
*Biography: Mention that Edward was convinced of psychic phenomena at 15, or perhaps "at a young age" — don't give everything away too soon. =)
*Television shows: Mention his current show in slightly more detail; both shows are already mentioned.
*Paranormal study, Criticism and Controversies: Say that he is a controversial figure or that he has drawn support and criticism.
*Appearances in the media and Books: Do nothing, since they are already mentioned ("Edward ... is an American author and television personality").
I don't think any of these changes should be applied to the first sentence. Here's one way they might be presented, with a little additional text to flesh it out:
:John Edward McGee Jr., (born October 19, 1969 in Glen Cove, New York), better known as John Edward, is an American author and television personality best known for performing as a [professed] psychic medium on his shows Crossing Over and John Edward Cross Country.
:Edward was convinced at a young age that he could become a psychic. After writing his first book on the subject in 1998, Edward became a well known and controversial figure in the United States through his shows and other media appearances. His current show, John Edward Cross Country, has been aired on WE tv since May 2006.
Amend away! — Elembis (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm beginning to think the Wikipedia:Lead section guideline is going to make for some longer introductions than the actual article itself.  Dreadlocke  ☥  08:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding the introduction 

message: The dispute concerning this page deals with the wording concerning John Edward and whether or not to call him a "Psychic" or a "Supposed psychic" or a "purported psychic" etc. It is true that some of those terms should be avoided in encyclopedia articles in some cases. However specific terms such as "Self-Proclaimed" would be suitable as long as they cited the assertion. Calling Edward a "Self Proclaimed Psychic" would not violate wikipedia policy nor is it considered a weasle word if it's sourced. From WP:WEASEL 
# Wikidudeman (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Self-proclaimed" is not a weasle word if it's sourced. 

message: :See this edit
Why not put in the links, since they make it more obvious that one can go and read the source, and it might be useful?? Is there something wrong with such links? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#External links says "You should not add a descriptive title to an embedded HTML link within an article"; that is, our links should look like  and not this. Also, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#URLs as embedded (numbered) links suggests that sources may be included as inline external links or as references in the References section. I recommend that we continue to use the latter system. — Elembis (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood.  Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Schwartz and Hyman articles 

message: What justification is there for keeping the neurality tag?Wikidudeman (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The  tag is in place pending the outcome of a mediation case concerning the introduction's wording. Until the disagreement is resolved, the tag should remain. — Elembis (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The mediation needs to start. It can't stay there indefinitely. Wikidudeman (talk) 08:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality tag? 

message: I think not its confusing, and like an advert. The image although containing an image of John Edward is of a book...not the man himself, if you want to put an image there of Mr Edward not of a book.Belbo Casaubon 17:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you get an official opinion on this, talk to one of the copyright/fair use admins.  Book covers are in widespread use throughout Wikipedia in their author's articles - it's one of the few ways to get a photo in.  Dreadlocke  ☥  17:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yah man, that seems a bit far-fetched to nuke the only free photo we have of Edward on the basis that using his own book cover is excess advertisement for him. What else are we supposed to use? And it's his article... what's wrong with using his book cover? – Lantoka (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A book cover isn't free, it's fair use, and it's questionable in this case.  Since he's a living person, any fair use image is (at least in theory) replacable by someone somewhere taking his picture.  He does leave the house, right?  --Milo H Minderbinder 17:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a good photo like that, then feel free to replace it.  In the meantime, it's perfectly good.  Run over to his house and snap off a shot.  Dreadlocke  ☥  17:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Oooooh. I figured since we replaced a fair use image the new one would be free. My mistake. However, I'd hesitate removing that image unless you can replace it with a better one. Arguments about fair use are just going to end in edit wars and headaches. And speaking from experience with other fair use image debates, the guidelines on how strict or loose to be about the use of fair use images is nowhere near set in stone. – Lantoka (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I suggest that the reason an editor might look at this article and think "This usage fails Wikipedia:Fair use" is because the book cover is in a big infobox, and is clearly being used just to show what a living person looks like.  If the book cover were moved out of the infobox and put in a section about this person's work and career, with a caption like "Edward's book, which describes both his philosophy and experiences, received mixed reviews from critics [ref]", I suspect no one would look askance at it.  Jkelly 18:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While better, if the book only merits one line, I think there will still be some including me who will question whether there is any justification for including the image Nil Einne 19:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is using a book cover fair use

message: Dreadlocke, you just made an edit to the page without even proposing it on the talk page first.  We all know this article is controversial so please don't make edits until there is consensus to do so.  Especially when you revert to a wording that multiple editors have objected to.  I don't see how you can call that wording a compromise - you put back the wording you've been arguing for and others opposing "performs as a psychic" - making a few other changes around it doesn't make it a compromise.  --Milo H Minderbinder 21:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I left in the "says" part, that's the compromise.  You never had consensus for the current version anyway!  You're just trying to force the issue without proper discussion.  Dreadlocke  ☥  21:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There certainly was discussion.  What makes it not "proper"?  --Milo H Minderbinder 21:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion that led to a proper consensus.  You didn't have one, no matter how much you doth protest.  It's very clear.  So, yes, I'll take it back to mediation.  Dreadlocke  ☥  21:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: proper consensus, I did not agree, and Elembis did not agree, he only agreed after at the point that stevertigo declared consensus, so that statement is completely bogus, cos by that point Milo had joined in, 2 editors against makes no consensus...and incase you had not noticed Elembis has lost interest. Belbo Casaubon 23:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Milo joined in after the mediation decision had been made and the case was closed.  If you have a problem with the mediation results, this isn't way to handle that.  Clearly, at that point, mediation must start again - meanwhile the previous version should stay in place.  It's really the only fair thing to do.  I find the current circumstance of forcing a new version without consensus to be far worse than what you are describing, Belbo.  Let's revert back and take it again to mediation!  That seems to be the fair way to do it, doesn't it? Dreadlocke  ☥  23:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "mediation must start again"  I'll believe that when I see where it says that in WP policy.  From WP:RFM: "Mediation does not provide binding resolution to disputes; mediators can not, do not, and will not issue rulings on disputes."  --Milo H Minderbinder 23:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know all of that Milo, I've read about mediation and it's limitations.  However, for you to just ignore it because it's inconvenient shows a huge disregard for the spirit of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  You do not have a consensus for your version, you can't get around that execept by forcing a consensus where there is none, and the apparent threat of edit warring.  That, in my opinion, is an uncivil means to get your version into place. At least I followed the rules and spirit of Wikipedia dispute resolution - can you say the same? Dreadlocke  ☥  00:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see...we made a proposal, five editors said they were OK with it with one objecting, and after five days, I made the proposed edit.  And when you edited the POV version back without agreement to do so, and without even proposing the wording on the talk page first, I reverted it.  How dare I?  --Milo H Minderbinder 00:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, indeed, how dare you claim a consensus for your version when there clearly has been none.  I edited on Feb 23rd and disagreed with you that day, and today is only the 28th - the fifth day.  There is no "five day period" for your proposal to go through.  It was made very clear to you that I objected or would object to your version.  No consensus.  But I can see this is falling on deaf ears, so I'll agree Lantoka's comments below and try to move forward.  You can try to twist this any way you like, Milo, but you had no consensus - ever. My version had consensus and a mediation behind it, yours does not.  You ignore it all you like, but what you did was wrong.  Ok, Lantoka, let's try it your way.. :)  Dreadlocke  ☥  00:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: To be honest I doubt we can agree on a version that makes everyone happy since some editors will only accept biased, POV wording that makes it sound like Edward is a psychic.  Personally, I won't agree to any wording that violates WP policy.  --Milo H Minderbinder 00:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll assume good faith if you will. Just consider the arguments. Nobody's forcing you to change your mind at gunpoint. The idea is that if we explore and discuss the issue for long enough that we'll arrive at some sort of consensus. – Lantoka (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New edit 

message: Wikipedia:Words to avoid recommends using "says" as a neutral term, particularly in cases "when a statement is unproven or subjective".  Is JE being a psychic unproven?  Yes.  Is it subjective?  Yes.  So WP guidelines specifically say that "says" is neutral and recommend using it - calling the word "biased" is just an excuse to justify misleading, POV wordings.  Is there any real objection to the current wording, other than it doesn't push POV and make it sound like he's a real psychic?
The guideline also says "In general, words and expressions should be avoided if they are ambiguous, uninformative, or non-specific."  Since we all seem to agree that "performs" is ambiguous and non-specific, that's not an option.  --Milo H Minderbinder 23:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite what the guideline says, the word "says" here does have NPOV problems, because an interpretation of it is clearly POV. Geez, I wish the dispute were this easy to settle. I understand what the guideline is getting at (when something is unproven, resort to action verbs to state fact), but verbs used to state fact can still be loaded/biased. For example, you guys raised objections to my recommendation that we change from "says" to "appears". It's the same thing. He both says and appears to do his psychic stuff, but both of those words can also cast doubt because of the emphasis they put on him "saying" and "appearing to do" this stuff. – Lantoka (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, even though I've tried to rewrite it, it still doesn't work. It's incomplete, as it in no way indicates the view of those that follow him ("describes himself as", is just not the entire truth of the matter), it glosses over the fact that he's best known for his shows, all the while leaving out his private practice and books - it's so incomplete as to be wrong and misleading!  He's best known for performing as a psychic medium on his show, I do not see how it can be better put than that!  Then we leave the details for the article body.  Putting in a misleading, incomplete statement is not the way to go. Dreadlocke  ☥  03:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with Dreadlocke. He summarizes the matter well. JoshuaZ 03:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Joshua!  I tried to point up the "best known for his shows", but I'm sure that sentence won't pass NPOV muster - even though it says "describes himself" at the beginning of that sentence, which should really address the concern.  Besides, it's the premise of the show - this just describes it.  Dreadlocke  ☥  03:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done the best I can with the wording, but we still have the problem of incompleteness by the statement "describes himself as...".  Incomplete, misleading and therefore incorrect.  Going back to "perfoms" strikes me as a much better solution all the way around, and leaving out "describes himself" or "self-professed", which are not only incomplete and incorrect, but inherently POV as well.  Dreadlocke  ☥  03:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct on all points.  The summary was perfect.  One of the best I've ever seen for being NPOV while maintaining smoothness with no weasels or cast doubts or cast beliefs.  We should go back to it. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Says" is about as neutral as you can get 

message: So anyway, all this arguing is a load of crapola, we should really be spending some time with our partners and children and taking it easy, maybe smoking a little dope and getting it on, I think Edward is a charlatan, Dreads thinks he is some kind of conduit, well I can live with that...just don't tell me I amwrong for my beliefs cos I don't mock yours....Belbo Casaubon 00:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's roll a jay and smoke it in Jimbo's Office. ;) – Lantoka (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah Casaubon, you're right.  And I would also support a more NPOV version.  About the word "says," the reason it is less NPOV than "performs," is because you can interpret it that he does have powers, or that he doesn't.  But when someone tells you "so-and-so says he can jump 10 feet" instead of telling you "so-and-so can jump 10 feet," you automatically question whether he really can.  Thus, "says" is biased toward the interpretation that he can't, and the neutral interpretation is not possible. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Load of Crapola

message: John Edward McGee, Jr. (born October 19, 1969), better known as John Edward, is an American author and television personality who describes himself as a psychic medium. He is best known for his shows Crossing Over and John Edward Cross Country, television shows which are premised on Edward communicating with the spirits of the audience member's deceased relatives.
Ladies and gentleman, we may finally have a winner. What do you think? – Lantoka (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is the intro a transcluded template ? Otherwise I think it is fine. — BillC talk 08:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, once we reach real consensus, that won't be an issue, because we'll have half a dozen people zealously watching what happens to this page, and bad changes will be reverted instantly. – Lantoka (talk) 08:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still prefer the previous reading as the new version sounds pretty awkward, but I can live with it as a compromise.  It's certainly doesn't have the inaccuracy and POV issues of "performs".  Now the question is will it stay, and if it does, now what's next for the article.  I strongly disagree with making the intro a template and protecting anything with "mediation" as a reason.  There isn't edit warring going on right now, and protecting something "per mediation" completely goes against the notion that mediation isn't binding.  "Anyone who happens to come along" has just as much right to edit the article as those who participated in a mediation.  The only limit on editing is that it should be done with consensus.  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We still need to find a way of making the "describes himself" statement more complete and correct, it's still inherently misleading - as if he alone is claiming this ability. Dreadlocke  ☥  17:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Deadlocke Wording