Talk:John Edward/Archive 4

message: Hello everybody. Welcome to the John Edward talk page. A few things you should be aware of before editing the actual article...
# This is an extremely contentious article. The issue of psychic powers is hotly debated in this article and in others. However, our role as a neutral encyclopedia is merely to report the facts, as presented by respectable primary and secondary sources. With that in mind, please try to keep edits to the article as non-contentious as possible. Adding text that can be perceived as POV is likely to cause drama.
# The opening paragraph of this article, aka the lead/lede, has been to mediation twice and is an extremely hotly debated topic here. However, the last mediation finally resulted in a 6/0 consensus. As such, the lead should not be modified further. If you would like to make changes to the lead, please post your comments on the talk page first and wait for the input of your fellow editors.
And that's pretty much it. Happy editing everybody! – Lantoka (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version of the lead came from discussion on the talk page, not mediation (and I never did see the second mediation, where is it?).  And it certainly can be modified further.  Editors just need to know that there have been long discussions about it, and that edits to the intro will be heavily scrutinized and probably edited or reverted if people don't agree - a change just needs editors to agree on it.  In other words, it's like many other articles here on wikipedia.  --Milo H Minderbinder 19:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome! 

message: Dreadlocke, do you really need to revert war over things like this instead of discussing on the talk page?  Why is it so crucial that "self described" be changed to "professed"?  --Minderbinder 17:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a revert war.  I was replying in the edit summary.  If further discussion is necessary (as it seems to be), it would have been done here.  It's a better word, simpler and more encyclopedic than "self-described" do you disagree?  Dreadlocke  ☥  17:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, several editors yourself included had agreed on this non contentious wording, and now you are reverting.Belbo Casaubon 19:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We agreed on the intro, not these small changes to different areas of the article than that intro.  Are you wanting to discuss or edit war? Professed is fine, it means the same thing as "self-described".  Here, look it up: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/professed]. I don't see the problem.  Dreadlocke  ☥  19:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it means the same then why are you determined to change it??Belbo Casaubon 20:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, because it is a better, more concise, encyclopedic word than "self-described".  It reads much better.  As a matter of fact we're discussing changing the name of a category to "Professed Mediums" and "Professed Psychics", because it's a good word that even Milo agrees with (just a little joke there Milo, although you did agree...;)  Dreadlocke  ☥  20:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, so you do want to edit war over this.  Well, count me out for that type of editing.  Learned my lesson there.  Do we have to mediate over this too?  Ridiculous.  What does everyone else think?   Dreadlocke  ☥  20:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the one who has been repeatedly editing this without discussing it on the talk page.  Get a consensus or leave it.  --Minderbinder 20:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I have discussed it on the talk page, and Belbo is just a guilty of revert warring as anyone - as a matter of fact he's at 3RR right now.  Anyway, enough of these useless accusations, so what exactly is the problem with "Professed"?  Dreadlocke  ☥  20:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I have reverted your undiscussed changes 3 times, I have not broken 3RR I would have to revert them again, if you want to complain then go to an administrator.Belbo Casaubon 21:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professed/self described 

message: Here is the definition of professed, which I propose to be the replacement for "self-described".  My reasoning is that "professed" has the same meaning and is better, more concise, encyclopedic word than the phrase "self-described". 
Straw poll:
*Agree to the change for the reasons given above. Dreadlocke  ☥  20:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And self-described doesn't also say "pretend" just as vaguely or strongly? Dreadlocke  ☥  20:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No — BillC talk 20:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think it does.  Part of the implication of "self-described" is that it may not be true because it's not provable and no one else "describes" it for them.  Which technically makes "self-described" incorrect, because many others do describe him as a psychic medium. "Self-described" implies a lot of things, some of them are the same as "pretend", so I think professed is a far better word.   Dreadlocke  ☥  20:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If they mean pretty much the same, how is one "more neutral"?  --Minderbinder 13:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the context of WP:BLP. Shot info 02:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-described is true, but professed covers both self-description and description by others- or either, which gives it flexibility as a word to use generally in these cases.  I does have one meaning which is not nice, that is "to declare in words or appearances only : PRETEND, CLAIM", but self-described has the connotation of egotism. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Professed

message: I reverted this edit: 
:"A common theory is that Edward has microphones planted under the seats of the audience, and as they naturally talk to the person they are sitting next to about who they are hoping to speak to, Edward has some knowledge of names, dates etc that he can exploit."
It needs attributing if it is to stick. — BillC  talk 08:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited

message: WikiProject Biography Assessment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 21:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: Since the beginning of June, there have been at least six instances of vandalism on this page.  I think it should be locked so that new Wikipedians cannot edit it. --Sittingonfence 15:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism of that sort of frequency (a few times a week) is common for subjects in the public eye. You could try making a request for semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but such a request is likely to be turned down. Just keep reverting the vandalism. — BillC  talk 20:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  Sittingonfence 21:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism