Talk:John Edward/Archive 1

message: As someone has pointed out, "cold reading" is a technical term for precisely those techniques used when one has no prior information about the person. I'm removing the phrase as inaccurate.
DanielCristofani 12:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That was just vandalism by an anonymous editor --DocJohnny 19:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk 2

message: someone should probably edit this page to add that gary schwartz has zero credibility among serious scientists - and the only reason he has that much is that it's impossible to have any less.
::Someone should probably find some sort of verifiable source to make this claim before they decide to add it to the article.
:::This is an article on Edward, not Schwartz.  Schwartz is a well known researcher into parapsychology - naturally this draws criticism from "serious scientists".  Dreadlocke  ?  17:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk 3

message: John Edward is neither original nor particularly good at what he does. I recall once seeing Edward live on Larry King, where they featured some footage from a "Crossing Over" show. The audience was smallish with 40 or so people. Edward gets on stage and announces, "I'm getting... chunks of meat... or something, in a plastic bag..." This fat woman jumps up excitedly and proclaims that she has a bag of cheese cubes in her handbag. I'm thinking, considering half the audience were grossly overweight odds are that someone will have a bag of food on them. And Edward or one of his shills probably saw the woman chowing down before the show. What a load of horse manure. If the footage was provided by Edward's producers as a "good" example of his work, it's little wonder Larry King was not impressed. How anyone with a single functioning brain cell can swallow this rubbish is beyond me. John Edward is nothing but a bloody shyster. So history will remember him, and this article should make no pretence to the contrary. --130.76.64.17 00:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard to believe. Larry King is impressed by everyone! - Nunh-huh 00:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk 4

message: John Edward may not be the most credible "psychic medium" there is. "Psychic mediums" as a whole may not be all that credible. However, I think it's sad that some of the edits I've read to this and the Sylvia Brown page act like this spiritual connection they claim to have with the dead is completely impossible. I think that's rediculous. And/or the people writing it have never had such a connection so they feel that anyone who claims to have is stupid and looses most (if not all) credibility with them, and that's sad. They're people too, they're just very different from you. 
Whether or not you believe that a person actually does--or even can--have a spiritual connection with the dead and/or the living (or God, for that matter), this alleged connection often means a lot to the people who claim to have it and I think that deserves respect. It is a strong part of who they are and what feels right to them and I don't think anyone has the right to belittle that. Of course, people who are trying to make money at it and seem obviously fake is another story, but the idea in and of itself is not a bad one and if nothing else at least deserves respect.
::This is NOT the point of an encyclopedia, to "respect" the people who believe this or that.  Encyclopedia's report FACTS, not BELIEFS.  If someone is offended because thus far, nothing can be proven scientifically, that's just too bad.  We aren't here to "all get along" and make everyone feel included and respected.  There are magazines, books, television and radio programs for that.  You can't prove he can talk to the dead, but we can prove cold-reading is a technique and we can report accuracy information.  SENSITIVITY TO FEELINGS IS NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC.216.39.146.25 15:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk 6

message: It is impossible, and their is no reason to believe it unless it has been proven. Using a study by Edward's lacky should not be considered evidence. The end section is written as though there is some ongoing scientific debate about Edward's abilities. This is misleading and should be cleaned up to better reflect the fact that Edwards show amounts to entertainment (like pro wrestling) and nothingt else.
::"It is impossible, and their is no reason to believe it unless it has been proven." - This sentence is ridiculous. You actually defame your own position by commiting the "Appeal to Consequences of Belief" fallacy, the very position you are attacking. My point is that one cannot say something is "impossible", and then say "unless it has been proven". Your position is either "because it has not been proven, I do not believe in it", or "because it is not been proven, it is still possible, and thus, can be accepted on that basis". I think that your original position is one which may be detrimental to the editing of an encyclopedia, as it is not based in rational thought (ironically enough). Moreover, one cannot just make assertions like " [the] Edwards show amounts to entertainment"; again, this is founded in conjecture. Allthesestars 18:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually we can definitely say that Edward's show amounts to entertainment, given that it has the disclaimer "for entertainment purposes only"--DocJohnny 00:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reproduced for your enjoyment, the disclaimer from Crossing Over.
"The producer has relied heavily on the contributions of John Edward and other third parties in the creation of this program, which has been produced for entertainment purposes only. Materials and opinions presented in this program by John Edward and other third parties, including statements, predictions, documents, photos, and video footage come solely from the respective third party sources and are not the views, opinions, and the responsibility of the producer and, are not meant or intended to be a form of advice, instruction, suggestion, counsel or factual statement in any way whatsoever."--DocJohnny 00:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't really think this stands as a bedrock of certainty. Surely it is just a way for John Edward and the show to avoid people sueing them over anything he says? The sentiment seems to be that they (the show) want to stress that what John is saying is not what he is thinking (and by that I mean consciously. It's always difficult to describe these areas when discussing psychic medium, and that he isn't trying to imply that anything is (morally) right or wrong. Moreover, I think basing an opposition to the show on this statement is quite a weak one. I'm all for people criticising these sorts of shows if they want, becasue I think most medium on tv are a little too "showy". However, I just don't think this amounts to strong evidence against John Edward, or the show. Allthesestars 10:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk 7

message: We need to get a copy verbatim of the disclaimer that appears for 3.3 seconds at the end of his show.  If anyone knows it please add it to the article.  Thankszors--Gephart 06:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disclaimer Statement 

message: I rarely watched it, but then suddenly it was gone.  I think it went off the air.  I checked the official page (linked from this wiki article) and it said nothing.  Also the south park episode when it was made, I don't think it aired.  I think it was pulled down.  I later find it airing two years later.  I think John Edward sued and maybe that south park episode hurt his TV career badly.  So anyone know?  DyslexicEditor 12:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the story behind the end of the TV show? 

message: The mention of Phonetics and the accompanying link doesnt really add up. The link is to a general page on phonetics and the relevance to a cold -reading technique isnt apparent Prustage 23:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phonetics Link 

message: Of course the article should have a NPOV but at the moment it seems to have been so castrated to avoid edit wars (or being sued by JE?) that it is below standard for Wikipedia. 
I suggest a section on "Controversy" where all the skeptical claims are aired along with good citations and (if existing) rebuttals. It is perfectly possible to write a section like this (more detailed than the current "Criticisms" section) whilst maintaining NPOV.  On the other hand, to provide balance a lot needs to be said about JE's success. What is the audience rating of "Crossing Over"?; how much does he earn?; who has he given private readings to?; what does he charge?; who are his principal supporters and detractors? Prustage 23:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When doing this, I think we should insist on sources, so as to avoid endless back-and-forth arguments. Also,we should avoid general criticisms of psychics and keep it specifically to criticisms of John Edwards himself. Ashmoo 00:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. Let's just stop making fun of other psychics in this guy's article. Let's just make fun of him instead. do you even LISTEN to yourself, Ashmoo? P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 17:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's with the hostility? (WP:CIVIL). Where did I say we should make fun of him? My suggestion of sources is specifically to stop POV editors from inserting their own views of Edward. Ashmoo 23:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Above, I posted some problems with the 'Inspirational message' section but didn't get any responses. I'm going to make my changes, but am reposting my thoughts again in case anyone wants to argue:
:there is no contest to his ability to comfort grieving and/or desperate people by giving inspirational messages to viewers and audience members. 
I think there would be many skeptics who would contest this. They may say the comfort is short lived, they may say something else. Either way a blanket statement like this is unsourced opinion.
:"Many viewers of the show remarked that they watched not for the psychic readings—but instead for the kind messages its host conveyed about those who have passed on.
'Many viewers' is weasel words. Who said it? What episode? Where are you getting your information from? How can readers verify this?
:One fine example of these inspirational messages is from Crossing Over, when a woman who had lost her child was being read. Edward, at the end of the reading, said that the woman's mother (who had also 'crossed over') was taking care of the deceased child. At this, the woman began crying. In the interview afterward, she said that she had felt that 'a great weight' had been released from her, since she knew that her child was 'not alone on the other side'.
Again, which episode? How can we verify this? 
I agree that that article needs to conform to NPOV and provide balance, but just writing a section of nice things about him without providing any sources isn't the way to do it. While most of these comments may be reasonable, wikieditor doesn't insist on reasonable, it insists on WP:Verifiability. Ashmoo 01:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inspirational messages section

message: 167.30.48.41 deleted a section, and did not appear to give a reason. This article is pretty silly, but it would be even sillier to ignore attempts to confirm or refute the propostion that Edward is genuine. Of course, I may have a warped perspective because I don't watch television. Anyway, I've restored it. Gene Ward Smith 05:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoring Schwartz

message: I removed this sentence from the Schiavo section:
:After her autopsy the following month, it was concluded that she was not self-aware.
The WP article on Terry Schiavo states in the Autopsy section:
:Dr. Stephen J. Nelson, P.A., cautioned that "[n]europathologic examination alone of the decedent’s brain – or any brain for that matter – cannot prove or disprove a diagnosis of persistent vegetative state or minimally conscious state."
Which indicates that it is not possible to determine 'self-awareness' or 'consciousness' from a autopsy. If someone has a appropriate source, please re-include the sentence, with the source. Ashmoo 05:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terry Schiavo

message: I am sorry to appear to single you out, Dreadlocke, but you are consistently making POV edits in favor of Edward's unverified claims, and equally consistently making POV edits to make valid observations of Edward by noted professionals seem less important or relevant.  Your referencing of Wikipedia guidelines does not make your arguments or edits more valid.  Intentional or not, you are using the claim of Wikipedia guidelines in a very single-sided manor.  This is the kind of behaviour that weakend Wikipedia as a research tool.  If you want to be a positive contributor to this article, you should first do more research on Edward, and the other sources that examine his claims.  After you educate yourself on the subject, then be more careful what you add/change/delete so you are not slanting this article into a fluff-piece. Again, claiming that well-sourced edits that you disagree with are "attacks" or "violations of policy" should be saved for times when that is indeed what is happening. Zeke pbuh 05:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not distort what I have said.  The "attacks" are not "edits that I disagree with", they are WP:NPA violations by your commenting on me and other editors here, rather than the contents.  I find your last post to be insulting and uncivil.  Why don't you familiarize yourself with not only the subject of the article, but Wikipedia policy as well.  Dreadlocke  ☥  05:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Another policy you should become familiar with is WP:3RR, if you keep up your edit wars, you will be in violation of that policy as well.  Dreadlocke  ☥  04:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I am sorry that you are insulted.  However, you seem to be using Wikipedia guidelines in a very one-sided manner, in a way that appears to me to be bullying.  Please re-read my comments carefully, I believe I was fair and accurate.  Keep in mind as you read my comments that I am trying to be positive and civil, and point out ways to improve the article, and your contributions.  Civility, NPOV, and sourcing is what makes Wikipedia what it is.  If you believe I have violated policies, I there are arbitration policies in place.  I will continue to contribute to this article in a positive way in accordance with all Wikipedia guidelines.  Zeke pbuh 06:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your actions have not yet been egregious enough for me to report you or escalate dispute resolution, what I have been trying to do is get you to stop commenting on me (and others), and to stop edit warring, so we can have a civil conversation and make some headway on this article.  I am not using policy in a one-sided manner, I pointing out policy that I think backs up my view - you've completely ignored that - at least Elembis is reading and discussing the policy - I'll bet he and I make some actual progress in understanding each other's points of view.  Dreadlocke  ☥  06:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Your actions have also not been egregious enough for me to report you or escalate dispute resolution.  We're fast becoming friends.  My edits are NPOV, sourced, and notable, as well as minor corrections, all within Wikipedia guidlines as I understand them.  It's not so much an edit war as a little bit of back and forth until a happy medium is reached.  I've definitely seen more heated edit exchanges on Wikipedia, but it is dissapointing to see this article occasionally neutered. It should read as niether an endorsement or a discrediting of Edward.  To date, his claims are unverified by any respectable third party.  Look forward to working with you to present this article in a fair and encyclopedic light. Zeke pbuh 06:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Singling out

message: Substituted at 20:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment