text:
Talk:John Edwards/Archive 1

BIO
Feel free to add any biographical information, or Presidential information.--TR --

Re: My change to "narrowly defeated" from "soundly defeated":

I lived in North Carolina when the Edwards/Faircloth race was decided. Edwards edged out Faircloth by just four percentage points. In my political mind, 4% is pretty narrow. Compare that to the score Liddy Dole got against Erskine Bowles in 2002. It was 54% (for Dole) and 45% (for Bowles), a difference of nine percentage points.

Hope this helps.

--Hoshie

--

"On February 17 his campaign gained further momentum when he nearly defeated Kerry in the Wisconsi
 * Probably not. ugen64 21:28, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * No. I think even Edwards would agree with dewikifying because he constantly emphasizes how his family is humble, blue-collar, and otherwise unremarkable besides being his family. --Hcheney 22:11, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, parents are definitely an important person in someone's life and should be wikied. Anthony DiPierro 02:42, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Anthony, am I right in remembering that you believe that any individual person is worthy of an encyclopedia article? Certainly this seems that way -- who knows how important his parents are to his life?  Even if they were, we don't have articles on every notable person here -- that would be an immense number of articles that read essentially "X was Y's father.  He had an impact on Y's life as a result."  Unless there is something notable about his parents beyond their being his parents, I think community opinion and standard Wiki practice would dictate that we not have articles on his parents. Jwrosenzweig 18:40, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your argument. We shouldn't have these linked, because we shouldn't have articles about them, and we shouldn't have articles about them, because we don't have articles about every notable person?  There is no consensus that we should not have articles on these people.  Until such consensus is formed, it's perfectly reasonable to link to them.  Anthony DiPierro 19:13, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I think what he's saying, Anthony, is that his parents don't deserve articles themselves; they aren't well known, and the only notable things they did were be his parents. I agree, this gets kind of murky with pages like Buddy (dog), but in this case they don't deserve articles, so they shouldn't be wikied. Meelar 19:17, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but it's his opinion. There are a number of people who disagree that being notable should even be a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia, let alone that we should remove links to notable people who one person alleges are not notable for a sufficient reason. Anthony DiPierro 19:19, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * "There are a number of people who disagree that being notable should even be a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia" - no, that's pretty much only you. →Raul654 19:19, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Right. Me, and Jimbo, and Jamesday, and Catherine, and Jack Lynch, and Optim, and all the others who voted no on Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance, and even some of those who voted yes such as Daniel C. Boyer is pretty much only me. Anthony DiPierro 19:39, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * No, they disagree with the wording 'famous' and 'notable' - that doesn't mean they argee with you that every blade of grass and every tree should have its own article. Ask Jimbo if we should go through the phonebook and create articles on all the people there, and see what he says. →Raul654 19:45, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * We aren't talking about blades of grass or trees. We are talking about two notable people. Anthony DiPierro 19:58, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Except that no thinks they are notable except you. →Raul654 19:59, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Meelar said "the only notable things they did were be his parents."  So clearly he thinks they are notable. Anthony DiPierro 04:22, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I give up. You want to win this one, Anthony? Win it. Keep the links. But unless they've done something more important than conceiving John, I will oppose any creation of an article on either of them. Jwrosenzweig 19:44, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt conceiving John is the most important thing they've done. Anthony DiPierro 19:58, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Then maybe you should consider writing a lengthy article of their many achievements in McFly? --Hcheney 20:01, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I will, and I'll write one in Wikipedia too. Anthony DiPierro 20:23, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wade's Death
I noticed that in the article, Wade is listed as a 16 year old who is killed in 1996. However, Cate, the oldest daughter, was born in 1982 and therefore the date of the automobile accident is wrong. Could someone please check into this? puttypapyrus

 * I believe Wade was older than Cate. Cate's article describes her as "the oldest daughter" not the "oldest child."  This is accurate.  She is the older than Senator Edwards younger daughter Emma Claire, and older than their other son Jack, who were both born after Wade's death.  Perhaps Cate's article should be changed to specify that she is the oldest daughter and "oldest surviving child" of Senator and Mrs. Edwards, mentioning that her older brother Wade is deceased.  TMS63112 16:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Straw Poll on Wikifying Parents
Since Anthony feels that past prescedent favors his point of view, I figured we could have a poll to determine whether consensus favors wikifying John Edwards parents. --Hcheney 19:53, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've already stated that I don't agree with this, so there clearly is not consensus. Anthony DiPierro 04:20, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * There is a consensus. 83% voted to oppose his parents being wikified. If 83% is not a consensus, please tell me what is. --Hcheney 04:28, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 83% of those who decided to vote. On a poll question which wasn't even discussed beforehand, and wasn't advertised on current polls. Anthony DiPierro 04:45, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * It is now listed on Current polls. --Hcheney 04:53, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Seems like a waste when we could have answered a much bigger question, but OK. In the mean time I've still agreed not to revert this below, so I think the page protection should be lifted. Anthony DiPierro 05:53, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If your question is whether or not I will continue to revert this, I will not (barring the poll results swaying to less than 80% against me). However, I don't agree with it. And at the time when articles for these people are created, I will of course add the links once again. Anthony DiPierro 04:47, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The names of John Edwards' parents should be wikified.

Support:
 * (Anthony implied from above comments)
 * Support. Me.
 * Support. I don't understand why this is even an issue.  Isn't the whole idea of Wikipedia to represent a diversity of perspectives?  Who's to say if someone is "notable" or not.  --ALC 22:33, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. I can't fathom what harm could possibly come of linking to Edwards' parents.  I'm kind of a noob, but even still, it seems like the wikipedia in general should err on the side of over-wikifying rather than under. --discojesus 08:16, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:
 * Oppose. See above comments. Hcheney 19:53, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Me too. Meelar 19:54, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose →Raul654 19:55, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Maximus Rex, 19:56, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * —Eloquence 04:24, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC) - no evidence presented for them deserving an encyclopedia article
 * Agree with Eloquence. -- Cyan 04:39, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Wik 05:44, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Stewart Adcock 07:11, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If the parents of US Presidents are, generally speaking, not wikified (except for the obvious Bush exception) why should the parents of Senators be generally wikified? [[User:Alex756|— Alex756 talk]] 23:00, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * The parents of US Presidents should be wikified. I don't even see any real arguments of why this shouldn't be the case. People instead keep on bringing up irrelevant points.  Anthony DiPierro 22:46, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Anthony, concieving someone important is not a notable enough accomplishment to make someone encyclopedic, as the above polling obviously bears out. Wikipedia is not a phone book nor is it a morgue. →Raul654 00:06, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Hephaestos|§ 00:15, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Same here Mikez 02:44, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The phone book example sums it up for me, and after all you could describe the relationship of any member of the public to every notable person, but you would not have gained much by doing so. IMSoP 10:00, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. IMSoP said it for me. Ambivalenthysteria 10:59, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Ryan_Cable 12:29, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Moncrief 21:23, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

You don't understand where Anthony is coming from. From his votes on VfD, it's obvious that Anthony believes that anyone who ever lived, so long as there is any iota of evidence that they actually existed, should be in Wikipedia. RickK | Talk 00:10, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Further, his pooh-poohing of a 75% majority a few days ago on this subject leads one to believe that a 90% majority makes no difference to him either. Anthony cares jack-all about what anyone else in the community besides him thinks. - Hephaestos|§ 00:15, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I think my earlier comments that Anthony thinks "every blade of grass and every tree should have its own article" are probably the best way to characerize his beliefs ;) →Raul654 01:37, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

Attack after attack, and none of your accusations are even correct. Well, except for RickK. In an ideal world, every single person who ever lived would be in Wikipedia. That is the ideal. Anthony DiPierro 03:03, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * That is your belief, but not necessarily ideal. From a signal-to-noise ratio point of view, it's a nightmare - the important information (IE, what you would find in articles on "notable" topics) gets drowned out by all the stuff on irrelavant people/topics. You go to look up John Edwards, and you get 15,000 entires - 2 of which are notable, and 14,998 are not. →Raul654 03:07, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * That's a problem which we haven't yet reached, and one which is easily solved. There's no reason every single person named John Edwards needs to be listed on the John Edwards page.  A separate page could list the "non-notable" people named John Edwards.  Anthony DiPierro 16:29, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I think there's nothing wrong with the concept of a project that would list every single person that ever lived - in fact it would be kinda cool to have a free database of biographical and genealogical info. But: a)Wikipedia is not that project, it is an encyclopedia; and b) such a project would have very different technical requirements from those of Wikipedia - for a start it makes no sense having articles uniquely identified by title when you want to have >60 pages entitled "Dave Gorman", not to mention John Smith; not a problem per se, but a fundamental difference between such a database and any existing wiki, including this one. - IMSoP 17:24, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Your statement really has nothing whatsoever to do with the question at hand. An encyclopedia includes biographies.  It's not a different project at all.  And as for not making sense having unique titles, that's very untrue as well.  When you create a link you want it to point to 1 person, not 60. anthony 21:20, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Please re-read my comment: I did not say that it made no sense having unique titles - any system will need some way of identifying an individual article - but using somebody's first name and last name as the basis of a unique title is doomed to failure if you attempt a project on the scale you seem to be suggesting. Take a look at Dave Gorman if you don't know the back-story, and then tell me how you will add distinct links for each of the more than one hundred people of the same name (some of whom are pictured here) within the current Wikipedia system. Now make sure your system is scalable to the literally thousands of entries that could be referred to by the name John Smith.

 * As for whether or not it constitutes the same project as an encyclopedia, I guess it comes down to a difference of opinion. Personally, I think that an encyclopedia should include biographies of notable people, such that it is rather an honour to be included in one. I would not look for information on my relatives in any encyclopedia, unless I had a priori reason to think them sufficiently notable. For that information, I would seek out a project which was designed around the specific problems of that kind of search.

 * Finally, I hope these comments are not too wasted here - is there a more general discussion somewhere I could/should weigh in on? - IMSoP 02:50, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I would handle the disambiguation of Dave Gorman and John Smith the same way it is handled in Wikipedia. You put their name (using middle names when available), then you choose an identifier which has not yet been chosen (such as "musician"), and you put it at the end of their name in parentheses.  It's ad-hoc, and that's the beauty of it.  There are no set rules to bog things down.  When you come across a problem, you use your brain and fix it.  You don't try to solve all the possible problems before they even occur.

 * I think the parents of John Edwards are notable. The very fact that they are the parents of John Edwards makes them notable.  But whether or not they are notable kind of begs the question.  If they belong in an encyclopedia, then they're notable.

 * The more general discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance. I agree with Jimbo, that "'fame' and 'importance' are not the right words to use, they are merely rough approximations to what we're really interested in, which is verifiability and NPOV."  anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 02:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

 * Not to mention that medium/psychic guy... Dysprosia 10:15, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Jonathan Edwards is John Edwards. John Edward is not. Anthony DiPierro 16:31, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

One America Committee
As you may know,Senator Edwards arranged One America. A Committee for helping Democratic Party's nominees around America. Especially for helping Senator Kerry  go to the White House he would start something about One America. a Committee Edwards is in.

www.oneamericacommittee.com

Sina

Often called JRE

huh I have never heard anyone refer to him by this

 * If you had recieved just one e-mail from his campaign during Democratic primaries,then you could see JRE-Mail Update!--Sina 14:56, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Four children?
This article says John Edwards "has" four children, but is that really accurate? Perhaps it would be better to say he and his wife "had" four children before one of them died in a car accident.

 * "Has" seems more appropriate to me. Dead or not, Wade is still his son.

Edwards on Persian Wikipedia
Persian Page

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

Vandalism
There was vandalism on this page regarding his Senate, etc. I do not know how to switch to previous versions. Thank you.

4 years without a political job
What he will do during next 4 years without a job? Does he work again as Trial Lawyer? I think he will set up his 2008 presidential campaign in year 2007. - Sina 05:02, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think he'll run again, but they're already talking about the problems he will have with lack of experience . I don't understand the problem, I think our next president should have spent as little time in Washington as possible. james_anatidae 08:07, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Lakey case
This is very confusing. The Lakey case is mentioned twice as if we know what it is, but we don't (i had to google for it). When the case is discussed, it only says it is against Sta-Rite, with no mention of the word Lakey. I would have edited it, but couldn't figure a good way to do it (since it is mentioned in the childhood and family section, prior to the legal section). Someone can figure it out I'm sure. :)

Vandal!
Someone has logged in anonymously, vandalised the opening line, and then protected the f****** page!!! John Edwards will have his revenge!!! --Harro5 07:03, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the way this case, or other cases are mentioned in this article, it's not very neutral. I got the feeling from reading the section on the Lakey case, that the author thought it was a piece of crap case. If it was a piece of crap case, then Edwards would not have won a 25,000,000 verdict from normally conservative NC juries. You should read his book 4 Trials, for some good information on that particular trial. First, Sta-Rite said they had no papers significant or relating to the case. Then when Edwards pressured their defense lawyer, he said he'd look into it. Then he said they had a few and they would get their shortly. Then, three days later they were still not their. The judge pulled them into the back room and demanded to know where the papers were. The humble, and uncomfortable Defense Lawyer was forced to tell them that they would soon be arriving on a truck. That was when, according to Edwards, the Judge 'blew up'. He was furious that they had said they had no papers, then a few, when they really had a full truck load of papers relating to the case. I will tell you right now, the Lakey case was not a piece of crap. You make it seem like Sta-Rite was absolutely not responsible, and that those that were, settled, and that this was just a frivolous case to get more money. Well, one, he settled with the County itself, which had not been inspecting pools properly, then he settled with the country club, then the construction company that built a one drainage tunnel pool, (more dangerous to children, especially in a kiddie pool, which was what this was). You need to make more neutral.

More information: Perhaps the only reason he got such a big settlement was because he, at the very end of the case, found a letter from the compaines safety coordinator to another official, saying, 'What's wrong with this man? Tell him to shut up. I have no intentions of answering these questions. And doesn't he know this kind of thing should never be put in writing.' That letter was over a request to redesign the cover. It also meant that the Safety Coordinator had lied on the witness stand, under oath, when cross examined by Edwards. There were over a dozen cases where children had been killed, or mauled by their pool drains, and what's more, they had known about it, they had actually documented in the case of any sort of lawsuit. They were selling a pool drain cover originally designed in the fifties.

You see, the pool drain cover was defective, and dangerous unless screwed in. Welll, in their instruction manuel, they did not say, and screw in. At first Edwards in his partner Kirby couldn't believe, they thought it wasa typo or something. But, this indifferent corporation did not instruct people to screw it in, it just said, latch in securely, and that's basically it. It wasn't entirely the country clubs fault, they didn't know. Becuase of that, a little girl who decided to go for a swim, got sucked onto a drainage cup. Her father just barely managed to keep her from drowning, and he had no idea what was wrong until he pulled her out, with the help of TWO other full grown men. Blood spewed everywhere, and the pool water went red. The suction and drainaged pipe tore his daughter's stomach open, and pulled out 60% of her intestines. It was a miracle she lived. From then on, for the rest of this seven year olds life, she would have to be hooked through the stomach to a feeding machine at night, painfully. To have to have a permenant hole, or as she called it, a button in her side. She could never eat or drink food again, and as if this wasn't horrible enough, she had to have a sack attached to her which emptied out solid/semi-solid wastes from her kidney's and liver. She could not play sports, could not join choire, had restricted working options, had difficulty even going to school. Her mother had to quit her job, and her father had to go to a part time one in order to take care of her. Her case deserves more justice from you and from this site. You also need to take a closer look against the case against Pitt County Hospital. By a trick, Edwards got the Doctor responsible's best friend, a fellow two decade physician, to admit he would have performed a C-section a full hour and a half before his friend finally finished the vaginally deliver. All medical doctors of the day pointed out that a baby in footling breech position, which Doctor D knew the baby was in, were dangerous to deliver vaginally. He was just too old fashioned to deliver the baby through c-section. This caused her to be delivered in a way that cut oxegen off from her brain, and left her delivered permently brain damaged. Her parents could not work, and she would never be able to work during her life, and would need constant care till the end of it, becuase an old fashioned doctor wouldn't perform a necessary C-section. The nurse knew he was wrong, and knew he was also wrong not to have an internal monitor to listen to the baby. But, she did nothing about it. Partly because the hospital sometimes fired nurses for going against the wishes of entrenched physicians. This bad policy end up destroying a life before it ever got a chance to begin. It was not a remotely frivolous trial. Edwards got a Jury which contained a woman whose father was a doctor who had gotten sued for malpractice when she was little girl to go along with the enventual 7 million verdict the jury handed out. It was so big, that judge end up refusing to allow it to be handed out, saying it was to big, and that jury was influenced too servely by Edward's closing statement. He offered 1.7 million, or a new trial. Instead Edwards started battling the upper courts to have the judge's decision overridden. Before he did Pitt county Hospital got wise and settled for 5 million. Consider this will you, and read the book to get a truly in depth look at the trial.

 * Yes, I have read the book. It is a good example of why we NEED access to the courts, and the ability to seek redress for serious harm.  Some would take that away entirely.  Those are the same folks who want to call all lawsuits frivolous.  In their mind, no company should ever responsible for their action, no matter how egregious.   In fact, as gfwesq points out below, when a jury and court of law makes a factual finding, that fact is no longer 'alleged'.  That is rank bias and factually inaccurate.  There is no longer any 'alleged' about it.  I am going to be going over some of these hit pieces (this isn't the only one) to correct inaccuracies and partisan slant.MollyBloom 15:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"certain defeat for reelection?"
Hope this is the right place to put this concern. The article says under "Senate term":

"Edwards's skill as a trial attorney was evident during President Bill Clinton's 1999 Senate impeachment trial. Edwards, who was responsible for the deposition of witnesses Monica Lewinsky and Vernon Jordan, played a critical role in the Senate proceedings that eventually ended in the President's acquittal. Faced with local polling data showing low approval ratings and an almost certain defeat if he ran for reelection, Edwards made the fateful decision to go national."

Maybe this has already been discussed, but citing "certain defeat" sounds like a rather partisan analysis of Edwards' reasoning for "going national." Republicans are always forecasting defeat for Democrats, just as Democrats are always forecasing defeat for Republicans. While Edwards' reelection was not a given, I think given the fact that he defeated Faircloth and the fact that the Burr/Bowles race was close, an Edwards/Burr race would have at least been close.

 * Are there any poll numbers online that showed he would have lost re-election? The data could be implented into the article. Frankly, I think he should run from NC's other Senate seat in 2008 against Elizabeth Dole with slogan "Senator Edwards for Senate" --Blue387 22:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Senate term
Twice, someone has tried to add the following:

 * Edwards rose quickly in the ranks of the Senate as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Edwards also passed a major healthcare reform bill, later vetoed by President Bush. In January of 2003, John Edwards publicly announced his interest in a national campaign.

The first and third sentences are redundant with text already in the article. The second sentence is completely false: (1) Edwards didn't pass a "major healthcare reform bill." (2) Bush didn't veto any bills, much less one Edwards passed. Senator Kennedy and Senator Edwards co-sponsored a bill that passed the Senate, and then died in the House when the House passed an inconsistent version, and the two bills could not be reconciled in committee. I am reverting. FRCP11 01:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Donations "investigation" not supported
Am I missing something or does this reference The Federal Election Commission investigated donations from law firms where several bundled contributions of $2,000 each purportedly came from paralegals making less than $35,000 a year. not support the statement that the FEC was doing an investigation? Jcbarr(late at night and I forgot to sign)

 * The article does not seem to say there was an investigation. Perhaps the article can be rephrased.  TMS63112 16:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest just removing the whole sentence quoted above -Jcbarr 16:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think removing the information is the best solution. TMS63112 17:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The statement in the wiki is "The FEC investigated" and is in no way supported. It's a "when did you stop beating your wife?" comment. -Jcbarr 17:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The article that the comment is sourced to does not discuss an FEC investigation. But it does include the statement that "several newspapers have reported that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has begun a criminal investigation into donations to the Edwards campaign from an Arkansas personal injury law firm."  It then goes on to say that a DOJ spokesperson would not confirm or deny whether there was an investigation.  While the article does not support the assertion that the FEC investigated, or even the statement that the DOJ investigated, it does provide a lot of documentation for the assertion that the Edwards campaign might have received contributions that skirted the campaign finance limits.  I think we need to find an accurate way to convey this information, rather than deleting the information.  TMS63112 22:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I know it is my bias, but I'm also not sure it is noteworthy -- don't you think every candidate has some core group of supporters who all give the $2k limit and their "friends" do, etc? W's wiki doesn't mention his "Rangers" and "Pioneers" (or whatever they were called) whom I sure you could do the same analysis on that the junk article referenced does.  If there was nothing officially investigated, only one questionable source, everyone does it, and it's just plain spurious, what's the value to the wiki? -Jcbarr 00:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, the Republican donors all just have so much money no one questions it, right! ;-) I think we share the same bias, but we have to try to make the article neutral.  I read the section again, and I think the information is presented in a balanced way.  It's in the context of Edwards being the leading fundraiser in the 2004 presidential race, which surprised a lot of people for a junior senator.  Whether "everyone does it" or not, these types of donations do help explain his impressive fundraising.  We just need to clean up the language to make it accurate, and I'm strugling with how to do that TMS63112 18:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Doesn't the sentence before say the same thing?

amassing over $7 million during the first quarter of 2003, more than half of which came from individuals associated with the legal profession, particularly Edwards' fellow trial lawyers, their families, and employees. I'm not horribly opposed to the link, but the "FEC investigated" is just plain incorrect (so is "each came from paralegals making less than $35k"). What if we scratched the sentence I started here but left the link?

Good Luck in 2008. We need a strong leader in the white house

Not a senator any longer
As he is not a senator any longer he should not be described as such - e.g. in the box on the right. ROGNNTUDJUU! 03:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * if you're referring to the Categories at the bottom, the linked page lists many past senators, so I think it's appropriate that Edwards be included.
 * He's talking about the box, but it's correct. It describes his term, even lists the dates, making it clear he's no longer serving, plus the correct form of address would be Senator, just like you refer to ex-presidents as President. - M ask  10:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. You're correct.  There box does indicate his term of office and thus that he's no longer an active Senator.

2008 Presidential Run
Is it really necessary to include a lengthy description of those who are expected to run against Edwards in 2008? I would suggest we delete this and instead the reader would refer to the Presidential Election of 2008 page for information on contenders. Because doing so on each candidates pages would only make the same paragraph on a myriad of pages, I think this would be a more effective and efficient means. Shawn 03:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Whether he runs or not, he is not going to win. I say this not because Hillary is apparently the frontrunner but because history is going to work against him. Unless it is a former Vice President, neither the Democrats nor Republicans have ever nominated their unsuccessful Vice Presidential candidate from the previous election as their Presidential candidate. I am not saying that he is not going to be his party's presidential nominee, it's just not going to be in 2008. For instance Franklin D Roosevelt unsuccessfully stood for the vice presidency in 1920 and did not become the Democratic Presidential nomineee until 1932. Likewise with Bob Dole who was President Gerald R Ford's running mate in their unsuccessful Republican ticket in 1976 and only became the Presidential nominee in 1996.--The Shadow Treasurer 04:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Well, he is running now so we will see...
 * I'd agree with that. - NightThree 12:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose--Sina 21:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

 * This is an article about John Edwards, not Mary Cheney and the Cheney family. What's relevant to this article is that John Edwards decided to use Mary Cheney as a political weapon in a debate, and hurt his cause by doing so. -- FRCP11 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Weasel Words and POV
Here is the wiki policy on Weasel Words and NPOV.

--Edwards's campaign was often characterized by the American news media as populist. Weasel words like "often" provides a loophole for when parts of the American medai do not follow this position.

--Edwards's late-stage momentum, as well as his departure from the negative campaigning which characterized other leading candidates, carried him into a surprising second place finish Words like "surprising" are POV words. Also, the whole negative campaigning thing is POV. Who decides if it's negative? What about when he attacked Kerry? Or attacked Clark? Or took down Dean? What about his criticism of Bush?

--''After Howard Dean's withdrawal from the contest, Edwards became the only major challenger to Kerry for the Democratic nomination. Remarking on an unexpectedly strong finish in the Wisconsin primary on February 17, Edwards humorously cautioned Kerry: "Objects in your mirror may be closer than they appear."'' POV. "Only Major challenger" requires a subjective assessment. "Unexpectedly strong" also a POV phrase, again requires subjective assessment, designed to influence reader. Similarly, the "humourously cautioned" bit is not particularly noteable except as a way to build sympathy and influence Edward's likeability to the reader. POV again.

--'' This was widely expected since no Democratic presidential candidate had carried North Carolina since 1976. '' "widely expected" is more weasel words. Not true, since one of the rationales was that he would help Kerry there. The campaign certainly didn't say they didn't expect to win NC when they added Edwards. More POV.

--The article has a lot of these weasel words and POV spin designed to make Edwards look good instead of sticking to NPOV. I've tried to correct it, but maybe others have a better handle on how to do so. I hope this explains my edits to AKMask.151.205.101.62 03:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, those are weasle words, but also for the most part factual. Instead of removing the statements, change the wording. I can provide ref's for most of them if need be. I've spent many a page getting rid of weasel words, and you specify it, un weasleing if you will, and only removing the content demonstrativly false. I'm reverting again. - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 04:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I've tried to get rid of not only weasel words but POV as well. Your statement "most part factual" seems again to be part of the weasel word thing, if you'll forgive my saying so.  If removing the weasel words renders it not factual, because it requires a subjective weasel word loophole in order to be "the most part factual", then shouldn't it be removed?  Anything that requires a subjective assessment such as "negative campaigning" and characterized as "populist" should be removed.  You might indeed find citations in the media that say so, but you'll also find citations in the media saying Bush is "the guy to have a beer with" and a "regular joe" but that doesn't make it NPOV just because many in the media say so, especially if the weasel words are needed to in order to render it "for the most part factual" because not everyone follows this POV.  I'm restoring edits, please feel free to go through them and correct them with the explanation of why your reversions or changes would be relevant, noteworthy and NPOV.  The onus and litmus test should be on the inclusion of info to an article, not the removal.151.205.101.62 04:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I used most part in a percentage-sense. There are two ones I agree with you on, so most part I think they are factual. The solution is attribution. I'll use your populist one. I have the Washington Post article and AP write up using it in there. So dont delete the entire secion, instead say that "The campaign was called 'Populist by newsoutlets such as x and x'. Reverting. - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 04:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see your citation, but I'll take it in good faith and leave the populist thing there with a citation tag. I'm reverting the rest.  Note that I only removed stuff that I felt was either weasel words or POV.  We're in agreement on many weasel word things, it seems, but you've not addressed POV.  Something can be factual and no weasel words and still POV because it requires a subjective assessment.  Note that in a few instances, I did not remove the entire bit, but restructured it.  Only when the restructuring post-weaselword-removal still sounded POV (because it required a subjective assessment) did I remove the entire thing.  The whole positive/negative campaiging thing is certainly POV, since it requires subjective assessment.  Finding citations in the media doesn't make it less POV, even if it's the media's POV.  It is not a factual encyclopedia account of events that occur, since the very nature of the statement is normative and not objective.  It would be like saying "XYZ in the media says Bush is a guy to have a beer with."  Factual with regard to what the media says, but still normative and POV, not factual in the objective encyclopedia account way, because removal of the weasel modifier (media citation) gives you a cleary POV statement of "Bush is the guy to have a beer with" or "Edwards was a positive campaigner."  Perhaps many in the media say so, but still POV, even if it's the media's POV.  And there are those who differ.  I've given my reasons for edits, so I'm restoring them with the exception on the Populist citation as you requested.  Please revert my edits only on a line by line basis with your explanation for why each reversion is not weasel word or POV, instead of reverting the whole thing.  I did not remove entire sections if I was able to restructure it to NPOV, such as with the Wisconsin win.  If you feel you can restructure some of the other edits in a way that doesn't require removal on POV grounds, feel free to try.151.205.101.62 05:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

 * That page about Weasel Words is a style guide, not official policy. Second, if you check the page again, you'll see that it says there are many exceptions to that rule of thumb. I agree that the "humorously" descriptor and the bits about negative campaigning are POV, but the rest of it is fine since it either reflects common knowledge and/or the words of multiple reliable sources.  Maximusveritas 05:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure "common knowledge and/or the words of multiple reliable sources" abrogates wikipedia's policy of NPOV. It was "common knowledge" and "multiple reliable sources"(i.e., media pundits) who said that George Bush is the guy to have a beer with, we can probably come up with tons of media citations, but that doesn't mean it isn't POV.  I think the NPOV problem here is not limited to the weasel words, but it is certainly abetted by it.  So the two issues are linked, but also distinct.  There is a difference between encyclopedia facts like what Edwards voted on, what percentage of the voters chose him in what state on what date, etc. vs. "facts" that are really just the subjective interpretations of the the media on whether he did "good" or "poorly" or "postively" or "negatively" or "surged with momentum" or etc.  The latter may be "common knowledge" or reported by numerous talking heads, and it is a "fact" that they said so, but political gossip and tabloid headlines and subjective assessments (no matter how prevalent) is still not encyclopedia material, and certainly not objective cut-and-dry NPOV facts and statistics.151.205.101.62 05:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Maximusveritas, I've had a look over your edits, and feel comfortable with the compromise. Except for the last part on winning NC.  It seems to be spun to absolve Edwards of any guilt for not carrying NC.  I know that this is a notable point of contention between Edwards and Kerry supporters.  Edwards supporters say Kerry at the top was the reason the ticket failed, and the fact that Kerry wrote off the south and didn't focus there.  Kerry supporters say that they chose Edwards with the hope of winning NC, and that they were forced to pulled out of campaigning in the south later when the poll numbers show that Edwards did not help the ticket in the south as they had hoped, that southerns didn't want to vote for Edwards.  But in general, I think you did a good job of balancing elements.  My thanks for helping to resolve this conflict.151.205.101.62 05:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm not completely comfortable with how that last part sounds either. At first, I tried to edit that first sentence so it didn't imply that Edwards "failed", but I couldn't find a good way of doing that, so I just added back the second sentence with a source.  This may be a place where some weasel words are needed.  Changing it to "expected by some" or "somwhat expected" may be appropriate, especially since there is a source for it.   Maximusveritas 14:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How about just removing the last sentence. It's only intent is to spin the election results positively in favor of Edwards.  Just stick to the facts of what happened, instead of editorializing about expectations.  After all, the pages of Kerry, Bush, Cheney don't mention how many years it's been since their state last voted for their respective party or what the media expectations were.  So the inclusion of that datum here is POV designed to influence the reader.  The reader should be allowed to decide for himself whether the results of the election reflect favorably or unfavorably on Edwards.  We should stick to cut-and-dry facts of the election results, not editorialize.  Also, I think the sentence you included about vowing not to level negative attacks needs to be balanced by the fact that his campaign did launch negative attacks despite his vows.  I'll leave the choice of which path to take (balancing it with his negative attacks or removing the negative/positive campaigning spin altogether up to you.)  I still think the "objects in the mirror" joke is POV; "joking" is a bit better than "humourously", but still POV because the anecdote is sympathetic PR spin that's not really encyclopedia material.  I don't see a need for it to be in the article.151.205.101.62 02:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's been several days, and you've even edited the article since then. I'm not sure if you decline to make the choice, or just didn't see this discussion note.  So I'm going to remove the sentence "His vow not to level direct negative attacks at his fellow Democratic contenders also attracted attention." The alternative would be to change it to "His vow not to level direct negative attacks at his fellow Democratic contenders also attracted attention, but his campaign subsequently reneged on this pledge and launched negative attacks on fellow Democratic contenders."  I've opted to remove both the positive/negative POVs rather than have them both there.  If you believe otherwise and prefer the alternative, please revert to the latter statement which has both POV, instead of the incompletely balanced statement that I'm now removing.151.205.101.62 04:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I've removed the word "fail," that you were having trouble with. Let the reader decide if not delivering his homestate was a failure or not.  We'll stick to facts, that he didn't deliver, and leave POV words like "fail" out.  Not obsfucate with mumbo jumbo about expections and historical trends to try to explain away the fact that he didn't deliver his homestate.  If we're dealing with "expectations" then it should be noted that Pres and VPs are generally expected to have enough power to deliver their homestates, so much so that only the failure to do so is noteworthy (such as when Gore was poised to win nationally but lose his homestate).151.205.101.62 03:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont have time to make a proper ref (work and such, cause im lame and need money) but here are the links to major news sources using the populist label if someone wants to add them and remove the ref-needed
 * Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30354-2004Jul6.html
 * National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/hood200402040846.asp
 * BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3872003.stm
 * Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/edwards/articles/2004/02/11/edwards_finishes_2d_looks_ahead?mode=PF

- M ask  20:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, the article will still be here when you get off work so you can do your edits :)151.205.101.62 02:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The next area we should target for POV changes is the issues section. I think we should remove it entirely and replace it with a redistribution of information. The elements such as what his position is on issues he has voted on can be placed into the Senate activities section. On actions that he has taken on issues should be in his post-senate area. This would allow us to remove the issue section, which currently reads like a campaign page ad, filled with POV statements in addition to weasel words. And it shouldn't be here in the first place, violation of wiki rules WikiNOT. It shouldn't be an advocacy for Edwards's campaign, nor a soapbox on issues. It should be an encyclopedic record of votes and actions taken, not professed positions that may change during a campaign. Those votes and actions will fit in the Senate or Post-Senate section.151.205.101.62 04:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Since no one has any objections to this, I'm going ahead with the redistribution. I'm going to eliminate the issue section first.  It's filled with POV spin and no citations.  As per the WikiNOT policy, this page is not meant to be a campaign page or soapbox for issues.  There are already links at the bottom of the page to campaign sites for readers who want to know more.  Relevant stuff with citations can be reinserted in the appropriate Senate/Post-Senate section as chronologically relevant.151.205.101.62 09:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed the section and redistributed the info that has citation links. The other info removed needs citations or relevance to the Senate/Post-Senate section in order to be re-introduced and redistributed.  Care needs to be taken that any reintroduced info is only relevant to Edward's bio (e.g., legislation he's passed in the Senate) and not part of his campaign stuff.  This is not a campaign page per WikiNOT rules.  Those seeking info to evaluate his position on campaign issues should be redirected to other sites, since wikipedia cannot be used to campaign.151.205.101.62 09:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Derek, please stop saying my changes are vandalism when you refuse to engage in good faith in this discussion that's attempting to improve the article by removing POV and weasel words.151.205.101.62 02:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm reinserting After Howard Dean's withdrawal from the contest, Edwards became the only major challenger to Kerry for the Democratic nomination. as that ones not POV, but true. Gen. Clark was out by that time, the only other candidate to win a primary state, and Kucinich and Sharpton were not major challengers. Major Challenger requires that you have significant support in terms of numbers. The humorous anecdote is POV, but that could be changed, it seems like a good quote to have in there. Perhaps NPOV'ing it, to reflect how he approached the campaign as a strong underdog, rather then 'hey, he's a funny guy, too!' sense it has now.... ill leave that part up for discussion here. - M ask  23:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And im a dumbass and someone already reinserted it. Any thoughts on my view to handle the quote? - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 23:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The statement reinsertion above is ok. But I do NOT think the joke anecdote has any place here, since it was only campaign rhetoric and PR.  Further, any discussion of how he was a "strong underdog" is POV.  Frontrunner/underdog are subjective POV assessments by media pundits and others on a given snapshot in time of the race.  A week before Iowa, Kerry was an underdog, then a frontrunner the day after.  Edwards was considered one of the "frontrunners" before Dean's surge or Clark's entry into the race.  If we discuss how Edwards "approached the campaign as a strong underdog,"  should we also discuss how he squandered his "frontrunner" status and fell to the back of the pack prior to that?  I think such discussions have no place in an encyclopedia article.  Let the facts speak for themselves, via primary results.  Not editorialize about how he ran a good or bad campaign.  Or try to build sympathy and influence the reader with POV words like "strong underdog."151.205.101.62 01:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Underdog/frontrunner are not POV, because, as you yourself pointed out, are based on responses people gave, allowing quantification and measurement through polls. They may be transient, as you pointed out, but are not POV as there are actual numbers behind them. Your argument for POV is flawed, but you may be right on worthlessness because of their nature. I dont think you're right, so some outside viewpoints may be needed. - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 04:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems like a roundabout way to work in POV spin, about subjective assessments like "good" or "bad" campaigning. If you open a newspaper, you will find two different types of reporting.  Factual reports on what happened (time, date, actions, etc.), and a stuff considered "Editorials" i.e., the opinions of the reporters.  The later section does not belong in an encyclopedia.  And just because things like this appear in editorials, and you can quote those editorials, that does not make it NPOV or worthy of being in an encyclopedia.   You seem to be suggesting that editorial stuff that appears in newspapers makes those opinions facts.  B/c it's "common knowledge" or "citable sources" etc, when really it's just a bunch of editorial POV opinions.  We can probably find "common knowledge" and "citable sources" that say Bush is the guy to have a beer with, or that Kerry is stiff, or that Gore is a robot, or that Edwards is a lightweight pretty-boy.  I say we should stick to real facts and statistics and not bother with the editorials.  If you want to detail what happened in the campaign, then stick to a chronology of events, primary votes, with dates and times, as is the case now and let that tell the story, and allow the reader to form his own opinons, instead of pushing POV from the media editorial boards.151.205.101.62 04:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's roundabout nothing. The fact that Edwards was the underdog was in most of the factual reporting. I'm a third year journalism student, so granted im not going to be winning any pullitzer prizes soon, but I know the difference between an editorial and a newspiece. Frontrunner/underdog is a perfectly factual representation when backed up by numbers, and these were. POV does not cover factual statements that seem to value one side more, only statements based on opinion, otherwise we'd never be able to tell you who scored more goals in the world cup, or who won the ALCS last year. - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 18:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better to stick to facts and say for instance that he was at A% zt Ytime at B% at Xtime? Wouldn't those facts and figures show the reader whether he was an underdog or frontrunner, etc.  This is more informative than transitive rankings of frontrunner/underdog which you say are based on these numbers.  If you ask someone who's a frontrunner right now for 2008, you'll get slightly different answers from different pundits.  But you'll be on firmer ground if you use the actual poll and date numbers.  Because who is a "frontrunner" is based on the analyst's judgment of which polling data is only one aspect.151.205.101.62 02:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Im going to post a Request for Comment on this issue, to get some more voices to weigh in (it's not a slap on the hand like user-conduct RfC's, these kind are more along the lines of 'come check this out and voice an opinion' so no worries) if you're ok with that. Also, just to make it a bit easier to communicate, I'd invite you to register an account, as you are smart, involved, and open to discussion. That means you are exactly the kind of editor we like to have! - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 23:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead with the RfC. More input could be useful.  The sports analogy is flawed, because saying a team won or lost a game is analogous to saying who won or lost a primary contest in a given state.  Reporting the score in a game is like reporting the vote results.  "Frontrunner/underdog" is another kettle of fish entirely, because it is predictive in nature.  It is the prediction of an analyst of who has the best possibility of winning a nomination/election.  It is not a "factual" assessment, since it is only partly based on facts, but also on gut feelings and the views of the analysts.  For instance, if you ask a bunch of political analysts the question of who the frontrunner for 2008 is, you'll get slightly differing answers.  This very difference proves that "frontrunner/underdog" is not an objective factual analysis, but a subjective one, because a factual one will have no disagreements between any observers or analysts.  But that is not the case with this term.  Some will say that candidate A is the frontrunner for 2008 based on national polls.  Some others will say that national polls are only name recognition and not real strength, and that the frontrunner is candidate B who is leading in critical state polls in Iowa/NH/etc.  Yet others will say both camps are wrong, and that those state polls only reflect who has been traveling to those states the most right now, and will change when others actually start campaigning and going to those states, so the "real" "frontrunner" is candidate C who has the most money raised.  And a fourth bunch of analysts may say all the others wrong and that the frontrunner currently is candidate D, who has the most activists signed up at his site and organized, saying that manpower will overcome any money edge.  And so on and so forth, so you see that the label "Frontrunner" is nebulous, subject to interpretation, based on different stats and assessments, and ever changing.  We're better off sticking to the facts and stats, rather than media interpretations and subjective analysis of whom the predicted "frontrunner" or "underdog" is.  Going back to the sports analogy, you won't find much discussion of frontrunners/underdogs in sports encyclopedias or almanacs, just the facts.  Wikipedia is striving to be an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.  A journalistic newspaper always has a POV (conservatives say NYT is biased, liberals say FOX is biased, most others fall somewhere in between).  A sports "article" might predict (predict, hence not fact) which team is favored to win, and thus the "frontrunner" or assign the judgments to some nebulous common wisdom, thus abrogating responsibility while pushing a POV.  But a sports encyclopedia/almanac won't.  Stick to facts.  I'll also note that the wikipedia editors on the 2008 Presidential Candidate article held a vote over several months on removal of "Frontrunners" and the vote was overwhelmingly in favor of abolishing the section.151.205.101.62 03:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * resetting indent for clarity
 * predict (predict, hence not fact) which team is favored to win Ahh, you've fallen into a trap. It is a fact which team is favored to win. You have favorites and underdogs all over sports, and articles routinely cite those. Sports section of my paper is telling me that team x is 3.5 point underdogs against team y. Stating underdog/favorite is in no way pov, but based on the numbers. The only time that gut feeling comes into it is when the poll numbers are within the margin of error of each other. These are not necessarily how people will vote, but it is the favorite/underdog assertion we've been arguing, and is based on fact. I strongly suspect that you don't view this as NPOV here, but just flat out dont like the assertion, which is fine, but strawman arguments help no one. I'm restoring the underdog status to the article and list this to get more discussion with others. - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 21:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is POV b/c different people may disagree on who the frontrunner/underdogs are. It is not clear cut as with sport scores, b/c there are no political scores, except for the actual votes themselves.  Polls from different firms can vary widely, different analysts look at different things, not all based on poll numbers.  If there are differing viewpoints on who is favored to win, then it obviously isn't an objective assessment.  Again, I refer you to the detailed example I gave above regarding 2008 candidates and frontrunner/underdog analysis to show that it is not an objective factual assessment.  The very term "favorite" means that it is someone's POV.  Given the fact that when a vote was held in another article over the "frontrunner/underdog" issue and wikipedians overwhelmingly rejected it, I'm going to remove it again until others chime in and form a consensus in favor of such editorializing.  What's wrong with sticking to facts and statistics?151.205.101.62 03:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The POV in the recent edit about H1Bs as an issue from his Senate years needs toning down. Decafdyke 12:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Questions
I'll be able to talk with John Edwards (No Joke, he's in Las Vegas Nevada today to help with Dina Titus) So if anybody has any potential questions (Like Triva, I.E. What's your favorite type of Music) so that we might be able to add a Trivia Section. I'll see what else I can get from him for this article.

--dady5000 12:20 P.M. PST, 24 October 2006
 * Unless the information is published in a reliable source and is verifiable, information gathered by an editor interviewing the topic of an article should not be included in the article.--Bobblehead 19:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

--Well, I can provide means of Verification (Photos of him signing the document for which I have a few basic questions.) Also a picture of me and Him with the document, as well as a picture of the document itself. Would that be verifiable/good enough? I'm going to go through with it anyway. But It would be nice to put in the article. As I can provide proof I have met him and him signing the document for which i wrote the questions on.

--dady5000 2:45 P.M. PST, 24 October 2006
 * Generally, no. Please see WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. The thing that makes a source verifiable is that it has been published in a reliable source. --Bobblehead 21:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank You For Answering my Question, I'm still going to go through with it. But I think I'll try to get a good photo of Edwards If a can for the Primary Photo (At least a good photo until someone finds a better one). It'll be up to other editors if what I put there (Which I probably won't but I'll put a little rough draft of the Section here If I make it so it can be apporved by other editors like you.--dady5000 3:05 P.M. PST, 24 October 2006

It is ok if I take a photo of him and put it into the article correct? If so how do I upload it to Wikimedia? --dady5000 3:07 P.M. PST, 24 October 2006
 * Original photos are acceptable as long as you release them on GFDL. Just put on the image once you've uploaded it.  As far as uploading see Uploading images. --Bobblehead 02:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yay! I got a decent (at least I think it's decent, a bit dark though : photo of him for the Article. I'm not sure if it can be squeezed in but I was able to talk to him and apparently his favorite foods are Cheeseburgers and Fish, he likes to listen to Rock and Roll, and his favorite band is the Dave Matthews Band. --dady5000 6:57 P.M. PST, 24 October 2006

Legal Career
An editor has continuall inserted the following: "The American Medical Association lists North Carolina's current health care situation as a 'crisis' and blames it on medical-malpractice lawsuits such as the ones that John Edwards used to win controversial cases, where he relied more on jury emotion then on science. Newer evidence has now shown that Edwards’ cases may have been incorrectly awarded." I am removing for the following reasons: Reverted. /Blaxthos 21:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The first reference has nothing to do with the subject of this article at all (and doesn't even mention him). The second and third may be acceptable references for Wikipedia, but the subject matter isn't appropriate in a broad biographical article and appears POV.
 * The American Medical Association lists North Carolina's current health care situation as a "crisis" - This article is not about North Carolina's current health care situation.
 * and blames it on medical-malpractice lawsuits such as the ones that John Edwards used to win controversial cases - Likewise, this article is not about who the AMA (who represents the doctors, who were the defendants in said case) blames for the health care situation in North Carolina.
 * where he relied more on jury emotion then on science - subjective speculation (and probably original research): the jury decided the case.  Beyond that, the why is speculation, and there are as many (including the U.S. Court System) who believe this case was correcting decided in good faith.
 * Newer evidence has now shown that Edwards’ cases may have been incorrectly awarded. - A blanket statement claiming to invalidate dozens of lawsuits over a number of years is overly broad and has no place in an encyclopedia. One, this article is not about individual cases.  Two, it's synthesis of material that, in essence, says that decades of U.S. legal system procedure is a joke.  Wikipedia isn't the place for that.
 * I support your stance here Blaxthos. Harr o 5 21:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The subject matter does support Edwards winning controversial cases. As for the blanket statement, If you took the time to read any of the article you would understand that his malpractice lawsuits were rewarded on science that has shown cerebral palsy cannot be proven to be linked to doctors using the methods Edwards used to sue the doctors. It may not refer to Edwards, but it is scientific evidence to support the claims of the newspaper articles. This may show the flaws of U.S. legal system, but the O.J. Simpson makes similar claims. If these are "blanket claims" the claims that O.J. would have been found guilty are similar statements. I feel that it should at least be stated that the cases awarded are controversial, especially with the light of new evidence. Awarding money in a trial case includes a jury of numerous individuals, whom the lawyers pick, the jury can make decisions based on emotion, which according to two articles Edwards relied on this to gain the settlement. I’m sorry if you feel that it makes the U.S. legal system procedure a joke, but controversial cases are awarded each year, and yes these show the flaws of U.S. government. This is not an argument about the U.S. legal statement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jpjigilo (talk • contribs).
 * The John Edwards article is not the place for you to air your displeasure regarding the U.S. legal system or government, the awards given to those who win malpractice lawsuits, the state of health care in a particular U.S. State, what O.J. Simpson did, or what you (or anyone else) thinks might invalidate already-decided court cases. This is an encyclopaedic article about John Edwards.  The rest is irrelevant, and I again ask you to stop trying to add inappropriate content to this article.  Thanks.  /Blaxthos 23:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Blaxthos, Unfortunately you did not pay attention, I said the argument has nothing to do with the U.S. legal system, if it shows flaws so be it. The original insert never included any mention of a problem with the U.S. legal system. You instead turn it into this argument in order to distort the insert so that you may remove it. I use the O.J. Simpson page to point out how his trial is considered controversial and therefore implies that there are flaws in the U.S. legal system yet this is left in Wikipedia without being removed. I only point this out to show how some edits are more scrutinized and others are clearly ignored. Again the original insert was not intended to show flaws in the U.S. legal system nor is this argument in order to place my views upon others to read. I am afraid you have mistaken me as someone who wishes to air out my opinions on this page, when instead I want it to point out the controversies of certain issues. I see no problem with this when it relates to the person for whom this page is written. I ask you to stop removing relevant information and clearly read posts before posting. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jpjigilo (talk • contribs).
 * Given this user's first edit, I doubt the user is thinking in a npov way and has a vendetta against John Edwards. The system is flawed but you tarnish your credibility by showing such an obviously negative attitude about Edwards. Gdo01 23:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest, I'm having trouble following your logic, Jpjigilo, but in either case two days ago you inserted "John Edwards, Rich and could care less about NC State because they are "blue collar" U.S. Senator and Made his money suing innocent doctors.", and now you expect us to believe you just want to point out controversial issues on mostly-unrelated articles? You're now blatantly lying about why you're trying to insert this information.  Your history belies your true motives, sir, and I for one will not assume good faith regarding your edits.  I suggest checking out some of the policies, guidelines, and social norms on Wikipedia before attempting to make unacceptable edits.  Specifically, I'd check out the rules regarding neutral point of view, original research, reliable sources, and what wikipedia is NOT.  Good luck!  /Blaxthos 00:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Tarnish credibility? I can see how what the user wrote before being considered biased, but the user tried to use credible sources in order to present the claim. The problem lies in the fact that the information needs to be applied more directly. I agree with Gdo01 in that the poster seems angry, but I don’t think that this means we can call it tarnished credibility when he/she obviously uses information to back his/her claim. I could foresee this being added, but not worded the way it currently stands. Alantio 00:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, exactly what sources that say rich and could care less about NC State because they are "blue collar" and made his money suing innocent doctors?!? How could you possibly say there is any portion of NPOV or credible research?  Additionally, this is all way off-topic and unacceptable in an encyclopaedic biography.  Add it to articles about lawsuits or court reform -- it clearly has no place here.  /Blaxthos 00:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Blaxthos, obviously I am not referring to past written garbage. I am in talking in reference to his/her current edit. I don’t think calling something “controversial” is off topic. I say from his/her given sources, it does allow us to consider some of the malpractice suits controversial.  I don’t agree with the way things have been handled, but he/she makes a point. From what I have read the articles appear to be related. Additionaly where did you see lying by Jpjigilo? I've read his/her input over and over and I did not see lying. Jpjigilo, please come back when you can add edits that are not nonsense, otherwise you will not be trusted to add any edits. Alantio 01:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Alantio, his initial edit (which proclaimed his POV regarding the innocence of doctors and his bias against Mr. Edwards) shows what he's really trying to do: insert negative information due to his feelings over another issue.  Attempting to re-insert more negative information (especially portions of original research) and saying "oh I just like to point out controversies" doesn't jive.  Obvious attempts to find ways to sling mud does us all a disservice.  Now, I'm all for assuming good faith, however I really am not going to bend over backwards when it is as obvious as this.  Regardless of all that, it's irrelevant and inappropriate here -- it would belong in articles about cases, not articles about a lawyer/politician.  Also, it should be noted i catch a faint whiff of socks and marionettes.  /Blaxthos 02:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Blaxthos, I am new to wikipedia so I am not sure about everything. After reading "assuming good faith" I understand what you are speaking about in his attempts to vilify Mr. Edwards in his posts. I was just trying to create a happy medium for all, (keep people from getting angry) but apparently Jpjigilo did not start off on the right footing. I wasn’t planning to get in your way. I just wanted to understand the argument. Alantio 16:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Political Views section
Is this section really neccesary? It seems to repeat information already contained in the article, mostly in the "Senate term" and "2004 presidential campaign" sections. Anything new could probably go into those sections as well. Maximusveritas 17:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I feel the political views of a political figure are significant. Other political figures have Political Views sections. Information that is not preserved in the current version of the article: that he opposes gay marriage, that he is an environmentalist. Certainly, the section can be expanded beyond what I provided. If there is excessive overlap, perhaps information from other sections should be moved to a Political Views section, as his views are significant in a more than biographic respect. Pawsplay 16:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I think the problem here, Pawsplay, is that the information is not cited or verifiable. Generally speaking, that sort of section can be very easily influenced by editors with particular points of view.  While I'm not arguing against a Political Views section, I do insist that anything included be appropriately cited by reliable secondary sources.  See WP:RS and WP:CITE.  /Blaxthos 17:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the Controversy section even relevant?
The two items in the Controversy section don't seem relevant at all.

One of them is a journalist misquoting him and another journalist getting temporarily offended at the misquote. Not a major event, and rather innane.

The other involves John Edwards praising Dick Cheney's love for his daughter and Cheney thanking him for it. The only "controversy" claimed involves a later event by John Kerry, so it should be on Kerry's page, if anywhere. (Personally I think it's not an important enough event to go on either page.)

-- Richcon 06:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I will only attempt to address the issue of relevance. On one hand, both seem irrelevant to John Edwards -- he personally had no culpable involvement in either issue.  On the other, the first (re: misquote) is possibly relevant due to a public perception of John Edwards (due to the reporter's misquote).  By explaining the event, the possible impact is minimized or negated completely.  Is it best to mention external events that shouldn't matter, or is it best to ignore them in the first place?  I am not decided on this issue.  Comments?
 * Regarding the second issue, without addressing the "importance" clause, I am quite comfortable in recommending removal. /Blaxthos 06:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Gay Marriage?
I was under the impression that Edwards supported gay marriage, but the article disagrees. Does anybody have a source that says one way or the other? 67.160.106.255 02:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See 12/31/06 Meet the Press interview. Edwards supports civil unions, partner benefits and partner rights.  He does not "yet" support gay marriage.Emmy Jaye 17:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the statement about him being "against" gay marriage. I also removed the only reference that someone added -- the source (365gay.com) doesn't really meet reliable source guidelines, and the content of the source didn't say what the editor who inserted it implied.  It certainly appears that Edwards is not "against gay marriage"; I would guess he's trying to pick his battles carefully, given the research I've done on the subject.  /Blaxthos 07:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"SEN. EDWARDS: No. I think we've both said the same thing all along. We both believe that -- this goes onto the end of what I just talked about. We both believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but we also believe that gay and lesbians and gay and lesbian couples, those who have been in long-term relationships, deserve to be treated respectfully, they deserve to have benefits. For example, a gay couple now has a very difficult time, one, visiting the other when they're in the hospital; or, for example, if, heaven forbid, one of them were to pass away, they have trouble even arranging the funeral. I mean, those are not the kind of things that John Kerry and I believe in. I suspect the vice president himself does not believe in that. But we don't -- we do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4072607

It looks to me like John Edwards opposes gay marriage, but does not wish it to become a constitional issue. but he clearly opposes it.

Pawsplay 17:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I found a better quotation, from the Feb 26 2004 debate:

"Q: You oppose gay marriage? EDWARDS: I do. But I believe that this is an issue that ought to be decided in the states. I think the federal government should honor whatever decision is made by the states. I would not support the Defense of Marriage Act today, if there were a vote today."

Pawsplay 17:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

 * One, you're quoting an exchange that was several years ago, when the issues were formulated around a Kerry-Edwards(VP) ticket.
 * Two, you're quoting primary sources. If you're trying to extrapolate positions based on statements, that would be original research.  By using seconday sources you avoid that problem.  Please see the discussion about removal of Political Views section below.
 * /Blaxthos 17:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

 * What extrapolation? The fact stated was that Edwards opposes gay marriage. Then there is a quotation in which he is asked if he opposes gay marriage, and he says, "I do." There is no research. Further, quoting someone else paraphrasing that same statement does not improve verifiability, it weakens it. No synthetic viewpoints have been advanced. 168.36.66.82 19:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Political Views section
After some review, I have completely removed the Political Views section. First off, the only sources given were primary sources (a transcript of a vice-presidential debate from NPR, and two links pointing to "johnedwards.com"). This sort of section, as it stands, is a large target for editorial bias -- any time one tries to summarize political issues (especially one with an active presidential campaign) there is potential for mischaracterization. Beyond that, without properly citing SECONDARY sources it becomes original research. This is the second time in as many days that I've seen someone misquoting the source provided, seemingly to misdirect people's understanding of the subject. I propose that any sort of inclusion of political views be triple-checked for accuracy and neutrality, and that only secondary sources be allowed. This will ensure that editorial bias is eleminated. /Blaxthos 17:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

How do we feel about ontheissues.org? As for the NPR transcript... is that not a secondary source, the debate being the original source? Given that at least some people seem to believe that John Edwards supports gay marriage, I think this is useful encyclopedic material. I admit to being a wiki novice.

Compare the article on John McCain, in which Political Views is the third heading with ten bullets. Without this section, the article is incomplete. However, I have yet to be able to draft anything that has withstood subsequent edits.

Pawsplay 17:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

 * The John McCain article is structured differently from the Edwards article. It doesn't have a "Senate term" section, so it doesn't run into the problem we have here. It just mixes everything into that single "Political Views" section. Personally, I think the Edwards article is more encyclopedic and follows a more logical flow.  Any new notable information, such as the gay marriage thing or his newfound support of universal health care, can go into the "2008 Presidential campaign" section.  I still don't see any need for a "Political Views" section. Maximusveritas 18:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I prefer the McCain format. This article is a chronological sprawl, more of a John Edwards blog than a John Edwards article. Someone should not have to poke through campaign histories and glean his views from an unstructured selection of quotes and issues in order to learn what his political leanings are. The whole reason for the article is to answer "Who is John Edwards?" and without a description of his politics, the article does not even justify its own existence. Pawsplay 19:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

 * It sounds like you're looking for a page to help people make a decision about who to vote for, but this is an encyclopedia article. Having a political views section that tries to pinpoint the politician's view on every conceivable issue is just not encyclopedic in my view.  The format used here is the format used for the vast majority of articles, for good reason. I'm going to try to move the information from "Political Views" section into the "2008 Presidential campaign" section.  No content will be lost. Maximusveritas 20:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Having reviewed Wikipedia policies on verifiability, I believe my use of primary sources was appropriate, as I was merely stating facts verifiable from those sources. I introduced no original ideas, merely reported John Edwards' stated positions. Those statements should not have been removed on the basis of the NOR policy.

Pawsplay 17:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

 * I realize that the WP community doesn't like links to Wikia, but Campaigns.Wikia.com has a page set up for John Edwards and the other candidates for people to post political views & other information that might not be appropriate on Wikipedia. The door is open anyway.  Chadlupkes 18:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have decided to BE BOLD and add the Political Views section again. I strongly oppose any removal of the section without incorporating the information into other areas of the article. Secondary sources have been cited; when unavailable, some primary sources were used to verify facts. This section should be expanded and the references improved. Pawsplay 22:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Johnny ("John")?
What's up with the style "Johnny ('John') Reid Edwards" in the first sentence and box? Unlike, for example, Jimmy Carter, Edwards doesn't seem to be referred to by the informal version of his name very often in the national media. Even if he is notably referred to as Johnny, shouldn't it be "John (Johnny) Edwards" rather than the other way around? I presume that John is the legal name and Johnny is the nickname; is that wrong? --Hickoryhillster 09:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, Johnny is his legal name, so John would be his nickname. --Bobblehead 09:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

 * From what I understand, he legally changed his name from Johnny to John some time ago, so I guess it would actually be more complicated than that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ropeterson (talk • contribs) 17:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Breck Girl?
Why is there a redirect to this page when someone does a search for "Breck Girl"?

Is this an attempt at a joke?

Anyone able to provide information on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.51.152.57 (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

I figure this must have been an attempt at a joke. I've edited the Breck Girl redirect to point to Breck Shampoo instead.

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

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

Extent/Duration of Edwards denial is completely obliterated by Wikiverbage
"after initially denying the allegations,[12][13][14][15] Edwards admitted the affair" Initial reports of Edwards affair were on October 11, 2007. Edwards didn't admit the affair until August 8, 2008, eleven months later. Will subsequent Wiki articles state "after intially denying the allegations, Edwards admitted paternity?"

The scope of Edwards public and private deception are relevant, but intentionally minimized by bad Verbage in this entry. Remember, Wikipedia reports facts and is an online encyclopedia, not a partisan apology.

 * It's pretty clear you mean verbiage, unless you were putting together verbal & garbage to make "verbage," which is not a word, yet. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

NC does have a mandatory one year separation period before you can file for divorce. You may be able to do other things like decide on how property is divided, but regardless it is one year of legal separation before the courts will allow you to file for divorce.

Andrew Young's Book "The Politician" Releases January 30, 2010
Macmillan is releasing Andrew Young's book called "The Politician" on January 30th not February 2nd as suggested in this entry. The New York Times just reviewed it (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/books/29book.html?hp). The Macmillan site has a full description of the book with jacket cover (http://us.macmillan.com/thepolitician).

Full disclosure, I work for Macmillan and this is my first time suggesting an edit on Wikipedia, so please let me know if I have violated any community protocols (formal or informal) with this submission or if there is a more relevant page where I should submit this suggested edit (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards_extramarital_affair). Thanks. DasBolt (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

What part seems strong to you: 'adulterous,' 'affair,' or both in the same sentence? I could see someone claiming redundancy ... but by all definitions it's an accurate statement of what occurred from the sources listed, in my opinion. Hajnalka (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC) best, H

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

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

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

This is such recent history, it's surprising a Wikipedia article would have this wrong. Iful (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Edit request from Everettsteele, 3 June 2011
Under 'Indictments' please change "planed" in the sentence 'planed to pursue criminal charges against Edwards' to "planned" as this is a spelling error.

Everettsteele (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Mug shot
John Edwards is gulity and sentenced

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

Under the picture of John..
is a check.

. please correct the year of Elizabeth's birth... it was not 1977.. it was 1949 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.237.92 (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the years they were married, not date of birth.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 16 November 2011
News item has said that on Nov. 15, start of trial was set for Jan. 30 (2012). (I.e., request is for the addition of this newly-arrived information.)

I looked up a North Carolina source: http://www.wral.com/news/political/story/10365950/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

128.63.16.82 (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * {ESp|d}} I've added the news source you (IP) provided and the info to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Extramarital affair - National Enquirer reports
1. Just wondering if anyone knows if National Enquirer is a reliable source for WP?

2. Is it particularly notable if Edwards asks his ex-mistress and mother of his child to move in with him at this point? Facts707 (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

 * National Enquirer is generally not considered a reliable source here, despite the fact that sometimes they end up being right. We try to wait for better sourcing - ones that are not tainted by accepting payments for tips and interviews, for example. As for the second question, first would need reliable sources, then we'd consider it.  We're not the  news - there is no rush to publish everything that comes down the pike. Tvoz / talk 05:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:John Edwards/Archive 1