Anythingyouwant (talk | contribs) |
Anythingyouwant (talk | contribs) name |
||
Line 310: | Line 310: | ||
I found this. Edwards admits beating his wife causeing broken bones. His wife denied this. I am shocked. This is not a joke. [[User:Newsjunker|Newsjunker]] 21:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC) |
I found this. Edwards admits beating his wife causeing broken bones. His wife denied this. I am shocked. This is not a joke. [[User:Newsjunker|Newsjunker]] 21:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
:It may have been a bad joke, but it was still a joke. It's been removed. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]]♠[[User talk:Onorem|Dil]] 21:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC) |
:It may have been a bad joke, but it was still a joke. It's been removed. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]]♠[[User talk:Onorem|Dil]] 21:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
==Name== |
|||
I have started a discussion at [[wp:mosbio]] about how the lede of this article should present his name. The discussion is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29#John_Edwards here].[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] 04:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:37, 10 September 2007
United States: North Carolina Unassessed | |||||||||||||
|
Biography: Politics and Government B‑class | ||||||||||
|
Haircuts
nothing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.62.95.59 (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
- Right, nothing. Not even worth a discussion, in my opinion. Tvoz |talk 05:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Adherence to recentism would support inclusion. Not much else. · j e r s y k o talk · 12:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- My mistake, I obviously misinterpreted. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Adherence to recentism would support inclusion. Not much else. · j e r s y k o talk · 12:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
I didn't hear of the haircut until my civics teacher mentioned it. Apparently, the issue is that Edwards used donated campaign money to pay for the haircut, instead of paying out of his own pocket (like Clinton did with the infamous $200 haircut). Since the story broke, it was mentioned in some major news sources. [1] Brian Williams also asked Edwards about the haircut during the first 2008 Democrat champaign debate on MSNBC. [2] It's also been the subjects of some political cartoons [3] and talk shows. [4] However, I believe it'll be safer to hold off mentioning the haircut until it's mentioned again in major news sources. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 04:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It's news. Keep your opinion out. Its has been mentioned both in the Democratic and Republican debates. Lets be objective now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.158.103.10 (talk • contribs).
I would like to officially seek input on a way to include the haircut controversies in this article. Four months have passed since I last suggested inclusion, and this is still popping up as an issue for Sen. Edwards. I know this will be unpopular with some (just as my mentioning Sen. Obama's cigarette smoking was), but it meets inclusion guidelines. Italiavivi 22:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
Fortress investments
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).
Yeah, I think the conflict between Edwards' campaign for eliminating poverty and his personal lifestyle choices has become a major story (if not the story) of his campaign. This topic should be touched upon in the article. Maximusveritas 01:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Universal Health Care section
John Edwards' Health Care section reads like an ad. That's his promise, not his biography. If the information is there it should be moved to a separate article for campaign promises. See this interesting thing I saw about Wikipedia not being an ad agency. [[5]]Pipermantolisopa 03:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think too much was removed - I reinstated the introduction, which gives an outline of the program. The details don't belong here, I agree, but it is common practice to have outlines of political positions in the main article, with details in the "political positions" article. Tvoz |talk 04:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- To the anon editor who keeps putting that bulleted list back in the section - please see this on one of your IP talk pages, and please tell us explicitly what is bothering you about the section. I've incorporated the rest of what was in the bullets into that intro paragraph (altho I don't think it was really necessary) which is a short summary of what the plan is - and the Edwards quote is not vague, it is just his summarizing statement about the shared responibility that is outlined above it - and imediately after that I put the pointer to the other article, saying "further information" can be found at xyz. I do not think this is vague at all - especially after this last edit - and as you can see another editor originally wanted the whole section removed, but has accepted the compromise of a shorter summary here and longer details in the other article. But you just keep reverting back to your longer original, and that's not moving us along. So please, let's discuss it here. Tvoz |talk 08:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- i apologize. i saw someone place an out of context quote on "national service" and decontextualize the health care quote. this combination of edits looked like it was trying to push a POV. i realize the quote about national service was from another anonymous user between your edits. so i'm sorry i grouped your edits in with that revert. that was sloppy and irresponsible of me.
- that said, the "burden" quote on this page is often offered as evidence that "john edwards has promised to raise taxes on everyone", which is not his actual position. hence why it's important to explain specifically where he has stated the tax burden will fall. if explaining that gets too wordy, i'd prefer to keep the quote to the more developed "health care" section, where it is clarified. 65.95.142.152 17:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Haircut
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)
The $800[citation needed] Haircut
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)
The really expensive haircut is fact. However, it's more of a campaign news issue rather than a biography. You don't see how much Thomas Jefferson's haircut costs in his biography even though I suspect it was quite a bit. So it's inclusion in the campaign article is possibly ok but very gossipy to be in a biographical article.
photos
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)
- 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)
Controversies Section?
I would have sworn that when I looked at this article a few months ago, there was a controversies section which included the information about his suits as a trial lawyer and how the claims he used to justify the huge settlements in at least one of the cases were completely unscientific; some scientists had spoken out against what he told the jury. Combined with the house and haircut, and now this UC Davis information (last year charging a public university $55,000 to speak about poverty), it seems there should be a Controversies section as there are with other presidential candidates. Was this information (about the legal claims) removed from the article at some point? In other candidate articles, this information is included in the biography, not just the Presidential Campaign article.--Gloriamarie 17:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've been editing this article for quite a while - well more than a few months - and the only "controversy" sections I recall were one recently about the "anti-catholic bloggers controversy" which was felt to have been given inappropriate weight by having it as a separate section and was incorporated into the 2008 campaign section in this biography article and some time ago there was a "2004 campaign controversies" section (I may have the names wrong about the sections, by the way, it's from memory) - that included his debate comment to Cheney about how well Cheney's family handlled the fact that their daughter is gay and his campaign speech about stem cell research which would one day allow people like Christopher Reeves to walk again. The Cheney thing was a flash in the pan and hardly a controversy and the stem cell comment was meant metaphorically, if I recall, not literally about Reeves, and the efforts of a couple of commentators (was it Krauthammer and Drudge? not sure) to make it into a controversy was noted here for a while - the section had a notability tag and eventually it was decided that neither of those two items rose to the level of a controversy section. I do not recall there being a controversy section with anything about him as a trial lawyer, so I can't say - but if it was in, it was well more than a few months ago.
- I don't object to there being a controversy section, if there are notable controversies to include. I very much object to the arbitrary creation of a controversy section just so that there is one here - I'm not making a judgment now on whether I think all the things you cite, Gloriamarie, are valid to include, as I'd need to read them, but I am cautioning against building something into a controversy that may not really be one in the long haul, and giving it too much prominence. Hillary Clinton's hairstyles comes to mind - and a number of other things that were in her article at one time that to my mind were nonsense and there to ridicule or disparage her, not because they were valid controversies of which Hillary has her share.
- Articles about politicians, especially during a campaign, seem to alternate between being overly positive paeans to the candidate with anything controversial twisted around to sound like a positive trait, like Ron Paul sometimes is or beefed-up allegations that opponents (on and off wikipedia) try to twist into some kind of Major Controversy in order to get some more negativitiy into an article like Barack Obama's mother's ancestors owning slaves would be an example -- all in the name of "balance". I think we have to be careful of both extremes - sometimes not very important, but somewhat controversial items work better when incorporated into the text, sometimes they rise to the level of needing a separate section, sometimes they require a separate article. But I don't think we necessarily need a Controversies section in every one.
- However.... I'm not saying we necessarily don't need one here, and I'm not directing this at Gloriamarie who is asking a legitimate question. My opinion is that the haircut, house and speaker's fee are not controversies on that level of importance - no one is denying that Edwards is wealthy, as are almost all of the candidates - to me these matters are being trumped up as controversies (not saying you are doing this) by opponents for political reasons, not because they are truly viewed as controversies. Tvoz |talk 18:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just to recycle my standard response. A section purely for "controversies" is unnecessary as in most cases the "controversy" can be worked into the existing prose. IMHO, controversy sections are little more than glorified trivia sections that become dumping grounds for everything trivial that is brought up by the article topic's opponents. As an example, the faulty science or lack of science is already mentioned in the legal career section of the article. The issues with his haircuts and getting paid for public speaking could be included in the section or the sub-article for that section for which they are most appropriate. The haircut probably falls under the 2008 campaign section/article and the paid for public speaking probably falls under the Post-Senate section. Not that I'm saying either one belongs in this article, just that, if they are notable enough, there are ways to work them into the existing article or sub-articles without the need for creating a "controversies" section.--Bobblehead (rants) 18:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Points well taken. I'm not a big fan of the "controversies" section either, but it doesn't seem equitable to not mention controversies at all as a result. I don't think the house and haircut are a big deal at all, but they should probably be mentioned because people have made a big deal out of them, but the UC Davis poverty speech given for $55,000 seems like it's going to be a field day for those who thought the house and haircut were a big deal. I added information from a NY Times article from 2004 about his trials. I noticed that some of this information was included in the article before, with a citation tag, and user Jgwlaw removed it in July 2006 with the edit description "Remove unsubstantiated slam".--Gloriamarie 19:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- I reworked the legal career section - kept some criticism, but removed some of the longer passages about caesarian sections and whether or not they are needed and the causes of brain damage - this is really not the place for that and to be fair to that topic we'd need to say a lot more than what the NYT article said. The relevant point in this biographical piece, it seems to me, is that questions have been raised about the validity of his argument, but that his lawyering style won him cases despite what some consider to be controversial medical claims. Of course that's what lawyers do - that is their job - they advocate on their client's behalf, even though sometimes their claims are erroneous and sometimes their clients are guilty (in criminal cases, not here) - and I don't think we can have a long discussion of that issue here. So I tried to keep in some of the critical aspects, but focus more on Edwards and what he did and said than on the larger argument. Also rearranged the section to be more logical. ANd I fixed a bunch of references that were not working - have to have a title if you use the cite web format, for example, and I think the ref name has to be in quotes, but not 100% sure if that's necessary. Tvoz |talk 08:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. It looks pretty good.--Gloriamarie 17:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I reworked the legal career section - kept some criticism, but removed some of the longer passages about caesarian sections and whether or not they are needed and the causes of brain damage - this is really not the place for that and to be fair to that topic we'd need to say a lot more than what the NYT article said. The relevant point in this biographical piece, it seems to me, is that questions have been raised about the validity of his argument, but that his lawyering style won him cases despite what some consider to be controversial medical claims. Of course that's what lawyers do - that is their job - they advocate on their client's behalf, even though sometimes their claims are erroneous and sometimes their clients are guilty (in criminal cases, not here) - and I don't think we can have a long discussion of that issue here. So I tried to keep in some of the critical aspects, but focus more on Edwards and what he did and said than on the larger argument. Also rearranged the section to be more logical. ANd I fixed a bunch of references that were not working - have to have a title if you use the cite web format, for example, and I think the ref name has to be in quotes, but not 100% sure if that's necessary. Tvoz |talk 08:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I added the section about his criticism by the WSJ on his Medicare tax loophole as well as Bill O'Reilly's criticism on how he failed to handle the Christian bloggers.Arnabdas 21:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- I dont necessarily care if there is a convtroversy section or not, but criticisms should be there. Where is the mention of the anti-Christian blogging? It was there before. Maybe some pro-Edwards vandals are trying to hide his unpopular and controversial (in)actions?Arnabdas 21:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
House
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)
- 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)
- 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)
birthname
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Yeah, about the infobox header Tvoz |talk 04:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
Health care
I like Edwards more than anyone except maybe Richardson. I'm not trying to smear him. I've re-edited the health care part to show that his plan is a true universal plan while Obama's is not. Hillary Clinton hasn't released any details yet. There is a difference in health care plans.
In terms of a biography, I orginally thought there should be no mention of health care, except to say that it is a major issue of the campaign. Then someone edited a huge text which I thought almost was an ad. Yet another editor trimmed it. If there is going to be a short description, I think a description of the scope of the plan (which is best measured in costs as no details such as deductible is available. Nobody is saying Obama's plan is streamline and Edwards' plan has administrative waste. Both are probably the same in administrative costs, just that Edwards' covers more of us and Obama is a mini-plan.
If we are to have a description, I think the scope of the plan (i.e. costs) is one of the key points. (Although it won't be mentioned in the article, if Edwards' plan is passed, I may be covered by it but if Obama's plan is covered, I will pay for it as a taxpayer and get nothing in return)Pipermantolisopa 01:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I respect your opinion. But in order to keep this article neutral, I suggest we avoid the slippery slope of comparison shopping. The actual campaign and primary pages will likely get swamped with comparisons. Let's keep this page clean. 67.70.13.72 02:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I hope this is not degenerating like the Ron Paul article. Do we need to lock this article so that more seasoned editors can edit?Pipermantolisopa 03:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not because of the edits made by 67.70.13.72, if that's what you're suggesting - they were sound. And your own OR and opinion on the relevant merits of the 2 plans, as described above, is really outside the scope of our article. This is not the place for a comparison between Obama's health care plan and Edwards', especially not only on a few selected points. I also object to the CNN piece as a source for this article, because it is a piece almost completely about Obama's plan and not the best source for what Edwards' plan is about. I believe the sense of the editors is that we need to talk a little bit here about Edwards' universal health care plan because it is one of his main campaign issues, but the more detailed material should be in the "political positions" separate article, as the pointer says. Tvoz |talk 03:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I hope this is not degenerating like the Ron Paul article. Do we need to lock this article so that more seasoned editors can edit?Pipermantolisopa 03:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Accordingly, I replaced the CNN ref with one from USA Today which was less slanted toward any one candidate but gave the same information about Edwards, and I reinstated some material that had been removed and by doing so lost some of the logical sense (e.g., in what way it is "universal". And did a general edit of the section for clarity, flow, and sense. It's pretty lean, but I think adequately summarizes the plan, leaving details for the other article. Tvoz |talk 05:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Again, the USA Today article is not slanted toward one candidate as the CNN piece is, and the exact same points are verified by the USA Today piece. The CNN piece is a good piece for Obama's article, not for this one. Tvoz |talk 06:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't change the correct format of references that I had when you make your edits. And since I had commented on the CNN reference here more than once, I think you should discuss it before reinstating it again and again. Tvoz |talk 06:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I read both. I think the CNN article is better than the USA Today but let's keep both. The USA Today article is unfair to Edwards and slams him by saying "Edwards has not offered as much detail...". Edwards was number one and for months, nobody else presented a plan. USA Today has a subtle anti-Edwards message while CNN has a fair message even though it's only in the last third. Instead of fighting, why not keep both even though the CNN one is better.Pipermantolisopa 06:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
"Slamming" Edwards or supporting Edwards is completely irrelevant, and I don't agree with your characterization anyway. The CNN article is about Obama's plan - around 12 paragraphs out of the 14 or 15 in the article are specifically about the Obama plan. The only thing it says about the Edwards plan is two short paragraphs and a short quote - and that material is completely covered in the USA Today piece plus the USA Today article has a good deal more about the Edwards plan beyond that. Adding the CNN article is approaching POV pushing, as evidenced by your comment directly above. In fact the USA Today piece is neutral and more comprehensive, and the CNN adds nothing. Since I raised this issue earlier tonight, before you re-added your CNN reference, I think the proper thing would have been for you to discuss it here first, rather than reverting with edit summaries like "Let's not fight". PLease stop pushing your POV here. Tvoz |talk 07:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
References are not picked because the whole of the reference fits the wikipedia sentence. That's what you are saying when you say "around 12 parargraphs out of 14 or 15 in the article....about Obama".Pipermantolisopa 12:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Look at the 1st reference. The reference is a New York Times reference about Edwards' swift ascent into politics. There is only 1 sentence about Edwards' name. By Tvoz' logic, this New York Times reference is no good. No! It is a good reference, one of the best you can get.Pipermantolisopa 12:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Simply put, as a matter of article relevance, the comparison to Obama's health plan is out of place in this article. · jersyko talk 12:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Adding CNN article is not approaching POV pushing. The proof of POV is the content of an article and its references. Here's an example: By nature, all politicians are POV. What they say can be neutral and not POV (for example, if Bush said orange juice is good and cited neutral references, even he said it on an orange farm in Florida). Back to the references, we have little to no disagreement on the text of the wikipedia article (that section). We have little or no disagreement that CNN is good as a news organization. We have complete agreement that the CNN reference is good, as far as the last few paragraphs. We make no mention of Obama in the article. There!
- As far as Jersyko's statement, I've already said "ok", there is no comparison with Obama in the wikipedia article. Jersyko should refer to the logic to reference #1's inclusion. Will you stop arguing and let me work on the Ron Paul article instead of keeping on eye on this?Pipermantolisopa 12:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- You're free to edit what you wish. No one is preventing you from making constructive edits to another article, nor is anyone forcing you to continue discussion at this talk page. Thus, your comment is puzzling. · jersyko talk 12:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Nothing puzzling. Tvoz and I had a little spat a few hours ago but not really a fight. Usually, Tvoz and I have been working together on both articles, Edwards and Paul. I usually agree with Tvoz. Tvoz first told me about how bad the Ron Paul article so I then starting looking and writing therePipermantolisopa 13:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- You're free to edit what you wish. No one is preventing you from making constructive edits to another article, nor is anyone forcing you to continue discussion at this talk page. Thus, your comment is puzzling. · jersyko talk 12:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not working with you on any article - Ron Paul is just another article I sometimes edit. Tvoz |talk 15:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
To summarize: the CNN reference is all about Obama's health care plan, and it includes a minor mention of Edwards' plan as comparison. Several editors have agreed that our John Edwards bio article should not include comparisons to Obama's or anyone's plan, as we are simply making a short statement about Edwards' plan here. The USA Today reference is a solid, fair article that talks about the health care plans of several candidates including Edwards. It completely verifies the points made and encompasses and goes beyond the CNN piece. It is a better source for this article; despite the claims above, it is a neutral source, and more than sufficient for our purposes. Adding the CNN source is inappropriate because it appears to be a back-door way to get in an article about Obama's plan. At least four editors have expressed opinions or edited the page in a way that supports this position; only one has insisted on including the CNN reference, with no valid reason given. Unfortunately, i see that editor has once again reinstated this reference, despite it having been removed by more than one editor, and despite the discussion here. Can we now move on please? Tvoz |talk 02:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Nobody else has addressed some key issues:
1. The USA Today article is unfair to Edwards and slams him by saying "Edwards has not offered as much detail...". Edwards was number one and for months, nobody else presented a plan. USA Today has a subtle anti-Edwards message while CNN has a fair message even though it's only in the last third. The USA Today article doesn't slam the other candidates. That's why the USA Today reference is good only as a secondary reference to back up the CNN reference.
2. CNN article is about Obama's plan - around 12 paragraphs out of the 14 or 15 in the article are specifically about the Obama plan. The only thing it says about the Edwards plan is two short paragraphs and a short quote ....writes Tvoz. It appears that Tvoz is saying that if an article is primarily about something else, you cannot use the last few relevant paragraphs as a reference. I disagree.
3. Ideas are the most important thing, not votes. The John Edwards article is capable of attracting some anti-Edwards people who have to benefit if there are anti-Edwards references and neutral ones are eliminated. Pipermantolisopa 03:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- First, you haven't demonstrated why this reference is useful in this article. You want to include it even though the sentence it is attached to is already completely sourced to a different source (which, might I add, is actually about Edwards). Second, we don't choose our sources based on whether they support or oppose a candidate, we choose them based on their reliability and relevance. Thus, your complaint that it is somehow mean to Edwards isn't relevant. Finally, frankly, I'm baffled as to why anyone would decide to write paragraphs about this on a talk page in an attempt to justify including it. Any attempt on your part to answer that question would only further ingrain it in my mind. · jersyko talk 03:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Editors interested in this subject might like Amanda Marcotte
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)
Fair use rationale for Image:Kerryedwards.JPG
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)
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
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
--Rpilaud 21:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Explanation of edits
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Mary Cheney Lesbian Mention
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)
- 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)
Edwards is not crazy
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)
- 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)
Ok, but I originally thought someone was trying to make Edwards look bad by hinting that he was hearing voices.Spevw 01:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Edwards did not win money for clients
Clients are awarded damages or reach settlements. They do not "win $-- million". Fixed this. Spevw 00:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Attorneys win cases, clients are awarded settlements. Like it or not, that's common parlance. attorney --> · jersyko talk 00:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Cesarian-sections are not unnecessaray
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)
- 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)
I thought that someone was trying to make Edwards look bad by hinting that he caused unnecessary ceserian sections. Since you brought up the original research topic, it's original research to determine that they are unnecessary. Did anyone present expert evidence (of someone who reviewed all the records) as well as presented expert rebuttal evidence? So I made a minor word change.Spevw 01:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
I think that it would be worthwhile to point out that a significant number of medical and legal experts feel that Edwards manipulated the jury into awarding money to the plaintiff. There is a great deal of debate in the medical field about the cause of cerebral palsy, and the article is written without any mention of that. 29 August 2007
Robert Shrum Gay Rights Quote
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)
- This seems reasonable if it's verifiable. A NPOV requires all sides be presented. Rtphokie 02:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
Edwards Home
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
2008 Presidential Campaign section
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Political Views Section
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)
- 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)
- There ya go. Much shorter. Let's see how long it lasts. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Looking good Bobblehead, thanks! Arnabdas 15:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- There ya go. Much shorter. Let's see how long it lasts. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Should this be referred to?
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
I believe that if elected, John Edwards' critics would label him the "Breck Girl". Although the term originated with Rush Limbaugh, it has been used by several critics of Edwards. It should be included. Excluding it would be biased. Saying that you can include negative nick-names for George W. Bush on wikipedia and that you can't include such jabs for John Edwards is, in itself, biased. DreamTrain 02:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Questions? Ask them through Wikinews
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)
Mandatory Service (be it Military or National)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Poorly sourced Edwards quotation
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)
The section on John Edwards period as a trial lawyer
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)
- 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)
Spousal abuse
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)
- 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)
Name
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)