Talk:John Edwards/Archive 2

message: What a laugh.  The article is currently using a source to assert something that is flatly untrue on its own premises.  The article refers to a Krauthammer article which correctly quotes Edwards in criticizing him in order that it may misdirect the valid criticism of Edwards towards The Drudge Report and its misquote as if the effect was entirely different for those that responded negatively.  This not only denies that legitimate criticism but as well uses sources for purposes that are undermined simply by reading what they say.
Here's Edwards's actual quote:
:If we can do the work that we can do in this country – the work we will do when John Kerry is president – people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.
Here's the misquote from The Drudge Report:
:"When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."
Here's how the Krauthammer article that is linked to quotes Edwards:
:If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.  [The very source used in the article]
Does that sound as if he is simply "[r]eacting to the misquote", as the article is now stating as fact?  Is that an accurate representation of Edwards's speech and the controversy, that he was misquoted and everyone was fine with the substance of his remarks when they were clarified?  Apparently some editors are content not bothering to examine this.  Any others are prevented from editing it.  129.71.73.248 06:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Register a user name and in a few days, you will be able to edit this article. No one is stopping you from doing that. Frankly, I was involved in removing that quote a while ago but gave up when several edits kept putting it back and now it looks like two completely different takes on it have been fused together so that it seems that they are talking about each other when they are not. Gdo01 07:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been out of the loop.  Has Wikipedia policy changed and anonymous use is now officially disallowed and discouraged?  I could register a name yes but do not see the point in that.  In fact, the only point I see here is that one version must be protected and in the course of this a very valid content dispute is treated as "vandalism".  My, the vanity.  129.71.73.248 07:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if vandalism is uncontrollable, it is better to keep a bad version than to allow harmful changes that could make it worse. Apparently, anonymous users have been the problem. Temporarily blocking their edits is a way to protect the current integrity of the page. As you can see from the history , this page was hit several times by anonymous vandalism. Unfortunately, good editors are caught up in the collateral damage. Other than that, I suggest you not try to be cynical. There is no conspiracy to keep you from editing, Wikipedia is not against you, and protecting a page from further damage is not vanity. Gdo01 07:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you misunderstand me a bit.  There are plenty of bad apples (anonymous and not), but the protection happened mightily fast after complaints were made about my edits.  I did not see anything on the Rfp page about John Edwards so the evidence only shows an informal wish by one party was granted.  This does not necessitate site-wide conspiracy, but involves at least quite a bit of bad faith and/or laziness.  129.71.73.248 07:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I was not involved in the protection of the page so I didn't know you were the party who was deemed responsible for the protection. I thought you were just an anonymous user who was not involved. Well I really have no more to say, I don't know any of the details on the protection or what edits caused it. Gdo01 07:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I finally found a request which was purged quickly (perhaps there is a much bigger load now).  Given the time that it was made and its mention of "heavy IP vandalism" I don't see how it could be targeted at anything else.  129.71.73.248 07:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: How do you "arbitrarily" quote someone when the issue is what the reaction and controversy was (and it was rather significant)?  MediaMatters was previously allowed to determine the argument and now is the only one speaking its mind.  Here's what I seem to understand happened:  the MM article was inserted, attempting to insinuate carelessness on the part of all Edwards critics; Krauthammer was in that piece given as literally responding to the misquote but a further link was added to a completely separate article of Krauthammer's.  In that piece, he quotes him accurately and obviously does not feel that it changes the intention or effect of Edwards's claims (and personally I don't see how any intellectually honest person would think so).  So no I don't agree to the current edit.  It seems to either wish to sidestep the substance of the issue in favor of reporting the misquote or to simply disfavor the critics and disallow their own words in favor of MM.  And I would love to change it "at will" if you and perhaps the editor on Rfp did not decide to term it "vandalism".  129.71.73.248 18:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please calm down, it was only an attempt, I will leave to other editors now. Kncyu38 09:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Vandalism"

message: I recently contributed a report that Edwards had purchased the largest and most expensive home in Orange County, North Carolina. I feel that since his campaign in based on poverty, and the "two different" Americas for the rich and the poor, that it is important to note this potential hypocrisy in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kishap5 (talk • contribs).
:The home information is already in the article under the "early life, education, and family" subsection.  Additionally, the wording you inserted did not adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.  Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  He did very well as a lawyer so what? He can't buy a house now? Where is the hipocrisy that you speak of? Ecostaz 21:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not feel that the current language in the "early life, education, and family" meets the standard of "unbiased".  In particular, the long list of rooms in the house is out of keeping with the biographical nature of that section, and is clearly intended to make a political point about the size or purported extravagance of the house. Asa Hopkins, 23:55, 20 February 2007 (PST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.50.156.70 (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Would you rather he hoard all his money rather than pay the largest property tax bill in Orange County that will go to funding public schools? Has John Edwards ever said he does not believe people should be able to be wealthy? He's always stated that he wants people to have the same opportunities that he had. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Terando (talk • contribs) 20:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia articles are not the place for ideologues to express their feelings about the subject, especially when those feelings are based on something so blatantly irrational -- it's not hypocritical for rich people to decry poverty.  Rather, it would be hypocritical for rich people who decry poverty to act as if they too were impoverished. Note that, in discussing health care, Edwards says that every American should be able to get the sort of health care that he and his wife do, not that his wife should forego treatment because there are people too poor to afford that sort of care; to call that "hypocritical" or "tone deaf" is inane. -- Jibal 05:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Home Purchase

message: I deleted the Iraq war activist category. See discussion there. If all people that somehow criticize the execution of the war, although they initially supported and considered it a "cake walk" the category tends to become close to meaningless.
The category's definition drew my attention since people wanted to add Yaron Brook to it, which is pretty absurd. 
Both Brook and Edwards would fit a category like: Iraq-war execution critics. A category that will contain a high percentage of US politicians, mirroring the polls anti-Iraq war sentiments. Helpful in the Iraq-war execution critics would be a subcategory like pro or contra an "ideological clash of cultures" or the "decisive ideological struggle against radical Islam. A narrative that feels a bit like a self-fulfilling prophecy, or a tool to raise the defense budget.LeaNder 16:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-War activist

message: Ann Coulter has recently alleged that John Edwards is a closeted homosexual. []  I am unsure if this was said tongue in cheek, but the youtube tape  seems to indicate she actually believes this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.232.222.5 (talk • contribs).
:No way that's going in this article unless a big fuss is made, as Ann Coulter is perhaps one of the most unreliable sources imaginable. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't an allegation, it was Ann Coulter being an ass to increase her noteriety and sell more books.  However it is a notable campaign event in that John Edwards responded by displaying the video itself on his donation web form and is soliciting for "Coulter Cash".  More information: https://johnedwards.com/action/contribute/coulter - AbstractClass 04:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: She later said that it was a joke and she does not beleive that Edwards is not straight. She said that she used to word to mean "wuss" or pussy, not meaning homosexual. The remark definitely has no place in the Edwards bio. Ecostaz 00:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally disagree, particular as http://johnedwards.com/ has so prominently featured the video of her remarks.  00:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per my comment in the below subsection, do you agree or disagree that the incident is at least being given inappropriate weight in this article? · j e r s y k o talk · 00:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the grand scheme of the article the section is likely too large due to WP:Recentism but again given the prominence and way that Edwards has himself responded to her remarks makes such a section completely qulalified to be in this article about him.  00:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed undue weight and recentism might also be an issue. I will not push for total removal as per Netscott's comments, but Ann Coulter at most meant it as a bad joke and not a serious allegation of homosexuality. This is still a bio of a possible future president and such remarks should not be featured so prominently especially as they were not made seriously. Ecostaz 00:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think her alleged intent is of no relevance here -- it's the controversy that makes it significant, not how she justified her behavior.  FWIW I agree with the undue weight argument below -- this should be two sentences.  /Blaxthos 01:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ann Coulter remark

message: I added a POV tag in lieu of edit warring because I believe recent edits (this series and this series) have caused this article to violate the neutral point of view policy by giving undue weight to the Coulter remarks (as I already mentioned in the above subsection) and the blogger stuff.  I'm also concerned about recentism, which often accompanies undue weight concerns.  My view is that the blogger edits be reverted entirely and that the Coulter remarks, if they are to be included at all, should be incorporated in a couple sentences in the Presidential campaign subsection. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - remove section, add a few sentences in presidential campaign section; one about the remark, second about the reaction of the campaign.  --DavidShankBone 05:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also agree. Italiavivi 00:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tried to reduce the Ann Coulter paragraph and moved it to the 2008  presidential campaign section. Ecostaz 15:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the change.  I removed the POV tag I added to the article, as I believe the undue weight concerns have now been addressed. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think the actual language used by the bloggers should be included, especially since the article labels them "allegedly anti-Catholic" statements.  It's like calling Mel Gibson's famous slurs allegedly anti-Semitic.  Including the actual language is hardly undue weight.  Indeed, the section is somewhat misleading without it.  I would agree to a compromise: omit the offensive statements if the word "allegedly" is removed.  Otherwise, leave the statements in and let the reader judge. Mamalujo 22:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, none of the text you've added gives the reader any more context by which to judge whether the comments are truly anti-Catholic than the text of the article without the additions does (the third example, "Bush's Christofascist base", doesn't even appear to be directed at Catholics on its face).  Finally, using the word "retroactively" in regard to Marcotte's initial comment on the issue is pure POV, as it implies that Marcotte wasn't being truthful.  Wikipedia should not judge whether the comments were truly anti-Catholic, as leaving out the word "allegedly" accomplishes.  Wikipedia should merely report (1) that Bill Donohue thinks Marcotte made anti-Catholic comments and (2) that Marcotte says they were satirical.  The additions to the article distort both. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight 

message: Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have their political views page. As the third-most popular Democratic candidate, shouldn't Edwards have his own page similar to these? If so, I'll put in a request. JeffreyAtW 18:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, he should have one.  Edwards has perhaps been the most forthcoming on his views thus far of the big three Democratic contenders (though Clinton has a somewhat more extensive record to work with, I suppose), so I imagine the article would have a substantial amount of material to work with. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, it's been created. JeffreyAtW 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political views page? 

message: Anyone else think this weighting seems odd? Italiavivi 01:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Coulter story wasn't really about Edwards.  Sure he was the target of the term, but Edwards's involvement in the story ended with his response condemning Coulter's comment. The blogger incident, on the other hand, involved Edwards for an extended period of time and involved multiple actions by him and his campaign staff. So no, it's not oddly weighted.--Bobblehead 01:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloggers section longer than Coulter mention? 

message: I'm putting a Current Event tag here. His campaign said they would hold a news conference in their hometown Thursday to discuss her health. Rumor is she has cancer again.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070322/ap_on_el_pr/edwards2008
Oh yEs itS caRly 04:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That made sense earlier, when it wasn't known what that announcement would be, but I removed the current event tag this evening, as the announcement was definitive that at this time although Mrs. Edwards has a health problem, the campaign is going on, at full stem.  So it seems that at this time there is no more current event. Tvoz | talk 22:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Event 

message: There is a paragraph with 2 sentences in it.  The 2 sentences contradict each other.  One cites Edwards as saying everyone will pay.  The other says only the high tax bracket people will pay (implying that it's free for everyone else??).  I did not write the sentences. It has been there for a long, long time.  It is possible that Edwards said both things.
The reference cited is a dead link.  Therefore, a citation needed has been added.  Another sentence has been clarified, i.e. single payor term is not defined so I made a slight change for clarity but left the wording largely intact.  The word was to say that Medicare is the single payor.HumanThing 00:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Medical plan

message: In view of the potential danger to public health and safety, an medical expert is requested to assess Senator Edwards' comment that metastatic stage IV breast cancer is "completely treatable" and his comparison of the condition to diabetes or if a comment in this wikipedia article is warranted.  There is grave concern that the Senator's statement might encourage complacency (even in one person) resulting in their death.  The expert should consider whether there should be at least a brief mention of the seriousness of metastasis and that such warning is in the best interest of patient safety.
Other wikipedia editors should be assured that the purpose of this message is purely in the interest of public health and patient safety.  It should not be construed in anyway as a message of support or lack of support for Senator Edwards.Dereks1x 17:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above - this is not the place for public health announcements. Tvoz | talk 18:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems quite extreme.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a PSA board.  By saying that this type of cancer is similar to diabetes in the fact that it is "treatable", how are the Edwardses encouraging complacency in any breast cancer patient?  Diabetes can in fact be fatal if proper precautions and treatment are not taken.  It is often not curable, but rather treatable, in most cases.  The similarity is apt in that respect.  A breast cancer patient (if she/he chooses to pattern behavior after Ms. Edwards) would be, if anything, more likely to seek treatment if she/he thought the cancer was treatable, rather than non-curable.  That is the complete opposite of what you're saying.  It's pretty NPOV to be saying that the Edwardses are creating a public health situation here with their public comments on Elizabeth's condition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gloriamarie (talk • contribs) 10:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Message to Medical Expert/Physician

message: I have seen the call for an expert a few lines above.  I am a physician who has treated breast cancer in the past.  I have publications about cancer (but not breast cancer) in peer reviewed journals and have made presentations at national and international meetings.  I have no stake in this article.  It is my intention to offer a medical opinion but not to become involved in a dispute of the wording or to take sides among editors.  
I have paid attention not to use language that could be considered original research or soapboxing.
The use of the word "completely treatable" is inaccurate because there are certain treatment options that are no longer possible because of the worsening condition of Mrs. Edwards. Furthermore, there is a possibility of the public thinking that Mrs. Edwards' condition is less serious if there is mention of the condition being "completely" treatable, which the public may think is different from being merely "treatable".  It is conceivable that a misunderstanding of disease by an individual could have a, to say the least, negative effect. A comparison of metastatic breast cancer to diabetes is very misleading because the only similarity of the two is that one should have regular follow-up with the doctor.  A much high percentage of people do not live more than 5 years who have this stage of breast cancer compared to an extremely high percentage of people who have diabetes.
As further evidence that using the term "completely treatable" is ill-advised, consider what happened at the trial involving the pool which Mr. Edwards represented and won $25M.  I very much doubt he would have said "this poor child has a condition that isn't curable, but completely, and I emphasize, completely treatable."  "While it will be with her for life, the same thing could be said with diabetes.  She has a condition just like diabetes."
The editors may wish to consider two version, which has intentionally used very similar language to the pre-existing wording:
At a press conference[51] on March 22, John and his wife, Elizabeth, announced that she has stage IV breast cancer with newly discovered metastasis to the bones (rib and hip  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/26/us/politics/26edwards.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin   http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2981102&page=1 ) and a possibility that it may have spread to a lung.[52][53] They stated that the cancer was "no longer curable, but is completely treatable."[54] Mrs. Edwards' physician, who spoke at the news conference, was not reported to have used the term "completely treatable", but gave more specifics of the different treatments that were posssible and treatments that were no longer possible  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032200155.html .  The Edwards also announced that they planned to continue campaigning together with an occasional break when Elizabeth requires treatment, saying "The campaign goes on, The 
campaign goes on strongly." [3][51] This ended erroneous media speculation prior to the press conference that the Edwards would announce a suspension of the campaign.[55]
At a press conference[51] on March 22, John and his wife, Elizabeth, announced that she has stage IV breast cancer with newly discovered metastasis to the bone (rib and hip  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/26/us/politics/26edwards.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin   http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2981102&page=1 ) and a possibility that it may have spread to a lung.[52][53] They stated that the cancer was "no longer curable" but "treatable".[54] Their doctor was at the news conference to describe that some treatment options were possible to slow or shrink the cancer.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032200155.html  The Edwards also announced that they planned to continue campaigning together with an occasional break when Elizabeth requires treatment, saying "The campaign goes on, The campaign goes on strongly." [3][51] This ended erroneous media speculation prior to the press conference that the Edwards would announce a suspension of the campaign.[55]
I have added some references about the news conference.  
I hope this helps.Doc United States 20:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As confirmed by checkuser, Doc United States is merely a sock puppet of Dereks1x.  My advice is to not take medical advice from sock puppets. · j e r s y k o talk · 12:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are in agreement that this article is not the place for speculation or what amounts to original research (i.e., comments based not on knowledge of her particular case specifics) regarding Elizabeth Edwards' illness by lay people or by doctors.  The only exception would be the Edwardses themselves, as he is the subject of the article (and by extension so is she), so their comments about her illness, and its  effect on her and their family, and the expected effect on the campaign, are reasonable to include with appropriate refs as we did  - not as medical education, but as relevant subject-specific content. I think the previous edit made it a bit too dry, so I reinstated a little bit  of what  the Edwardses said, and I think this language is essentially fine as it is now, unless there is a change in the news. Tvoz |talk 05:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the other hand, certain general statements can be made about the natural history of metastatic breast cancer that would not necessarily constitute "original research."  I agree with some of the editors here that the expression "treatable" can mean vastly different things to different people.  Anything in medicine is "treatable" to improve the quality of life.  Andrew73 12:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree - but that's why the article includes wikilinks to  metastatic, stage IV, and breast cancer - where these issues are or should be discussed with the depth that they deserve.  This article is only about John Edwards and we have no information about Elizabeth's specific treatment protocol or prognosis. The article reflects what the Edwardses said about the impact of her diagnosis on them and the campaign.  Anything more, to my mind, is speculation that doesn't belong here.Tvoz |talk 18:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To supplement Tvoz (I'm not really saying anything new), the article should talk about Elizabeth Edwards' diagnosis and what the Edwardses have to say about her diagnosis.  As far as I know, no specific prognosis tailored for her has been published as of this writing.  Thus, to go further here, in this article, and discuss general prognoses for people with X kind of cancer is original research if tied to Mrs. Edwards and both original research (implicitly) and irrelevant if not tied to Mrs. Edwards. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This is not policy-gaming at all.  There are wikilinks provided to articles that go into an in-depth discussion of the illness.  The problem with including general information here, as has been explained, is that each case is different, and we would be more likely to be misleading than not, until people familiar with Mrs. Edwards' specific case were to speak about her case.  If you do some reading, or have any experience with the disease, you'll find that cancer staging is an average, an attempt to differentiate in broad strokes - it is not something that can be pinpointed to a specific person with accuracy without knowing many more details, and in fact may not even be possible by her own doctors (see the CNN piece that Jersyko quoted above).  All that should be said, in this article about John Edwards (not about Elizabeth I point out), is what they have announced about her cancer - and that was not done with her medical details by them.  I'm ok with what we have now, but less would be ok too - I agree, however, that more speculation,  which is all it would be, should not be added. Not policy over accuracy - in this instance policy supports accuracy. Tvoz |talk 23:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I strongly suspect this user is another sock puppet of User:Dereks1x.  I offered the user a chance to confirm or deny, but I will continue with another SSP case if need be.  Substantively, the edit the user made destroys the coherence of the paragraph, as it removes the statement that Edwards is continuing his campaign. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I suspect you are right about this user being a sockpuppet.  Even if that's not the case, the version this user has tried to revert to just doesn't make sense. Maximusveritas 02:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All I can say is "yawn".  (And I see exactly why you're saying it J.)Tvoz |talk 04:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There is absolutely nothing POV about that paragraph, and it doesn't need any revision, so stop it. Tvoz |talk 04:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More on cancer

message: I think this section is being given too much weight in the article - it is hardly equivalent to his universal health care proposal or ELizabeth Edwards' health, yet it's up there as an equal item regarding the 2008 campaign.  Maybe it was added in a fit of recentism, but I think that the story did not last the test of time and I propose removing it or boiling it down to at most a sentence. Tvoz |talk 20:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone?  I'm inclined to remove the section.  Tvoz |talk 17:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I recalled a talk conversation about this subject, but I must have been dreaming because I don't see it here or in the archives.  At least, I don't see the type of conversation that I thought I remembered taking part in.  Agreed that the section is the result of recentism.  The whole thing really was quite short-lived; no one's talking about it now, just a few weeks after it happened.  I'm not opposed to a very short summary in the 2008 section, but an entire subsection is overkill. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was this one between myself and Italiavivi, but it was only in regards to the Coulter incident being smaller than the blogger incident. A sentence or two regarding the complaints and resignation in the 2008 section would be appropriate. --Bobblehead 18:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is now more balanced.Tvoz |talk 19:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  anti-Catholic bloggers 

message: nothing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.62.95.59 (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, nothing.  Not even worth a discussion, in my opinion. Tvoz |talk 05:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adherence to recentism would support inclusion.  Not much else. · j e r s y k o talk · 12:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That "Recentism" link is an opinion essay, not a Wikipedia guideline or policy.  I would also suggest that the essay you link directly contradicts official guideline WP:NOTABILITY, which states that notability is generally permanent.  If the haircut incident has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject, it is notable no matter what an opinion essay says. Italiavivi 22:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My link to the recentism essay was meant to demonstrate how wrong it would be to include the information. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm saying that it would not be wrong if the haircut controversy can be established as notable per WP:NOTABILITY, regardless of what's written at the "Recentism" essay.  I was told for months that Barack Obama's smoking cessation "wasn't notable" or "just recentism," despite it passing every possible test.  I am trying to be as consistent as possible in applying notability guidelines, is all. Italiavivi 23:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, I obviously misinterpreted. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it deserves a mention at this point.  Edwards was asked about it at the debate and has also started joking about it in speeches.  While it may have been a good idea to hold off on including it at first, I think it's reached the point where it deserves inclusion.  Maximusveritas 02:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's covered, along with the cost of his house and other such things,  here - the section on the presidential campaign is short in the main article and the forked-off article focuses on the details of the campaign, controversies, etc.  Tvoz |talk 22:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haircuts 

message: Maybe more information regarding his specific involvement with Fortress Investment Group (FIG).  Give equal weight to this as his other endeavors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newboundry (talk • contribs) 13:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fortress investments 

message: Why is there nothing mentioned about his $400 haircut scandal? It is constantly removed from the site, which challenges the neutrality of the article. Whether it is an important political determinant, in regards to pciking a president, it made news and should be part of his site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.146.203.159 (talk • contribs).
:It is already mentioned in the 2008 Presidential Campaign section.  I do think that section will need to be reorganized eventually into subsections since it is getting cluttered and hard to read. Maximusveritas 19:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. It's already mentioned. --OnoremDil 17:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: uh, $800? Tvoz |talk 06:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Haircut

message: The $800 haircut needs to be part of the profile. If not, the objectivity of this article is questioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.104.170 (talk • contribs) 
:See above. It's already mentioned. --OnoremDil 17:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: uh, $800? Tvoz |talk 06:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The $800{{Talkfact}} Haircut 

message: I was originally going to write, not about the hair, but how having 2 photos of John Edwards is distracting.  One is obviously of him in his younger years as a Senator and one looks more recent.  We should consider having only one of them so people don't get distracted.  This is a very minor pointPipermantolisopa 04:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, on second thought - I don't see that this is a problem - one is clearly  marked as his official Senate portrait which would be several years ago, and one is his current phonto. Lok t some of the other politicians' articles - it's pretty common practive.  I'd leave them alone. Tvoz |talk 06:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: photos

message: The Edwards' house was listed as being in the Chapel Hill/Raleigh/Durham metro area.  This isn't quite accurate.  The Edwards house is actually in a rural bit of area that is technically in Chapel Hill but is in the part of Chapel Hill that is separated from the actual town of Chapel Hill by Carrboro.  It's an odd bit of layout.  While technically Chapel Hill, it would give people a misleading impression to say that they lived in Chapel Hill because they're closest to Carrboro.  Not sure if this makes any sense to anyone who hasn't been there, but I wanted to mention it on the talk page so someone didn't change it back to Raleigh-Durham.  I'll find a source as well.--Gloriamarie 19:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the extra  location detail - I don't think we need such specifics about where they live: it doesn't mean anything to most people in such detail and theoretically could be a question of privacy. Seems to me the county  is enough information - am I missing something  of some significance here?  Tvoz |talk 04:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's fine.  I just thought the previous location saying Raleigh/Durham was a bit misleading.  It's OK just to say Orange County.--Gloriamarie 17:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: House

message: I posted this on an editor's page regarding repeatedly changing "Johnny" to "John" in the intro. My understanding is that his birth name is "Johnny Reid Edwards" and he uses "John Reid Edwards" or just "John Edwards" now.  I believe the way it is rendered in the article is therefore correct and consistent with Wikipedia BLP style - the first sentence includes the birthname in bold, other places use the common name.  I don;t know why the editor keeps changing it, as he or she has not left edit summaries or notes here to my recollection, so I hope my note will put an end to the changing (which could be construed as vandalism) or maybe will yield some kind of explanation.  If anyone has any other info - please share.It's not a big deal, but it's an annoyance, and it makes work for other editors for no reason.  Tvoz |talk 21:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Johnny Reid Edwards is his birth name, but I remember reading somewhere that he legally changed his name to John Reid Edwards shortly after her graduated from college.  Granted, I haven't looked for the cite to support that claim, just going off memory, so I could be wrong.  If what I said is true, the question is, should the article lead off with his birth name or legal name?  --Bobblehead (rants) 21:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be done either way, from what I've seen, but in "normal" situations I think the way we have it is most common - Jimmy Carter being a good example.  I don't much care - just would like to settle on something that stays stable. Tvoz |talk 22:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reinstated the name the way it has been rendered - if anyone finds out anything sourced about legal name we should decide how to handle. Meanwhile, I do note that his official signature leaves off the "Reid" so I wonder if the infobox header ought to match the article title and the way he renders his own name?  Tvoz |talk 17:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with John Edwards in the infobox.  I'll see if I can find a source for the name change.--Bobblehead (rants) 17:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have started a discussion at wp:mosbio about how the lede of this article should present his name.  The discussion is here.Ferrylodge 04:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  birthname 

message: She's some sort of blogger connected with his official campaign. But the article is a hatchet job (see WP:Coatrack) and would benefit from some balance (or probably a blowtorch).--Docg 20:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editors interested in this subject might like [[Amanda Marcotte]] 

message: :Image:Kerryedwards.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Kerryedwards.JPG

message: I've added a Pie Chart Showing the Number of Delegates that Clinton, Obama and Edwards Based on Polling Data and DNC's 15% Threshold Rule --Robapalooza 21:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've added a Pie Chart Showing the Number of Delegates that Clinton, Obama and Edwards Based on Polling Data and DNC's 15% Threshold Rule  

message: I was going to write an edit summary for this, but it was getting way too long. So anyways, here's an explanation of my recent edits and why I did it:
*2008 presidential election section is against MOS. John Edwards presidential campaign, 2008 is the main article and it should cover all of the details related to his campaign. The 2008 Presidential election section in this article should only cover the "high" points of the campaign.  It should definitely not have more content than the main article, which was the case prior to my copy and paste moves.
*Controversy sections are evil and the controversy section in this article only proved it. There is no reason why criticisms/controversies can not be worked into the text of the main article and that's what I did.  The criticisms either ended up in this article or in the 2008 campaign article. The criticism section also is by definition, only the criticism part which violates NPOV. A perfect example of this is O'Reilly's complaint about the bumper-sticker reference. There was no attempt to be NPOV, just that O'Reilly referred to Edwards as being a phony due to the comment. I'm not even sure O'Reilly's criticism of the comment is notable enough to be in the article.  I'm going to rework the bumper sticker back into the campaign article as it did get a fair amount of response, so while it is missing now, it'll be in the appropriate article shortly.
All in all, the majority of the changes were moving content to the proper article/section.
--Bobblehead (rants) 23:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, B'head.  I'll probably have a nitpick or two, but this job really needed doing.  Thanks. Tvoz |talk 00:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. Nitpick away. Heck, hack and slash away. I would have done some trimming on the universal health care section per WP:SS, but given the discussion higher up on this page, I left it for now. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you're going to put the bumper sticker reference in shortly then that is fine. It is important because it just shows his mindset, good or bad, of what he thinks of the War on Terror. People can form their own opinions afterwards. However, I think O'Reilly's point about the bloggers should be involved because the point is O'Reilly alleges that Edwards only brought it out in the forefront when he was found out and exposed. The argument wasn't about his record, it is about his reaction time and response only when he was being found out. O'Reilly argues that Edwards doesnt want to hurt his left wing base and that is why he didnt get rid of them trying to just not bring attention to it...that people shouldn't vote for him because (according to O'Reilly) if Edwards can't stand up to the far left then how will he ever stand up to al Qaeda? Arnabdas 19:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: O'Reilly's non-subtle attempt to equate the political left in the U.S. with al Qaeda doesn't belong in this article.  I don't understand the argument is to include it.  On a completely unrelated note, hasn't it been a conservative strategy, not a liberal one, to unwaveringly do what the base wants over the last decade or so (e.g. Rove)?  Quasi-rhetorical question. · jersyko talk 19:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since your question was "quasi" rhetorical, my "quasi" answer is that you or any of us are free to edit pages to include this about those candidates on the Republican side that only pander to the far right. I believe both are relevent and people should note how politicians deal with the fanatics in their party, regardless of what party that may be. O'Reilly's point is the pandering that Edwards seems to be doing. He has gone from being moderate to very liberal with some potentially irresponsible and unsubstantiated statements and that is being pointed out. If you want to go and point out all the conservative politicians who voted for pre-emptive action in Iraq yet criticized Clinton's pre-emptive action against Serbia then I would support you there too. Arnabdas 21:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was quasi-rhetorical because I didn't want to get into a political debate on a talk page.  I should have left it out, actually, sorry.  My main point is that I don't understand why we should be including Bill O'Reilly's criticism in this article.  I understand his point.  I just don't understand why it's worth including. · jersyko talk 21:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should include it because it offers a manner of motive. Politicians of both sides should be held accountable for statements. Wiki's role is to provide correct and transparent information so that people understand motivations of the person as well as criticisms of their ideas, stances and actions, and even counter-arguements against those criticisms. As I said before in my last post regarding this topic, it has nothing to do with politics themselves, but rather a clear understanding of the person's actions and citing them...say the same thing about the Republican politicians who voted for pre-emption in Iraq but voted against it in Kosovo.Arnabdas 19:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with those edits, but I'm not sure why you didn't move the rest of the 2008 Presidential section over.  All that needs to be left there is the sentence about his announcement and perhaps a sentence about the polling.  The rest could easilly go in the other article. Maximusveritas 05:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Main reason I left the other bits is because the intent of a summary section is to wet a reader's appetite to want to read the other article, yet give them enough information that they don't have to read the article. However, if you feel further trimming is necessary, go crazy.;)--Bobblehead (rants) 20:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of edits 

message: Wasn't John Kerry the one who mentioned Mary Cheney as a lesbian and tried to use it to a political advantage? I don't think Edwards was involved with that.Arnabdas 19:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edwards brought it up in his debate with Cheney.  Kerry did it first in one of his debates with Bush, but Edwards did the same later.  I recall Cheney simply saying "thanks for your kind words" and not wanting to comment further on point (properly so, imo). · jersyko talk 20:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mary Cheney Lesbian Mention 

message: Original version made Edwards look like he was hearing voices, a sign of mental illness.  This is not true (he is not crazy)!  Fixed this.Spevw 00:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope that is a joke.  Please read Wikipedia's original research policy as well as the neutral point of view policy.  "This was a sign of courtroom melodrama" is not neutral; the entire idea of referencing a website about schizophrenia in this article to prove that Edwards isn't schizophrenic is the essence of original research.  Please do not add these edits again, as they are toeing the line of vandalism, frankly. · jersyko talk 00:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edwards is not crazy

message: Clients are awarded damages or reach settlements.  They do not "win $-- million".  Fixed this. Spevw 00:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Attorneys win cases, clients are awarded settlements.  Like it or not, that's common parlance. attorney --> · jersyko talk 00:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edwards did not win money for clients

message: Even Edwards said so.  What he did admit was that if it saves a few babies from birth injuries then more cesearean sections are ok.  I agree. Spevw 00:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand.  He's not saying C-sections are unnecessary as a whole, only that sometimes they are performed when they shouldn't be, making them "unnecessary" in specific circumstances.  I believe you have misread the source. · jersyko talk 00:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You're not understanding the concept of original research.  The source reports something, so we report it in the article.  Sources are allowed to conduct original research, we (wikipedia) aren't. · jersyko talk 02:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the facts - Jersyko is reading the source correctly. No one is trying to make anyone look bad, and Edwards didn't "cause" any caesarians in any case. Tvoz |talk 02:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cesarian-sections are not unnecessaray

message: I added a quote attributed to John Edwards by Robert Shrum in his book "No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner".  A fellow editor undid this addition claiming that it was "unverifiable" and not a "political view".  As for the former, I will cite a quote attributed to Trent Lott by John Coburn in his book "Breach of Trust".  That quote is as "verifiable" as what I added here yet no one has undone it.  Thus, I am reverting the edit and adding the sub-section Gay Rights to qualify it as a political view.Light Bulb 05:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems reasonable if it's verifiable.  A NPOV requires all sides be presented. Rtphokie 02:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no comment at present on the specific Shrum quote.  I did want to note, however, that the above comment presents a fundamental misunderstanding of the NPOV policy.  NPOV does not require that all sides be presented.  NPOV requires that only significant views that have been published by reliable sources be presented fairly and without bias.  That said, again, I have no comment right now on the Shrum quote. · jersyko talk 02:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Shrum Gay Rights Quote 

message: Why don't we all list the costs of Barack Obama's home, or Hillary Clinton's homes?  How about all of the Republican candidate's homes?  It is entirely irrelevent.
Information about the home the Edwards family built was removed with a note stating that it wasn't particularly notable.  Given the controversy this trial lawyer has generated about wealth he has generated from high profile personal injury cases, such an ostentatious home seems pretty notable to me. Rtphokie 01:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You believe it's notable because it's "ostentatious".  That may be your characterization, however we will adhere to WP:NPOV.  It's certainly not notable because you think it's more house than he should have, and absent such POV characterization it has no place in the article at all.  /Blaxthos 01:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's notable because it's the largest home in the county and because It's been the subject of criticism.   Rtphokie 02:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe that being the "largest home in the county" conferrs notability (not sure where you're drawing that from), then that is about the home, not about Edwards.  Write an article about the home, if you think it will withstand WP:N guidelines.  However, you've got a large burden to overcome (with reference to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP) before it has a place in Edwards' biography, which hasn't come close to being overcome.  /Blaxthos 17:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, it should be noted but very carefully as to be in NPOV. He is the one talking about "two Americas" and the growing divide between the rich and poor. Building a house like this only adds to it. In fact, his neighbors, whom have far lower incomes, do not like him or the way they have been treated.Arnabdas 16:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Eh.  A short blurb on his home is a worthwhile contribution to the article, but much more than that will violate undue weight.  Being wealthy and living in a large home describes nearly every viable presidential candidate in last 50 years. Dman727 17:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether his neighbors "like him" is rather irrelevant to an encyclopedia article about him. The size and cost of the house are amply covered in the article.  Tvoz |talk 17:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so sure about that. After all, he is the one talking about the "two Americas" and the growing divide. He himself didnt address the tax loophole he used to dodge Medicaid/Medicare taxes. I agree with you that normally it wouldn't be, but given the nature of his campaign stances it really should be. It would be the same thing for a very religious, family value promoting Republican who does something that isn't so. Politicians actions should be noted if they are contrary to what they preach.Arnabdas 14:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Once again, please see our original research policy,, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV.  Wikipedia is not going to become a forum for criticising a candidate you believe is being hypocritical.  As an irrelevant side note, I don't think his discussion of the "two Americas" is with the message that "rich people shouldn't be rich" -- I believe he's advocating that there is a more equitable collection and disbursement of taxes.  Either way, this isn't an appropriate focus of a Wikipedia article.  /Blaxthos 15:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironically, you talked about Original Research yet gave your own opinion just now by saying "I believe..." and, again, I wasn't trying to say it should be worded critically, but it definitely is worth mentioning since it is his own platform. There's the whole "Do as I say, not as I do" attitude that can and should be challenged by other politicians and political commentators. The point is that he is advocating some type of reform of what he calls a divide yet others are aptly criticizing him by pointing out that some type of divide will always exist in capitalistic society and how many people are becoming successful entrepreneurs. It's a flaw in policy according to some and thus should be notable.Arnabdas 16:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no irony -- I clearly stated "As an irrelevant side note", which was included simply to try and help you grasp the Senator's point.  Regarding the rest of your tirade, I remind you that Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  /Blaxthos 19:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, pointing out your own bias doesn't mean I am on any soapbox. You trying to tell me that my so called tirade (I guess it is a "tirade" because I pointed out your mistake?) this isnt a soapbox pales in comparison to wiki not being a political promotion of any politician. Not pointing out relevant information to the point is dishonest and not up to journalistic standards and only gives readers a slanted an biased POV. Arnabdas 18:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I fail to see the mistake -- see my previous comment regarding irrelevant side note.  I'm not sure what school of journalism has standards that include your opinion regarding his positions regarding poverty, or whether his neighbors like him.  In either case, as many editors have now pointed out, it is irerelevant information not appropriate for an encyclopedic article.  /Blaxthos 19:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And honestly, with all due respect, I would suggest you examine your own personal bias here. The issue is not about one's neighbors, it's about promoting one political philosophy and not living up to that particular philosophy. I submit to you once again that you would hastily submit a conservative politician's hypocrisy if he was one to promote family values and then make questionable personal choices (which I would agree that you should do btw). Readers must get ALL sides of the issue REGARDLESS of candidate or political affiliation. Edwards promotes a certain vision with regards to this particular issue, but does not live up to that vision himself from his actions. That is VERY noteworthy. But of course if you wish to laugh in the face of journalism and suppress any critical points of view of the Senator I obviously cannot do anything more. I just never thought wikipedia would be so fascist by suppressing points of view according to ideology.Arnabdas 15:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, for the last time, Wikipedia is not a soap box.  This isn't the place.  Thanks.  /Blaxthos 17:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not promoting any POV so saying this is not a Soap Box statement. It is a discussion about improving this article of what should or should not be included, not my POV. I also ask that you follow the WP:SOAP policy as well by not ommitting valid information about a candidate. Ommission of pertinent and noteworthy information is promoting. Arnabdas 19:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edwards Home 

message: I can understand needing more than just two lines here if there was something notable enough to add.  The stuff I took out however, was all way too detailed and non-notable to belong in this article.  Much of it was outdated as well (like the graph and state polling data).  If I had to say what the most essential facts about the Edwards Presidential campaign were to date, I'd say the announcement date and the current national polling.  And maybe something about fundraising and the controversies around the campaign (Coulter, haircuts).  Anything else really belongs in the main article.  As far as the HRC and Obama articles, I think they could do with some trimming as well.  -Maximusveritas 17:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately your edit cut a bit too deeply, but you're also correct in that the current section is a bit too detailed and dated. I'm thinking somewhere in between the current content and the content from your edit is a good place. The summary for the presidential election article should be able to stand on its own while not providing too much detail.  I've always viewed the summary in the main article to be the same as the intro to the sub-article and in the past I've copied and pasted the intro into the summary or vice versa and made some minor edits so that they are not identical.  So if we use WP:LEAD as a template that'd put the length of the summary around two paragraphs, but three would be acceptable. The announcement date/location is important, but I'd also include a very short blurb about the early release as a point of interest, maybe something along the lines of "After prematurely launching his campaign website the day before, on December 26 2006, Edwards officially announced his candidacy for U.S. President in the yard of a home in New Orleans, Louisiana that was being rebuilt after it was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina." (or shorter, whichever) Followed by a sentence or two summarizing his major campaign themes. Then sentences for a summary of his standings in the current opinion polling and the total amount of campaign funds so far.  Controversies can be a sticky wicket to adequately cover in a summary lead as it can be difficult to keep in line with NPOV and yet maintain the summary nature of the whole section, but if someone can do it, more power to them. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the helpful suggestions.  I've taken them on board and did another edit.  The section is now about 2 paragraphs long and hits all the points you mentioned.  I could potentially see a couple more sentences being added, but I think this is a good baseline. - Maximusveritas 20:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 Presidential Campaign section 

message: Edwards has made poverty the central theme of his 08 run.
Does anyone know what he did about poverty when he was a US Senator?
And links to speeches he made as a VP candidate mentioning poverty?
When was the first Edwards public mention of poverty as a polictical issue?
---------------
I propose that there be no mention of his political views but rather just the link to the page linking to his positions. Much like how Bill O'Reilly's page has his positions listed.Arnabdas 20:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, because that's simply not how summary style works.  Shorten the section if you like, but using O'Reilly as a precedent here isn't a good idea, because it's simply not in line with the mechanics of summary style. · jersyko talk 20:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There ya go. Much shorter. Let's see how long it lasts. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking good Bobblehead, thanks! Arnabdas 15:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Views Section 

message: Should there be a mention of how conservative talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh often refer to Edwards as "the Breck girl"? WAVY 10 14:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a point in mentioning something disparaging unless if it points out a specific hypocrisy or lack of understanding in Edwards' political positions or something that can specifically call for his being unfit to be an elected official. Namecalling itself seems childish.Arnabdas 15:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why is there a whole category in Wikipedia dedicated to listing all of the derogatory nicknames that Bush-haters have for George W. Bush?--Getaway 14:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That has no relevance here.  Let's stick to keeping this article neutral and compliant instead of using the talk page to pontificate about why something else exists.  /Blaxthos 21:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course it has relevancy here. If a neoglism attains a certain level of notoriety, then its fodder for the cannons, i.e. Santorum  (dont tell me, that’s somehow “different”)Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should this be referred to?

message: Hello,
I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.
I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?
Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.
* n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Democratic Party
* n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Republican Party
* n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Third Party or Independent
Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.
Thanks,
Nick  --  Zanimum 19:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions? Ask them through Wikinews 

message: Some contributors (and an admin) have taken objection to my plainly pointing out two plain facts regarding candidate Edwards:  (1) He has not served in the military, and (2) he has commented on-the-record as being an advocate of "some level of mandatory service", and the context of these remarks was quite specifically regarding military service.
I harbor no ill will toward this candidate for not having served in the military, but given national security circumstances I do believe that it is relevant.  BTW, this is the common circumstance for nearly all current U.S. presidential candidates, so Edwards certainly has plenty of company there.
Also BTW, it is quite a stretch of the truth to say that Edwards advocates mandatory 'national service', but to avoid edit warring I've done that here. The context of his remarks is quite clear that he was speaking of mandatory *military* service, otherwise his remarks regarding only the poor kids going off to war make no sense whatsoever...but I'll grant him the benefit of the doubt that he would have extended his remarks if focused on this topic to include national service of some form or another.
IMHO, all candidates – not just Edwards – need to speak with clarity regarding this topic (military service). If someone feels that there is an unnecessary tone in my contribution, feel free to edit (of course)...but the fact remains that this is in any case highly relevant content for a presidential candidate.--24.28.6.209 23:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that your addition ties the lack of military service and his call for mandatory national service together in a manner that the sources do not make. It's at that point that WP:SYN is violated. As such, I've removed the lack of military service from your addition but left the call and quote. --Bobblehead (rants) 03:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: By saying something to the effect of "He calls for service but never served" in the same sentence, you imply that it's a requirement to have served in the military to advocate for military service. That's a logical fallacy and used as an ad hominem attack which violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. You might as well take it to the illogical conclusion and say that he's no a legitimate critic of the war because he hasn't done multiple tours of duty in Baghdad. --waffle iron talk 13:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mandatory Service (be it Military or National) 

message: Pursuant to the official policy stated in “Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons,” I have removed a weasel-worded and biased statement that includes a quotation attributed to John Edwards but that is not properly sourced. The source given is not known to be trustworthy or authoritative. Furthermore, upon inspecting the article referenced, I find that there are at least two additional levels of indirection before one would possibly arrive at a reliable primary source for the quotation. If there are objections to this deletion, I would be glad to explain my reasoning in detail.
Wikipedia policy states: “Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles...” This policy is further detailed in “Wikipedia:Attribution” in the section “Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources.”
Although I do not necessarily disbelieve that Mr. Edwards may have made the statement attributed to him (or something similar), it is important that all such statements be properly sourced. It has become a commonplace for persons with positions of leadership in the Democratic party to be widely misquoted and/or quoted out of context, creating and reinforcing misleading and damaging public impressions of what their actual beliefs and opinions are. One can hardly blame readers who are confronted with a potentially unflattering statement purportedly made by a leading Democrat for wanting to reference a reliable source that confirms what was actually said and in what context.  Piperh 19:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly sourced Edwards quotation 

message: The whole section has been written as if it is one big "happy ending" for Edwards.  After reading it, I feel dirty all over.  It is full of commentary by Wikipedians.  No sources, just laudatory petting.  It needs work.--Getaway 14:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I count four sources and twelve citations in that subsection.  I have not read it recently to determine whether I agree with your implication that it contains POV, so at the moment I do not have a comment on that portion of your comment.  However, I wonder if you could be more specific as to what your concerns are, exactly? · jersyko talk 15:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section on John Edwards period as a trial lawyer 

message: I found this.  Edwards admits beating his wife causeing broken bones. His wife denied this.  I am shocked.  This is not a joke. Newsjunker 21:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may have been a bad joke, but it was still a joke. It's been removed. --Onorem♠Dil 21:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spousal abuse

message: I have started a discussion at wp:mosbio about how the lede of this article should present his name.  The discussion is here.Ferrylodge 04:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: What do others think about changing the first sentence to match Fred Thompson? Edwards' congressional website doesn't mention "Johnny". And there are 3 times as many google hits for "John Reid Edwards" as there are for "Johnny Reid Edwards". Just a suggestions. If this is controversial, I'd kindly withdraw the proposal, because I do not intend to start a huge debate like the one that recently happened at Talk:Fred Thompson.-Andrew c [talk] 18:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha, you and me both (about the debate) - let's not open it.  The decision at Fred Thompson, in my view, was not consistent - although not a big deal.  I think we should leave it as it has been here since standard style all over Wikipedia is as is laid out in [{WP:MSBIO]], and is reflected properly here.  Again - it wasn't worthy of a huge debate there or here. Tvoz |talk 18:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: This article now says "As of July 2007, the Edwards campaign raised a total of $23 million from nearly 100,000 donors, placing it behind the Obama and Clinton campaigns in fundraising.[50]"
Today's newspaper says the campaign is in big trouble.  Citations to be provided. Republic of One 16:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sentence in this article not reflective of full picture:Campaign in trouble

message: surftofind.com/ticket (disabled link  --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Edwards and John Kerry.