Talk:John Edwards/Archive 1

message: Feel free to add any biographical information, or Presidential information.--TR
--------------------------
Re: My change to "narrowly defeated" from "soundly defeated":
I lived in North Carolina when the Edwards/Faircloth race was decided. Edwards edged out Faircloth by just four percentage points. In my political mind,  4% is pretty narrow. Compare that to the score Liddy Dole got against Erskine Bowles in 2002. It was 54% (for Dole) and 45% (for Bowles), a difference of nine percentage points.
Hope this helps.
--Hoshie
--------------------------
"On February 17 his campaign gained further momentum when he nearly defeated Kerry in the Wisconsi
*Probably not. ugen64 21:28, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
*No. I think even Edwards would agree with dewikifying because he constantly emphasizes how his family is humble, blue-collar, and otherwise unremarkable besides being his family. --Hcheney 22:11, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  BIO 

message: I noticed that in the article, Wade is listed as a 16 year old who is killed in 1996.  However, Cate, the oldest daughter, was born in 1982 and therefore the date of the automobile accident is wrong.  Could someone please check into this? puttypapyrus
:I believe Wade was older than Cate.  Cate's article describes her as "the oldest daughter" not the "oldest child."  This is accurate.  She is the older than Senator Edwards younger daughter Emma Claire, and older than their other son Jack, who were both born after Wade's death.  Perhaps Cate's article should be changed to specify that she is the oldest daughter and "oldest surviving child" of Senator and Mrs. Edwards, mentioning that her older brother Wade is deceased.  TMS63112 16:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wade's Death 

message: I think people are more likely to mix up Edwards and Edward than Edwards and the theologian (since the first two are contemporaries). Anthony DiPierro has removed the link to John Edward in the header, citing Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, but frankly, I don't see why we shouldn't make it very clear that there is a person named John Edward who has nothing to do with John Edwards except for a very similar, potentially confusing name. Besides, why highlight only one of the several Jonathan Edwardses? --Minesweeper 04:32, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
: Not to mention that medium/psychic guy... Dysprosia 10:15, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Jonathan Edwards is John Edwards.  John Edward is not. Anthony DiPierro 16:31, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Edwards is a very common last name.  Edward is NOT.  I think it is very likely that people looking for the psychic/medium John Edward might add the 's' to the last name, so I think he should be included in the disamb page. And to the more core point, I agree that having a simple disamb page is better than having an article on whichever we might choose, that happens to have links to the rest. Niteowlneils 19:00, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Edwards and John Edward 

message: As you may know,Senator Edwards arranged One America. A Committee for helping Democratic Party's nominees around America. Especially  for helping Senator Kerry  go to the White House he would start something about One America. a Committee Edwards is in.
www.oneamericacommittee.com
Sina
Often called JRE
huh I have never heard anyone refer to him by this
:If you had recieved just one e-mail from his campaign during Democratic primaries,then you could see JRE-Mail Update!--Sina 14:56, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  One America Committee 

message: Persian Page
* added it to article page - NightThree 17:11, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
: It's actually at , donno why Sina had made an English entry. Kaveh 22:36, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edwards on Persian Wikipedia 

message: Someone has logged in anonymously, vandalised the opening line, and then protected the f****** page!!! John Edwards will have his revenge!!! --Harro5 07:03, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
I don't like the way this case, or other cases are mentioned in this article, it's not very neutral. I got the feeling from reading the section on the Lakey case, that the author thought it was a piece of crap case. If it was a piece of crap case, then Edwards would not have won a 25,000,000 verdict from normally conservative NC juries. You should read his book 4 Trials, for some good information on that particular trial. 
First, Sta-Rite said they had no papers significant or relating to the case. Then when Edwards pressured their defense lawyer, he said he'd look into it. Then he said they had a few and they would get their shortly. Then, three days later they were still not their. The judge pulled them into the back room and demanded to know where the papers were. The humble, and uncomfortable Defense Lawyer was forced to tell them that they would soon be arriving on a truck. That was when, according to Edwards, the Judge 'blew up'. He was furious that they had said they had no papers, then a few, when they really had a full truck load of papers relating to the case. I will tell you right now, the Lakey case was not a piece of crap. You make it seem like Sta-Rite was absolutely not responsible, and that those that were, settled, and that this was just a frivolous case to get more money. Well, one, he settled with the County itself, which had not been inspecting pools properly, then he settled with the country club, then the construction company that built a one drainage tunnel pool, (more dangerous to children, especially in a kiddie pool, which was what this was). You need to make more neutral. <P>
More information: Perhaps the only reason he got such a big settlement was because he, at the very end of the case, found a letter from the compaines safety coordinator to another official, saying, 'What's wrong with this man? Tell him to shut up. I have no intentions of answering these questions. And doesn't he know this kind of thing should never be put in writing.' That letter was over a request to redesign the cover. It also meant that the Safety Coordinator had lied on the witness stand, under oath, when cross examined by Edwards. There were over a dozen cases where children had been killed, or mauled by their pool drains, and what's more, they had known about it, they had actually documented in the case of any sort of lawsuit. They were selling a pool drain cover originally designed in the fifties.<P>
 You see, the pool drain cover was defective, and dangerous unless screwed in. Welll, in their instruction manuel, they did not say, and screw in. At first Edwards in his partner Kirby couldn't believe, they thought it wasa typo or something. But, this indifferent corporation did not instruct people to screw it in, it just said, latch in securely, and that's basically it. It wasn't entirely the country clubs fault, they didn't know. Becuase of that, a little girl who decided to go for a swim, got sucked onto a drainage cup. Her father just barely managed to keep her from drowning, and he had no idea what was wrong until he pulled her out, with the help of TWO other full grown men. Blood spewed everywhere, and the pool water went red. The suction and drainaged pipe tore his daughter's stomach open, and pulled out 60% of her intestines. It was a miracle she lived. From then on, for the rest of this seven year olds life, she would have to be hooked through the stomach to a feeding machine at night, painfully. To have to have a permenant hole, or as she called it, a button in her side. She could never eat or drink food again, and as if this wasn't horrible enough, she had to have a sack attached to her which emptied out solid/semi-solid wastes from her kidney's and liver. She could not play sports, could not join choire, had restricted working options, had difficulty even going to school. Her mother had to quit her job, and her father had to go to a part time one in order to take care of her. Her case deserves more justice from you and from this site. You also need to take a closer look against the case against Pitt County Hospital. By a trick, Edwards got the Doctor responsible's best friend, a fellow two decade physician, to admit he would have performed a C-section a full hour and a half before his friend finally finished the vaginally deliver . All medical doctors of the day pointed out that a baby in footling breech position, which Doctor D knew the baby was in, were dangerous to deliver vaginally. He was just too old fashioned to deliver the baby through c-section. This caused her to be delivered in a way that cut oxegen off from her brain, and left her delivered permently brain damaged. Her parents could not work, and she would never be able to work during her life, and would need constant care till the end of it, becuase an old fashioned doctor wouldn't perform a necessary C-section. The nurse knew he was wrong, and knew he was also wrong not to have an internal monitor to listen to the baby. But, she did nothing about it. Partly because the hospital sometimes fired nurses for going against the wishes of entrenched physicians. This bad policy end up destroying a life before it ever got a chance to begin. It was not a remotely frivolous trial. Edwards got a Jury which contained a woman whose father was a doctor who had gotten sued for malpractice when she was little girl to go along with the enventual 7 million verdict the jury handed out. It was so big, that judge end up refusing to allow it to be handed out, saying it was to big, and that jury was influenced too servely by Edward's closing statement. He offered 1.7 million, or a new trial. Instead Edwards started battling the upper courts to have the judge's decision overridden. Before he did Pitt county Hospital got wise and settled for 5 million. Consider this will you, and read the book to get a truly in depth look at the trial.
::Yes, I have read the book.  It is a good example of why we NEED access to the courts, and the ability to seek redress for serious harm.  Some would take that away entirely.  Those are the same folks who want to call all lawsuits frivolous.  In their mind, no company should ever responsible for their action, no matter how egregious.   In fact, as gfwesq points out below, when a jury and court of law makes a factual finding, that fact is no longer 'alleged'.  That is rank bias and factually inaccurate.  There is no longer any 'alleged' about it.  I am going to be going over some of these hit pieces (this isn't the only one) to correct inaccuracies and partisan slant.MollyBloom 15:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal! 

message: Hope this is the right place to put this concern.  The article says under "Senate term":
"Edwards's skill as a trial attorney was evident during President Bill Clinton's 1999 Senate impeachment trial. Edwards, who was responsible for the deposition of witnesses Monica Lewinsky and Vernon Jordan, played a critical role in the Senate proceedings that eventually ended in the President's acquittal. Faced with local polling data showing low approval ratings and an almost certain defeat if he ran for reelection, Edwards made the fateful decision to go national."
Maybe this has already been discussed, but citing "certain defeat" sounds like a rather partisan analysis of Edwards' reasoning for "going national."  Republicans are always forecasting defeat for Democrats, just as Democrats are always forecasing defeat for Republicans.  While Edwards' reelection was not a given, I think given the fact that he defeated Faircloth and the fact that the Burr/Bowles race was close, an Edwards/Burr race would have at least been close.
:Are there any poll numbers online that showed he would have lost re-election? The data could be implented into the article. Frankly, I think he should run from NC's other Senate seat in 2008 against Elizabeth Dole with slogan "Senator Edwards for Senate" --Blue387 22:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "certain defeat for reelection?" 

message: Twice, someone has tried to add the following:
:Edwards rose quickly in the ranks of the Senate as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Edwards also passed a major healthcare reform bill, later vetoed by President Bush. In January of 2003, John Edwards publicly announced his interest in a national campaign.
The first and third sentences are redundant with text already in the article.  The second sentence is completely false: (1) Edwards didn't pass a "major healthcare reform bill."  (2) Bush didn't veto any bills, much less one Edwards passed.  Senator Kennedy and Senator Edwards co-sponsored a bill that passed the Senate, and then died in the House when the House passed an inconsistent version, and the two bills could not be reconciled in committee.  I am reverting. FRCP11 01:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senate term 

message: I have made a few changes re: the Lakey case and Wade's death.  The section on Edward's personal life makes reference to Wade's death being shortly before the opening of testimony in the Lakey case.  This was confusing, since the reader hasn't yet been told about the case.  I have edited the section on the Lakey case to make the reference to Wade's recent death clearer.  I also removed the "1993" description of the Lakey case.  Since the reader is told that Wade died in 1996 and the case was around the same time, this was confusing.  I think the incident may have occured in 1993 and the trial in 1996, but I couldn't really tell.  TMS63112 20:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wade's death/Lakey case 

message: See .  "I was wrong" is a direct quote (from the beginning) of his op-ed piece.  Why shouldn't that be in the wiki article?Jcbarr 01:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why revert the edit from "I was wrong"? 

message: Is it really necessary to include a lengthy description of those who are expected to run against Edwards in 2008?  I would suggest we delete this and instead the reader would refer to the Presidential Election of 2008 page for information on contenders.  Because doing so on each candidates pages would only make the same paragraph on a myriad of pages, I think this would be a more effective and efficient means. Shawn 03:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 Presidential Run 

message: This is the text that has been reverted twice now:
After being named the Vice-Presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, Edwards worked for the ticket. On the topic of embryonic stem cell research, Edwards made many claims concerning stem cell research. Edwards stated at rally in Newton, Iowa on October 11, 2004 "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 will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again." Commentators have pointed out that the statement was mere Presidential election hyperbole because experts and researchers on all sides of the stem cell debate realize that those types of treatments are at least ten years or more away from productivity and that Edwards's statement was unfairly raising expectations of people stricken with many of the medical conditions that the medical profession is looking to cure. 
-Jcbarr 17:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stem Cell research 

message: I have been part of a reversion struggle over a paragraph about Edwards's reference to Dick Chney's daughter being a lesbian.  I am sure the reference will be put back in soon.  The Washington Post article used as proof of the socalled fact that 2/3 of those polled found Edwards's remarks inappropriate actually lacks ANY such reference to ANY polling data.  Possibly there was one of those self-selected readers' polls attached to the piece when it was first posted, but the poll is now missing.  The article itself (which was actually an op-ed piece, not reportage) makes the opposite point: i.e., that Edwards's reference wasn't a big deal one way or the other, and that the Cheney family were being inconsistent by accepting Mary Cheney's partner as a family member while being reluctant to admit that Mary Cheney was in fact gay.  User:TimothyHorrigan  16:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article about John Edwards, not Mary Cheney and the Cheney family.  What's relevant to this article is that John Edwards decided to use Mary Cheney as a political weapon in a debate, and hurt his cause by doing so. -- FRCP11 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You're right.  The poll has to do with Kerry, not Edwards.  I just scanned some of that 2004 section and there seem to be quite a few POV and non-factual issues with this article.  I might try to clean it up later. For now, I'll just remove this bit about the poll.  Maximusveritas 20:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Max.   Wikipedia is not a forum for creating hit pieces, and it is not a politicial forum. MollyBloom 15:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mary Cheney, Dick Cheney's Lesbian Daughter 

message: Gdo01 made an edit to my work on the John Edwards page, that is factually incorrect.  I have reverted Gdo01's mistake.  You can review the obvious mistake here: .  Unfortunately, many people might be confused about President Bush's position on stem cell research because most newspaper and TV reporters either do not know what they are talking about OR they are biased and they know the truth, but refuse to report it properly.  We all know that Bush opposes embryonic stem cell research.  But what most people don't know is that Bush supports adult stem cell research and cord blood stem cell research.  Bush is the first President of the U.S. that signed a bill funding embryonic stem cell research.  As a matter of fact, President Clinton is the President that signed the law to ban the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Yes, I know that if you read the popular press you would get a different point of view.  But it just is not so.  Please review the Stem Cell page for more information.  Have a good day.--Getaway 02:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, why must the fact that Bush supports it be stated like that? First of all, you should have been more specific and second how does knowing Bush supports adult stem cell research help this article in the way it is written? I'll change it somewhat. Gdo01 03:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, you have a tone to your voice that is unwarranted and unwelcome. Second, it is absolutely important to the article because Edwards was stating in his full speech that Bush had imposed a "bad on stem cell research," which is untrue.  Now, we can add that to the article if you would like.  There are several documented cases of where either Edwards or Kerry or both stated that Bush "banned stem cell research," which is a half truth and misinformation.  Also, the why that this section is written, with my qualifier taken out, leaves the same type of misinformation, if Bush was just get out of the way, then John Edwards will make people in wheelchairs walk!!!  Also, what I stated is absolutely true.  You don't need to lecture me on the way that I wrote it.  Why the attitude?  I was polite to you, why do you feel the need to be rude?--Getaway 03:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't try to be rude. If I did, I'm sorry. Can we both agree that the wording that I put up for it now is both correct and informative now?Gdo01 03:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks good.--Getaway 03:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Edwards article 

message: John Kerry's comment was fundamentally different in context than John Edwards (i.e. Edwards was directly asked about Mary Cheney and he deflected the question whereas Kerry went out of his way to bring it up) and thus it was NOT a comment in the similar vein.  WatchingYouLikeAHawk 21:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mary Cheney (Factually Disputed Section) 

message: No mention of the incident at Wendy's while on the campaign trail?  Or was that story just hearsay? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.170.192.250 (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wendy's Incident 

message: Is this section really neccesary?  It seems to repeat information already contained in the article, mostly in the "Senate term" and "2004 presidential campaign" sections.  Anything new could probably go into those sections as well. Maximusveritas 17:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel the political views of a political figure are significant. Other political figures have Political Views sections. Information that is not preserved in the current version of the article: that he opposes gay marriage, that he is an environmentalist. Certainly, the section can be expanded beyond what I provided. If there is excessive overlap, perhaps information from other sections should be moved to a Political Views section, as his views are significant in a more than biographic respect.  Pawsplay 16:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem here, Pawsplay, is that the information is not cited or verifiable.  Generally speaking, that sort of section can be very easily influenced by editors with particular points of view.  While I'm not arguing against a Political Views section, I do insist that anything included be appropriately cited by reliable secondary sources.  See WP:RS and WP:CITE.  /Blaxthos 17:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Views section 

message: After some review, I have completely removed the Political Views section.  First off, the only sources given were primary sources (a transcript of a vice-presidential debate from NPR, and two links pointing to "johnedwards.com").  This sort of section, as it stands, is a large target for editorial bias -- any time one tries to summarize political issues (especially one with an active presidential campaign) there is potential for mischaracterization.  Beyond that, without properly citing SECONDARY sources it becomes original research.  This is the second time in as many days that I've seen someone misquoting the source provided, seemingly to misdirect people's understanding of the subject.  I propose that any sort of inclusion of political views be triple-checked for accuracy and neutrality, and that only secondary sources be allowed.  This will ensure that editorial bias is eleminated.  /Blaxthos 17:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The John McCain article is structured differently from the Edwards article. It doesn't have a "Senate term" section, so it doesn't run into the problem we have here.  It just mixes everything into that single "Political Views" section. Personally, I think the Edwards article is more encyclopedic and follows a more logical flow.  Any new notable information, such as the gay marriage thing or his newfound support of universal health care, can go into the "2008 Presidential campaign" section.  I still don't see any need for a "Political Views" section. Maximusveritas 18:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I prefer the McCain format. This article is a chronological sprawl, more of a John Edwards blog than a John Edwards article. Someone should not have to poke through campaign histories and glean his views from an unstructured selection of quotes and issues in order to learn what his political leanings are. The whole reason for the article is to answer "Who is John Edwards?" and without a description of his politics, the article does not even justify its own existence. Pawsplay 19:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like you're looking for a page to help people make a decision about who to vote for, but this is an encyclopedia article.  Having a political views section that tries to pinpoint the politician's view on every conceivable issue is just not encyclopedic in my view.  The format used here is the format used for the vast majority of articles, for good reason. I'm going to try to move the information from "Political Views" section into the "2008 Presidential campaign" section.  No content will be lost. Maximusveritas 20:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: i'll admit these are sticky wickets.  I will have to do more research on Wikipolicy, but I'm inclined to say that until a secondary source summarizes his political views (as opposed to just posting a transcript) then summarization still falls under WP:OR.  However, I definitely see your point.  I think something as or possibly more important is that we're basing this off of information that is years old and was centred around Edwards' ticket with Kerry.  It is fair to say that, as second chair, he had to ensure that his statements were in perfect sync with Kerry's, and perhaps his views were not perfectly codified (in deference to his running mate).  Personally, I think it would be much wiser to wait and see where he lands, as opposed to trying to paint a target based on old (and possibly muted) information.  By saying "I support legislation for gay unions" (paraphrased) and then saying "I oppose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages" isn't the net result zero?  He doesn't oppose (constitutional amendment) but he doesn't support (as quoted).  Sounds like he's not saying anything at all.  So, summarization == speculation.  However, your points are well taken.  /Blaxthos 18:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize that the WP community doesn't like links to Wikia, but Campaigns.Wikia.com has a page set up for John Edwards and the other candidates for people to post political views & other information that might not be appropriate on Wikipedia.  The door is open anyway.  Chadlupkes 18:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Political Views section 

message: What's up with the style "Johnny ('John') Reid Edwards" in the first sentence and box? Unlike, for example, Jimmy Carter, Edwards doesn't seem to be referred to by the informal version of his name very often in the national media. Even if he is notably referred to as Johnny, shouldn't it be "John (Johnny) Edwards" rather than the other way around? I presume that John is the legal name and Johnny is the nickname; is that wrong?
--Hickoryhillster 09:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand, Johnny is his legal name, so John would be his nickname.  --Bobblehead 09:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand, he legally changed his name from Johnny to John some time ago, so I guess it would actually be more complicated than that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ropeterson (talk • contribs) 17:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johnny ("John")? 

message: Why is there a redirect to this page when someone does a search for "Breck Girl"?
Is this an attempt at a joke?
Anyone able to provide information on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.51.152.57 (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breck Girl? 

message: On January 12, 2007, I added the following to the information on Senator Edwards's family: The Associated Press has reported that the Edwardses' two youngest children were born with the help of surrogate mothers.http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=213&sid=1007697&sidelines=1/ [The note made reference to http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=213&sid=1007697&sidelines=1]  This is something that has been reported by the AP, not exactly a scandal sheet, and should be of interest to readers who found it strange that the Edwardses were able to have children in their early 50s.  I do not believe that this should have been removed.  Unless I receive a satisfactory answer as to why information from AP is off limits, I will resubmit the change.  AuH2ORepublican 20:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think my (mild) opposition would be on grounds of relevance -- it's more relevant to an article about the children themselves.  I don't feel so strongly about it that I'll do anymore than make this comment here.  /Blaxthos 05:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *shrug* It's of interest and verifiable. Who cares if it's in the article? :) --Bobblehead 07:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The AP (Raleigh office) has issued a retraction for this article, it was in fact incorrect. Fstutzman 02:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fstutzman, do you have a link to AP's retraction?  I haven't been able to find it on the Internet.  Thanks. AuH2ORepublican 21:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surrogate mother for two youngest children 

message: What are John Edwards' political beliefs really? There should be a section about that IMO. Jack Daw 14:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political beliefs? 

message: "after initially denying the allegations,[12][13][14][15] Edwards admitted the affair"
Initial reports of Edwards affair were on October 11, 2007.  Edwards didn't admit the affair until August 8, 2008, eleven months later.  Will subsequent Wiki articles state "after intially denying the allegations, Edwards admitted paternity?"
The scope of Edwards public and private deception are relevant, but intentionally minimized by bad Verbage in this entry. Remember, Wikipedia reports facts and is an online encyclopedia, not a partisan apology.
:It's pretty clear you mean verbiage, unless you were putting together verbal & garbage to make "verbage," which is not a word, yet. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extent/Duration of Edwards denial is completely obliterated by Wikiverbage 

message: Source. I cannot add this to the article because I have been topic banned from editing political articles. If someone else thinks that adding this information would make the article better, please do so. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is probably a more direct citation. The News & Observer has been a primary source of reporting on this story. Ronnotel (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edwards is under investigation to see if campaign funds were illegally paid to Hunter 

message: I don't believe there is a "mandatory waiting period" for a NC divorce. I understand a one year separation simplifies a NC divorce.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitpoh (talk • contribs) 09:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NC divorce 

message: Macmillan is releasing Andrew Young's book called "The Politician" on January 30th not February 2nd as suggested in this entry.  The New York Times just reviewed it (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/books/29book.html?hp).  The Macmillan site has a full description of the book with jacket cover (http://us.macmillan.com/thepolitician).  
Full disclosure, I work for Macmillan and this is my first time suggesting an edit on Wikipedia, so please let me know if I have violated any community protocols (formal or informal) with this submission or if there is a more relevant page where I should submit this suggested edit (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards_extramarital_affair).  Thanks. DasBolt (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew Young's Book "The Politician" Releases January 30, 2010 

message: After everything that has come out about Edwards, isn't it time to rewrite some parts of this article? His extramarital affair is just one of elements of the shadow life that Edwards was living during the campaign. All the stuff that has come out about should make us rethink his persona alltogether. The man was living in a huge lie, maybe this article should reflect that more.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Looskuh (talk • contribs) 05:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite? 

message: John Edwards finally admitted he fathered a child out of wedlock although he has not yet admitted lying repeatedly to the American public.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.168.127.10 (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edwards Admits Paternity 

message: This language seems a little strong for WP.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.96.119 (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Adulterous Affair"? 

message: It isn't with Wikipedia normality to put extramarital affair before his political career. Mr. Edwards is a politician first and foremost, that is what he is known for, not for his affair. I suggest reorganizing the content with the same information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.192.132 (talk) 05:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of contents 

message: This piece provides some valuable info into John Edwards' activity post-scandal. Could this go in the external links list? http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/75931/after-the-fall  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishman0 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link 

message: This sentence creates the impression that he quit running for president because of the reporting on his affair: “On January 30, 2008, following allegations of an extra-marital affair, Edwards announced that he was suspending his campaign for the Presidency.[89][90]”  The cites don't mention the affair.  At the time he dropped out he'd lost several primaries and that was the only reason given for his dropping out.  There was no reporting by major news organizations on his affair at that time.  He lost primaries in January 2008 and he quit in January 2008.  (She had the baby a month later!)  He should have quit the previous year when the National Enquirer ran stories on the affair, but he didn't.  It's shocking that he didn't drop out, but considering it took him almost 2 years to acknowledge that was his kid, it's consistent.  It's shocking that the regular press didn't look into this story so the public could know what this guy was really like before the voting, but that's what happened.  He was even considered for VP after he dropped out.  This statement really misrepresents what happened.  Another Wikipedia article describes what happened more accurately, the mainstream press didn't do any reporting on the affair until months after he dropped out: John_Edwards_extramarital_affair#Initial_National_Enquirer_allegations
Also see this article on Hunter, only the National Enquirer covered this story before the primaries: [] 
This is such recent history, it's surprising a Wikipedia article would have this wrong.  Iful (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edwards didn't drop out of presidential race because of reports of his affair 

message: Inside Edition provided a link to the Elizabeth's last will and testament (http://www.insideedition.com/lib/pdf/5566/edwards-final-pdf.pdf). 199.2.126.188 (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  John left out of Elizabeth's will 

message: Here is a copy http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/06/03/https---ecf.ncmd.uscourts.gov-cgi-bin-show_temp.pl_file1323677-0--11073.pdf of the Edwards indictment
WhisperToMe (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indictment 

message: This appears to have never been supported but there is one thread on it in the archives. In any case if "Johnny" is what's on the birth record and "John" was the result of a legal name change, this should be made clear. Lycurgus (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Born Johnny 

message: Under 'Indictments' please change "planed" in the sentence 'planed to pursue criminal charges against Edwards' to "planned" as this is a spelling error.
Everettsteele (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Everettsteele, 3 June 2011 

message: John Edwards is gulity and sentenced
Looks like this photo http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-edwards-mug-20110615,0,7349268.story is public domain (from sherrif's office) so I think we should consider including it. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mug shot 

message: is a check.
. please correct the year of Elizabeth's birth... it was not 1977.. it was 1949  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.237.92 (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the years they were married, not date of birth.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under the picture of John.. 

message: News item has said that on Nov. 15, start of trial was set for Jan. 30 (2012). (I.e., request is for the addition of this newly-arrived information.)
I looked up a North Carolina source:
http://www.wral.com/news/political/story/10365950/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: {ESp|d}} I've added the news source you (IP) provided and the info to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from , 16 November 2011 

message: 1. Just wondering if anyone knows if National Enquirer is a reliable source for WP?
2. Is it particularly notable if Edwards asks his ex-mistress and mother of his child to move in with him at this point? Facts707 (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: National Enquirer is generally not considered a reliable source here, despite the fact that sometimes they end up being right. We try to wait for better sourcing - ones that are not tainted by accepting payments for tips and interviews, for example.  As for the second question, first would need reliable sources, then we'd consider it.  We're not the  news - there is no rush to publish everything that comes down the pike. Tvoz/talk 05:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extramarital affair - National Enquirer reports