Talk:Jordan Edmund

message: On the front page of The Wall Street Journal they indicated information about Jordan Edmund which I just added.  I consider that to be a very reliable source of information.  To view the news story online you must have a subscription. --User:Machater 16 October 2006
The drudgereport has now implicated Jordan Edmund in the Mark Foley scandal.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Modelmotion (talk • contribs) 
:Can you find a news agency that qualifies as a reliable source to use other than the Drudge report? --plange 20:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are more stories appearing in reputable sources that mention Jordan Edmund by name all the time.  You can follow it here: Google News: "Jordon Edmund".  He's in the news, whether what is being said about his involvement is true is still uncertain.  --Bhouston 20:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per Bhouston I am going to unprotect and restore the somewhat sourced version. I hope that the users who are advocating this unprotection immediately improve the sourcing and keep a close eye on this article. JoshuaZ 20:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The most reliable source so far is this news article  in the News Sentinel of Fort Wayne.  The title of the article is "Istook campaign employee and former page retains attorney".  It seems to be a AP news wire story.  --Bhouston 20:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, unprotected and open for editing. JoshuaZ 20:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To the editors, thanks for helping, we just have to be careful of biographies of living persons, hence our extreme caution --plange 20:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that DrudgeReport.com's "breaking news" items should not be used as sources for the bio -- I noticed you just removed it.  They are notoriously unreliable.  Also, if they turn out to be true, they will be confirmed by reliable sources usually within a day or two.  The AP story I linked to above currently has the page's age during the IMs to be 16 and 17 -- contradicting Drudge's claims.  --Bhouston 20:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the stories (AP and Reuters) have stated the actions happened 3 years ago, which would give Drudge a late 17 early 18 estimate.  your story however, (and probably more accurate) claims the events were about 4 or 5 years ago.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.5.33 (talk • contribs) 
His lawyer has issued a statement flatly contradicting Drudge. I request that this article be merged into Mark Foley scandal. This person has absolutely no notability at all outside that context. There are only 3 sentences here, so a merge would be trivial. It would also be the most reader-friendly organization. We don't need a click-through for an article consisting of 3 sentences. Does anyone object? If there is not consensus for that, I will take it through normal channels at AFD. Derex 07:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, and I've already gotten one OTRS e-mail on this. I've speedily redirected. FCYTravis 07:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. What's OTRS mean? Derex 08:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:OTRS is shorthand for the team of volunteer admins and editors who are given access to the Foundation's confidential support e-mail queue. We field requests from the outside world - from removing ordinary vandalism to cleanup of sensitive living persons issues. Suffice to say that at least one e-mail was already received specifically expressing concerns about this article. FCYTravis 08:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I am sorry for my part in anything that i posted here that was involved in the OTRS ticket. I never meant to do anything wrong. It was my fault. Copied to FCYTravis's page. --198.185.18.207 13:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You didn't do anything wrong. This sort of thing happens all the time. JoshuaZ 20:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled