Talk:John Edward

John Stewart quote?

Is the John Stewart quote notable enough to include here? Maybe if he had an entire segment, but just one humor quip seems too little to warrant inclusion. Thoughts on deleting this reference? Marklanza 23:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

While I don't think its inclusion is such a problem. You are probably right. Jon Stewart making a single line reference hardly seems notable enough. If every article included every joke a comedian made about them, wikipedia would be a lot larger. Ashmoo 23:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Since John Stewart hasn't mentioned John Edward any more than he's mentioned countless other people, and since there's no citation for the statement, I removed the quote. &mdashi; Elembis 00:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Skeptical wording

This is an article about John Edward, his claim to fame is from those who believe he can speak with the dead, this needs to be clear in the article - and is better stated with my latest edit to the opening paragraph, replacing "says" with "believed to be". The skeptical opinion of his critics should also be noted to provide NPOV, and they are, but you cannot have the whole article from the skeptic's perspective. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Dreadlocke - I changed some of your edits (not trying a revert war!) Hope to reach a happy medium (no pun intended.) "Believed to be" seems even more as POV as the now-dreaded "claims to be" wording, but in the opposite direction. I have not seen any objective studies about how many people believe he really CAN talk to spirits of dead people, but if you can find some objective studies and reference them, that would work well. Problem with claims of paranormal is that they are often not "falsifiable", which makes it suspicious to the traditional scientific mind.Zeke pbuh 00:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Editor Elembis and I have been making progress and discussing the article contents. Please do not jump in and start edit warring again. You are incorrect, the opposite direction of "claims to be a psychic medium" would actually be "is a psychic medium". "Believed to be" is a compromise between the two. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As you correctly pointed out earlier, "Claims" has a negative connotation. "Believed to be" has a positive connatation and implies a mainstream belief. "Opposite" may not be a subtle enough word, how about it is "non-neutral leaning in the opposing direction"?  :) If you are going to use "believed to be," I would like to see some qualifications of who believes this, or objective reference that the majority of people "believe it to be so." I myself enjoy his show from time to time, so I do not think TV ratings would work for this purpose. Zeke pbuh 01:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get that it has a positive connotation? I feel it has negative impact. Virtually anything besides "he is a psychic medium" has a negative leaning, but I'm certainly not pushing for that opposite and completely positive statement - although maybe I should be pushing for it. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you use "believed to be," it should be more than one researcher with vested interest who shares this belief. I have no problem with "believed to be" to describe Edward's "psychic powers" if you qualify who believes (presuming the qualification meets with Wikipedia standards of notability). Zeke pbuh 01:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does it have to be a "researcher"? This is not a science journal. Dreadlocke ☥ 02:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you include both beliefs in the intro, it will solve this disagreement. 75.38.16.174 02:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Both beliefs are included in the article. It isn't necessary to put everything in the opening, summary paragraph - especially repeating material elsewhere in the article. Dreadlocke ☥ 02:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Both beliefs in the intro is a bit silly, like adding +1 and -1 to get 0. Should be neutral as per Wiki standards, or have reference. Zeke pbuh 02:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree with that. It has a reference - one that you removed and placed elsewhere - but it now looks like Elembis put it back where it belongs. Dreadlocke ☥ 02:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved the reference down to a lower section where it made more sense to me, I would not delete a valid reference. I don't think it is a good reference for the opening since it is just one controversial researcher who is referenced as believing this. In any event, I'm going to let you and Elembis work on this for a while, I will put my 2 cents of consensus back in when I get back from Japan in a few weeks. Have fun, see you soon. Zeke pbuh 03:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think "is believed to be" carries the strongly non-NPOV implication that the belief is both widespread and largely undisputed (try "George W. Bush is believed to be a [good/bad] president", for example). WP:NPOV#Undue weight does not allow us to give preference to a view simply because it's more favorable to the subject of the article (though it's possible that a policy I'm unaware of does), so I see no reason that the introduction should mention supporters' views in a way that suggests that no other views exist. That is, someone who read the "is believed to be" introduction and knew nothing about Edward previously would be left with the impression that there wasn't any disagreement as to whether he had paranormal powers. I suggest that we change the wording to read "who some believe is" or "believed by some to be" and continue to leave mentions of critics out of the introduction as long as it remains brief. — Elembis 03:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The more you add to it, especially saying things like "some believe", the more it becomes weaselish. Also, just how many is "some"? The clear implication of the article is that there are believers and there are skeptics - that's what NPOV is all about - including undue weight. I don't think that anyone looking at the article will ever come away thinking there isn't a disagreement about Edward's abilities. I dunno, perhaps there is a better word to use, but I don't see it just yet. Dreadlocke ☥ 03:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "some" is a little weaselish, but I think it's more important to keep in mind that WP:WEASEL is a guideline while WP:NPOV is a policy. And I agree that anyone reading the article would realize Edward has supporters and detractors, but we have to maintain a fair tone throughout the article and not allow bias (if that's what this is) simply because other parts of the article straighten it out. — Elembis 03:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, NPOV also has a section against using weasel words - which should be avoided by substantiating the edit. Dreadlocke ☥ 00:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that each and every sentence or part of an article must have a fair tone above and beyond what the article states overall, if this were the case then could not be criticism sections and nothing would ever be said from either side - it wouldn't be functional. That's not how NPOV works - other parts of the article do present the other viewpoints. I think misunderstanding this is one of the reasons why paranormal articles are so whittled down that they contain virtually nothing. You have to allow both views in, and if you can't properly quantify or source "believed to be" with a paranormal study, the successful shows, books and other Edward-related successes, then there's a problem. Dreadlocke ☥ 03:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I said every sentence has to be fair in itself. I'm saying "is believed to be", without any mention, however oblique, of other beliefs (in the introduction) represents undue weight, which "can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement" (emphasis added). To mention support in the introduction while relegating any hint of criticism to later sections is to give one view "prominence of placement". — Elembis 04:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It appeared as though you were saying that, my apologies if I misunderstood. The introduction is a short statement about John Edward - what makes him notable - what is he about. He's notable because many believe him to be able to speak to the dead. That's what's needed in that opening paragraph and is clearly not "prominence of placement". Dreadlocke ☥ 04:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV#Undue weight makes no exceptions for introductions. Do you agree that the current introduction mentions Edward's supporters and relegates any hint of criticism to later sections? — Elembis 04:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with that at all. The opening paragraph merely denotes what Edward is notable for, I don't think prominence of placement applies in this situation. This is not an "exception" at all, that's just not what the policy means. If it did, then even if it still said "Edward says...", then that would give prominence to Edward's statements over his critics and the skeptics - but that's just not the way it works. Dreadlocke ☥ 04:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Elembis. John Edward is just as famous for people who believe he is "taking advantage of gullible grieving people" as he is by people who believe he is "talking to the dead". Like the televangilists who claim to have a "direct line to God," he has a lot of followers, but also a lot of people who doubt his unverified claims. (the psychic book quoted in the article does not count as scientific verification) The opening should reflect both strongly held points of view in a neutral manner. (good luck with that!) IP238.2 19:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph wording

Other editors are now getting involved in editing that first paragraph, from both ends of the spectrum. I'm looking for alternate wording that provides NPOV while establishing what Edward is notable for. My first attempt: [1].Dreadlocke ☥ 17:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Dreadlocke, I like the "performing" wording in the heading, but since mediumship is scientifically unproven, so I modified to keep as neutral as possible. Beckyvolley 17:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Becky, I think it looks good. Hopefully the others will too! Dreadlocke ☥ 17:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I originally put "self-proclaimed" in the introductory paragraph modeled after what was agreed by consensus on some of the other "psychic" pages on wikipedia. (good for the goose, good for the gander?) However, I have given it a second stab after my edits were reverted. 216.165.238.2 20:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I like your second version, good work! "Self-proclaimed" is just a loaded term that has a definite negative connotation. I realize other other articles use "claimed" or "purported" or "alleged", but these are all loaded terms that should be avoided. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

A friendly note to the many editors here: It seems that there is a lot of back-and-forth here. The Wikipedia:Three-revert rule should be followed on this article. If you disagree with wording, certainly modify or discuss, but reversion should be saved for vandalism or inclusion of obviously wrong/insignificant information. Editors should be given a presumtion of good faith and given a chance to support their changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beckyvolley (talk • contribs) 18:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Hi Becky, I've indicated my reasons for reverting some of your edits in the edit summaries. If you want to discuss specifics, that's great! Some of your edits caused problems with existing links, added duplicate references, and added references that do not meet WP:RS. As you point out, this is a contentious subject among editors and additions to the article have required much discussion. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. My revert message is a note to the Edward people, so they know Wikipedia rules. Since Edward has a show on the air, people involved in the show pop in now and then to put a positive spin on the article. (This happens on other performer articles on Wikipedia also) The first paragaph (which appears on Google) is the most frustrating to an entertainer's people (psychics, mediums, stand-ups, magicians, etc) when it is too negative, since it could affect ratings/income, so we should be careful to keep the article (and especially the first paragraph) neutral or it will be a never-ending edit war with the Edward people. Beckyvolley 19:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see, thanks for clarifying that. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

BeckyVolley, "Edward people," you do not have any proof and should not personal attack others. Who do you accuse of working for John Edward? Check any user who contributes here, they all have edits on other non-Edward articles also. This proves that the supports of JE here are not "Edward's people" but believers in his gifts. This article is already too heavily against Edward, and does not present his side of the story fairly. He has many people, including celebrities and even news reporters like Larry King who believe in his gifts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marklanza (talk • contribs) 23:29, 5 December 2006 UTC (UTC)

Edward in the media

The South Park section seems to go into too many minor (and some unneccisarily) vulgar details on the episode. Some of the other media references also seem too trivial (inlcuding Will and Grace). Can we agree to clean these up to be more direct and relevant? Also, aren't there some pro-Edward media pieces that can also be referenced for balance? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beckyvolley (talk • contribs) 18:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree, the South Park entry is unnecessarily long and detailed. It would certainly be good to include more "pro-Edward" media pieces - it's definitely out of balance at this point. I know Larry King thinks highly of Edward! Dreadlocke ☥ 19:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor

Editor 75.27.234.243, please discuss your changes on this talk page before making major changes to this contentious article. Also please refrain from making comments about the contibutor instead of the content as you did here, this is considered a personal attack.

You've also added personal websites as citations, which violates WP:V, and added original research to the article. If you want to take this to arbitration, be my guest - but the very first step in dispute resolution is to discuss the issues with the other editors, which you have not done. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Website does not meet RS

This website does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:RS: [2]. It appears to be a personal website of Brian Carnell, as all the articles are written by him. An anon editor keeps adding as it as citation. The site should be discussed before re-adding it to the article. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, this website talks about "Michael O'Neill," the very same person who makes the very same accusations in the Leon Jaroff article - so this is not a second reference, it is the same reference of the same story. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Edward as mentalist

The statement that Edward is performing as a "mentalist" seems to be original research since none of the references identify him as a mentalist or a mentalist performer. Yes, the references claim he "cold reads", but that in itself does not make him a mentalist. Also, I do not believe "hot reading" is mentalist criteria - yet the current sentence wording makes it appear so. Please supply a proper citation, let me know what I'm missing, or just remove the statement. Thanks! Dreadlocke ☥ 18:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I look up mentalist, hot reading is cheating for them, like magician vs illusionist. And nobody says Edward is mentalist, so I change. Marklanza 20:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Marklanza, I really appreciate your input! I'm thinking we should probably leave the comment and the fact tag in place for a while to give other editors a chance to weigh in - it's a contentious entry that I'd like to see discussed here. I'll put it back for now, if that's ok with you. Thanks! Dreadlocke ☥ 20:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and "hot reading" is definitely properly referenced, so that's ok to stay. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look like Edward is being called a mentalist, so fact tag seems out of place. The "cold reading" technique is being called a "mentalist" techinique,

Please sign your edits with four tildes like this: ~~~~, this makes communications much easier. As to to "mentalist"; first, it appears to be just a round-about way of actually saying that Edward is a mentalist. Second, other diciplines besides mentalists use the technique of cold reading, from salespeople to law enforcement - it isn't strictly a "mentalist" technique. It needs a citation. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Elembis, your edits to criticism section look balanced, I like wording, but would like see a better qualification for who is Underwood than just "skeptic." re: "mentalist" technique, user Dreadlocke he opposeing that word, see above comments, is there a citation that 'cold reading' is a traditional mentalist technique that is needed for this to stay in, or is it ok as it is? Marklanza 16:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of discussion for just one word! For "cold reading," does "fortune teller" work better than "mentalist"? Perhaps someone can check the most common professional user of "cold reading" and plug it in place of "mentalist" ... 216.165.238.2 17:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not about what "works better" but what meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, read through WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV for details. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

While this article is not about cold reading, the criticism about Edward is. The specific criticism about Edwards is around how his performance is virtually indistiguishable from that of a mentalist using cold reading to trick a subject/audience, not that of a car salesman who uses cold reading for other purposes. I believe that the "mentalist" description of cold reading is already properly sourced in this article, hence "fact" tag not necessary here. However, I agree that "fortune teller" seems like an unnecessary addition by (me? did I put that in?), especially since it is implying that fortune tellers use cold reading, which some of them would dispute. 216.165.238.2 20:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL! (who, me? Did I do that?) Thanks for the laugh, 216.165.238.2, I needed that! And yes, I'm simply asking for a citation where someone calls Edward a mentalist (original version) or specifically says that he is using a "mentalist technique" (second version). It looks like original research to me. I've asked before, but no one has pointed it out to me, and I've scanned the references but the only thing that jumps out is when Randi describes where he used mentalist techniques himself. As another editor said in the edit summary, just drop the word, "mentalist" adds little. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad my embarrassment serves some constructive purpose. The wording does not call Edward a mentalist, it specifies what type of cold reading Edward is alleged to be using. My 2 pennies is that this is covered in the referenced references, but I added some more just in case  :) 216.165.238.2 21:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the references, no need to overload, just one will do! I'll review them when I get a chance. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Schwartz study

Just looked at Schwartz's credentials, which are numerous. Suggest that "author" be removed from Schwartz and Hyman (arguing with myself again?) both in this section, as it is not relevent to the study, they both have more relevant qualifications that are not listed. Perhaps this section should be expanded a little, it seems to be the only "testing" I have seen of Edward that is not utilizing clips of his performances, yet only gets a few sentences. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.165.238.2 (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

They both have quite a number of credentials and titles, if we're going to add more of Hyman's titles, then we need to do the same with Schwartz. As I'm sure you saw, Schwartz is also a Professor and Ph. D. This would make the section harder to read; I advocate simplicity and allowing the reader decide whether he/she wants more detail - which can be found in the linked articles. I would agree with expanding the section, but I don't want it be become a critical slam-fest, which I note that the article has a tendency to become. Right now, the article is primarily critical pov. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Just because an article is critical does not make it POV. (for example, an article about Enron could have a lot of critical reporting in it without being POV) Edward is undisputedly popular and succesful, with many fans, but his claims are disputed and unproven. If you would like more "balance," perhaps you can add more pro-Edward studies and analysis to the article (though I am sure that fare and reasonable analysis of the studies will also be added). 216.165.238.2 18:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If an article is critical, then that violates the very essence of WP:NPOV. You can have criticism in an article, but it needs to be as neutral as possible, especially in the case of a WP:BLP, that policy is one reason I've been so insistent on solid sources and NPOV - focusing on undue weight, fairness of tone and even the undue weight that can be given through external links. An article shouldn't be made "out of balance" by adding critical commentary with the expectation that someone else should add "positive" material to balance it out - it shouldn't be made unbalanced in the first place. That's just not how the policies covering this read. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You phrase things much better than me do. My above statement rephrased should have been "just because an article appears critical" does not make it POV. If an article is critical, then I agree that it would be POV. In Edward's case, his success and thus notability is based on controversial and unproven claims, so the controversy and criticism is an important part of this article. My attempted point above was that notable and worthy of inclusion analysis of Edward should not be removed on the sole point of "it makes him look bad" 216.165.238.2 19:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha! I like your sense of humour, 238.2! I think you make a good editor, why don't you create an account and come fully on-board. I agree with you, I think we're saying the same thing. The article has improved quite a bit since I saw it several weeks ago, but it still needs quite a bit of work. I'm trying to find the time and energy to write more on Edward himself (his history and whatnot), which I think the article needs. I just don't think a Wikipedia article on a WP:BLP should even appear critical of the subject, definitely avoiding either a sympathetic point of view or advocacy journalism. I would just say if critical "notable and worthy analysis" is added, then make sure it doesn't give undue weight to the critical opinion - add the opposing viewpoint too, not just the criticism. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

238.2? I like the sound of that. It looks like we may be in agreement. Just to re-iterate/clarify, people contribute according to to their interest on a subject, so it is not incumbent on an individual contributor to balance their edits with opposing viewpoints, as long as their edits are within guidelines. If pro outweighs con or con outweighs pro, I don't think notable information should be removed due to a percieved "lack of balance", or you end up with a "wikiality" of neutrality. Look forward to your neutrally pro-Edward notable info to this article to make me eat my words! :) IP238.2 20:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess we're not in full agreement, because I do think that negative information should be carefully reduced if it causes the article to break NPOV. Each editor needs to make certain that his/her edits meet Wikipedia policy by not skewing the article. For instance, in an article with multiple, fairly equal points of view, if an editor adds fifteen negative external links from the critic's pov, but there is only one positive external link - that's wrong - breaking undue weight - external links, so either reduce the negative or add more positive links - and that should be incumbent on the editor adding the negative links, or else that editor is just violating Wikipedia policy. Anyway, I think we're getting beyond the scope of the John Edward talk page, so 'nuff said here on that subject! Dreadlocke ☥ 22:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Article spin-off

User Dreadlocke believes that this article is taking too much of an anti-Edward slant. Although the criticism is all well sourced, I have noticed that many of the anti- complaints on all of the medium/psychic pages on Wikipedia are pretty much the same notable people saying the similar things about each person, and the complaints on the other pages often share the same sources. Any thoughts to creating a spin-off article along the lines of "popular psychics-skepticism," and move most of the skepticism to that page? (with a small blurb and a link pointing to the new article remaining behind) IP238.2 21:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest not. Such as an action is termed a POV fork, and is generally discouraged. — BillC ^talk 22:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with BillC, although as another editor pointed out to me elsewhere, in some topics the bulk of the criticism has been moved to a separate page. This is particularly true with new religious movements. See Wikipedia:List of POV forks. The advantage is that all notable criticisms can be included while not unbalancing the main article. While I think the Edward article definitely leans toward the critic's pov, it's not quite to the totally unbalanced level yet - plus I think there is more positive material that can be added. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

POV fork - This would be a good name for some kind of band. I am in the habit of changing my mind here (I'm easily swayed, even by myself!), so for now I agree against my own idea for a POV fork.IP238.2 02:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it was a very good thought, and a very much appreciated one! As always, your sense of humor shines through... :) Keep the ideas coming! Dreadlocke ☥ 16:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Underdown's "a good editor..." quote

I've put this line ("a good editor can make... a former-dance instructor [Edward] sound like he's conversing with dead people.") back in the Criticism section because I think it makes it clear that Underdown thinks good editing consistently inflates Edward's accuracy on TV and isn't limited to "a reading" (see the other Underdown quote in that paragraph: [3]). — Elembis 22:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Underdown's opinion is very clear from the quote and introductory statement already provided, without adding that particular detail, which can be found in the link provided. I have to say that including that line makes the article sound more like a gossip rag or tabloid rather than an encyclopedia. Plus, that is not really a direct quote from the article, it is an edited version - so I don't believe it's includable. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this version, it doesn't need more references. It's a small difference in wording, but it was the previous version that didn't appear to meet NPOV. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It may actually be more neutral to say "observation" rather than the more volatile "accusation", such as "Another observation has been that Edward's accuracy on television is inflated by the editing process". Let the reader decide if it's an accusation or not. Dreadlocke ☥ 00:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

South Park relevance

Elembis, I'm curous to know what you mean by making the South Park entry "more relevant" [4]. It's only revelant because it features an "appearance" by John Edward, all else is just adding more detail about the show - which readers can get by going to the link provided. All these entries should be be just very short "teasers" about the appearance - they should not be of much length or detail in this article. Dreadlocke ☥ 02:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What was wrong with the picture? Too low of a resolution? Not that I mind it's removal, I thought it was more annoying than anything else... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 02:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My goal was to give a brief synopsis that better explained how the episode related to Edward. Since the section includes a link to the episode, I wouldn't mind if the synopsis were removed. And yes, I cut the image because it was, for lack of a better word, ugly. =) — Elembis 03:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Ugly is definitely the word for it! I think that's why I found it annoying! I totally agree with removing the synopsis from each entry. Should we just replace it with a list of links or should there be some type of short, descriptive verbiage, like "Edward appeared in a cameo role" or "Edward was featured in several episodes"? Something like that.. Dreadlocke ☥ 16:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think they Edward-related synopsis is what makes the media appearances notable, so it would be a mistake to remove them entirely. Also, I miss the inclusion of the "South Park" award in the synopsis, as it has entered into pop culture. (My dead aunt Jaquie told me in a dream that Edward told her in one of his dreams that he thought the "Biggest Douche in the universe" award was funny. My dead aunt Jaquie likes invading people's dreams, so watch out what you dream about!) IP238.2 20:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the award should be mentioned if a synopsis is to be present. Perhaps we could say: "Edward was declared 'The Biggest Douche in the Universe' in an episode of the same name." — Elembis 05:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I too agree with including the Douche comment, I would not want to be visited by Aunt Jaquie! I like your version Elembis! - Dreadlocke ☥ 17:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. — Elembis 02:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hah ha! Now that I've seen it in place in the article, I cannot stop laughing...! That should keep aunt Jaquie happy! Thanks Elembis! Dreadlocke ☥ 02:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sabotage

Someone has added offensive sentences throughout the article. Even if you disagree with John Edward's actions it is not appropriate to add irrelevant and offensive messages in the text of the article. Unfortunately I was unable to fix it... I'm not sure why... perhaps someone else can fix it? Ebby874 06:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you give examples? There has been some vandalism recently, but I think it's all been erased at the moment. — Elembis 06:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Edward as a fraudulent cold/hot reader

I am concerned that the introduction article is a rather bland set of statements regarding John Edward and his abilities, and represents his abilities as actual as opposed to supposed.

The introduction to the section is merely a anodyne list of his background and "achievements"-- for example. The statement

He is best known for his television performances as a psychic medium to assist his audience members in connecting with the memories of their deceased family and friends.

This indicates that his performances are actual bona fide supernatural works , if this is to remain then the controversy and derision that his work has attracted from the liberal intellectual arts and media should also get mention in the introductory section.--Belbo Casaubon 23:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the opening paragraph to an earlier, completely NPOV version that was reached by a consensus of editors on this talk page. The current phrasing, that Edward is "best known for performing as a psychic medium whose job is to help the spirits of the dead communicate with the living." in no way indicates that his performances are "actual bona fide supernatural works". It is clear that the statement says he is "performing as a psychic medium" performing being the key word, meaning "of, relating to, or constituting an art (as drama) that involves public performance <the performing arts> ". Also, you need to be careful what is said in the article, (see WP:BLP), and where it is placed (see Wikipedia:Criticism). Dreadlocke ☥ 23:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Specific references from Edward's books

I think it'd be better to let Edward describe his religious beliefs in his own words in the second paragraph, or at least specify a page for the One Last Time (1998) reference. Likewise, his denial of having used cold or hot reading could use a specific page reference or a direct quote from Crossing Over (2001). If I had access to either book I'd add the page numbers myself. — Elembis 20:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

John Edward Theatrical Medium

John Edwards is a Theatrical Medium as opposed to a psychic medium per se, describing edwards as a unqualified medium (the qualification should be theatrical ) is POV, and lends undue credibility to his performances qualifies the bona fide supernatural aura of unqualified medium which is POV, prefixing psychic medium with Theatrical describes Mr Edwards as what is more accurate, a theatrical performer, in the mould of a vaudeville entertainer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belbo Casaubon (talk • contribs) 23:41, December 24, 2006 (UTC)

Theatre (to which "theatrical" redirects) "is the branch of the performing arts concerned with acting out stories in front of an audience". So to say Edward is a theatrical medium is to say he's acting on his shows, which is to say that what he does isn't real, which, true or false, is POV. That said, the article's current description of Edward (as someone "best known for performing as a psychic medium") may still need improvement. — Elembis 22:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Pro Edward POV

This article is very Pro Edward POV. It assumes he is a real 'psychic' by listing his profession as 'psychic medium' and in the intro says that he 'helps people communicate with their dead relatives'. This is extremely POV and I am going to change as much as I can tonight so that it is NPOV.Wikidudeman 05:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, using purportedly/purported as a qualification to Mr Edwards is highly appropriate.Belbo Casaubon 11:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article should not say that Edward is a medium (someone who can communicate with the dead). It shouldn't say he isn't one, either. But I don't think it violates WP:NPOV to say he "performs as a medium", "works as a medium", "makes his living as a medium", etc., and sprinkling "purported" around is a violation of the guideline WP:WTA. Also, the article doesn't say Edward helps people communicate with their dead relatives; it says that's a medium's job, and I think it's correct and neutral in saying so. Meanwhile, since we already have an article discussing mediums (Medium (spirituality)), any definition of "medium" in Edward's article should probably be brief. — Elembis 23:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The first 2 lines in WP:WTA are:

"There are probably no words which one can say should never be used in Wikipedia articles. There are words that are good flags for text that is inappropriate for an article. These can, if misused, convey a meaning which editors may not intend."

The word purported is neither perjorative or inappropriate, but qualifies edwards word medium as questionable. A guideline is just that a guideline, and not a rule. Purported in this case is not used, and not intended to convey hidden meaning, it is a statement of truth, as opposed to the POV unqualified medium.Belbo Casaubon 15:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As WP:WTA says, "purported" and "alleged" "should only be used where the identity of the alleger is clear", so in cases where Edward is the clear purporter, those words are probably okay. But there are many places where those words are not necessary as quantifiers — whether or not Edward has any paranormal abilities, he performs and works full-time as a psychic medium: people pay him to do what a medium does. "Purported" still has its place (where the purporter/alleger is known), but as long as we can't agree where that place is, it's probably better to seek consensus and reword a sentence so there is no dispute than to participate in an unharmonious "revert duel". — Elembis 21:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Under these reasonable conditions of use. the line Speaking of psychic abilities in the introduction is surely a candidate for qualification by purported or alleged. A medium is in its essence a questionable career (not in a perjorative but rather a controversial sense), and should be portrayed as this. In this case it is Edward himselt who is doing the alleging.Belbo Casaubon 12:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What Elembis is doing here is WP:Wikilawyering. The WP:WTA clearly says that 'purported' and 'alleged' should only be avoid when ambiguity clouds who the one who is purporting or alleging is. In this instance it is CLEAR that the one who is purporting and allegeing is John Edwards himself and those who believe him. There is no ambiguity here. Therefore your interpretations of WP:WTA to justify removing "alleged" or "purported" are not founded. This is an absolutely clear instance of where the words would be allowed due to their non-dubious use. Saying John Edwards "purportedly is a psychic" is allowed because there is nothing dubious or ambiguous about the claim considering the one who is purporting is clearly identified in this instance. However on a final note, If you still believe any NPOV words should be added to the article to make it clear that John Edwards is not necessarily a 'psychic' then I say we should remove any instance of the article claiming he is a psychic in the first place. TO be fair.Wikidudeman 10:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "Edward is a purported psychic medium" (or, better yet, "Edward purports to be a psychic medium") would be okay. The point I tried to make is that "purported" is not needed in cases where it's already clear that Edward isn't necessarily a psychic — saying he "performs as a psychic" is one such case, so saying he "performs as a purported psychic" casts more doubt than is needed to be factual, creating a fairness of tone problem: "We should present all significant, competing views sympathetically." — Elembis 21:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Bollocks, if a surgeon performs an operation, he is actually doing doing the operation, if a bus dreiver perfors a three point turn, he is actually doing it...and unless we want to get involved in a conversation about material existence, theses performances are material actualities, as opposed to the "voices in the head" actualities that Edward performs, I am a relative newbie to wikipedia, but completely agree that Elembis isWP:Wikilawyering, get off your high horse. and treat others contributions with the respect that thyey deserve.Belbo Casaubon 23:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Belbo, I would strongly suggest that you reveiw WP:NPA, your "high horse" comment is uncalled for, uncivil, and borders perilously close to being a personal attack. Dreadlocke ☥ 02:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for clarification on Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid#Use of "purported" in conjunction with "psychic medium" and invite each of you to clarify the disagreement as needed. With the help of other editors, I hope we'll be able to avoid future disputes and reach a consensus on this issue soon. — Elembis 23:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Performing" can be taken either way, as in "performing surgery" or "performing an act". That's the beauty of the word, it is NPOV because it is not specific to either side of the definition. The use of "purportedly" is not right in the recent attempts at utilizing it in the Edwards article, from the way I read WP:WTA. I also think it is clearly a pejorative word that should not be used in the opening paragraph of Edward's article. Instead of using "purported", then add content to the Criticism section as needed to make it clear that Edward's claim to being a medium is "purported" according to reliable sources - that's the proper way of doing it, instead of just jamming that word in the article everywhere. "Purported" is on the list of words to avoid, and it is not necessary to use the word - so let's stop trying to "wikilawyer" it into place and find the approprate alternatives as described in WP:WTA. Dreadlocke ☥ 02:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Plus, the opening paragraph needs to make it clear that his claim to fame is being (acting like, whatever) a psychic medium. You cannot leave that out, and you can't disparage it in that section. I've noticed that some editors here have a real dislike for Edward, and appear to be trying in every concevible way to make the article a negative one against Edward. This would violate NPOV. And I would also suggest being very cautious, because this is a Biography of a Living Person and great care needs to be made to avoid even the appearance of libel. Dreadlocke ☥ 02:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Dreadlocke, I guess you are a fan of the paranormal, which is fine, but being a fan of it does not necessarily make it true, for example Star Trek despite what some people say is not a documentary, the re-animator is not a "True Movie".

I am also getting a little fed up with your condescending attitude (comments about experienced editors, read the guidelines blah blah blah), It could equally be said that one editor on this topic seems to be trying in every possible way to make this article Pro John Edward, sorry if this sounds uncivil, but it is how it appears..Get yourself over to the Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid#Use of "purported" in conjunction with "psychic medium" article where we are discussing this topic, as I think it is pointless carrying on the discussion on in two places.Belbo Casaubon 01:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're "fed up" with my asking you to become more familiar with Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines, and from looking at your edit history, you are indeed a new editor - I've just been trying to help you understand how Wikipedia works. I consider your statement that I have a "condecending attitude" a personal attack, and at the very least uncivil. I'm not trying to make the article pro-Edward, I'm trying to make it meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That's just another personal attack of yours. If you continue your personal attacks, I will place a warning on your talk page, and if you still continue, I will report you. Please carefully read WP:NPA. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:17, January 10, 2007 (UTC)

<impolite comment removed> Belbo Casaubon 23:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No matter how much you may dislike a user's comments, disparaging responses are very poor etiquette and tend to worsen relationships between editors. I strongly encourage you to read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Etiquette and to do your best to work through conflict rather than escalate it. As Samuel Johnson once said, "Kindness is in our power, even when fondness is not." — Elembis 00:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Uninvolved user here; I agree that using "purported/alleged" in the lead is needlessly biased against Mr. Edwards' professional claims. Compare it to other non-provable professions such as psychologist, horse whisperer, etc and you'll see where bias may have crept in. -- nae'blis 02:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree with the use of the word performs in this context, I believe performs is strongly Favourable to John Edward and hence not NPOV, overall the balance of the article is approaching neutrality. However some of the wording is ambiguous (like performs, performing, acts, acting ) and not clear and detract from the article, whether some editors like it or not. John Edward is is not a verifiable Psychic Medium, and any wording which is ambiguous, allows an interpretation that he is, is not encyclopedic. The only thing that can be said in verifiable fact is that he has claimed/purported/professed that he is a psychic, no more, no less, and certainly not the potentially POV performs Belbo Casaubon 16:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand what you're saying: that a word with a POV interpretation should be avoided, or that "perform" should be listed on Wikipedia:Words to avoid. But unlike the words listed in that guideline, "perform" has common interpretations that are both positive and negative in this context, so I don't think we need to avoid it. I can see why you think the word is non-neutral, but I'm not sure that "perform" is any more ambiguous or POV than "profess", and I don't see how the word actually violates WP:NPOV. I may well be missing something, so it'd help if you would point out a specific part of the policy that applies. By the way, are there any other parts of the article that you currently think are in violation of WP:NPOV? — Elembis 22:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest Elembis, I cant find a place or a time where I have ever known performs to be used in this type of context where it means anything else than actually doing what the subject is performing. I don't really want to repeat myself, but if a doctor performs and operation there is no possible way this can interpreted as pretence, if I perform a system restore, there is no possible interpretaion of pretence, if you perform an action in your everyday job (if you have one) then you do it cannot be interpreted that you pretend to do it. Given that in a professional context performing (except if you are an actor, which in this case is wrong) generally means doing, the weighting of the interpretaion of this word undoubtedly leans toward actual actions as opposed to pretence of actions and is potentially POV.Belbo Casaubon 12:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right that "perform" in this instance is making an unverified claim (that he does what he says he does). "Perform" in the sense of actors and musicians is a little different, so let's not muddle the waters. Can I try to identify the objections here and help you guys come to a consensus wording?

• "John Edward ... is an American author and television personality best known for professing to be a psychic medium..." (current wording as of this writing, fairly neutral but perhaps needlessly wordy)
• "John Edward ... is an American author and television personality best known for performing on his shows..." (doesn't mention his profession at all)
• "John Edward ... is an American author and television personality best known for performing/acting as a psychic medium..." (see above for problems with "perform")
• "John Edward ... is an American author and television personality best known as a purported/alleged psychic medium..." (needlessly POV on the anti- side)

Have I left any major options already tried out? -- nae'blis 15:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out! I forgot to mention that I'd be glad to use an alternate wording, if only because "perform" is imprecise as BC stated. I like 1 and 3 (the current wording) above, and would also recommend:

• "John Edward ... is an American author and television personality best known for appearing/performing as a professed psychic medium on his shows..." (mentions his profession using a word we agree on)

I don't believe this wording has been tried before, and I prefer it to 1 or 3 above. It might seem a little wordy, but I don't think that matters much if we agree it's NPOV. =) — Elembis 17:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The use of "performing" in this case is simple, he is "performing" on his television show, such as an actor would be "performing" as "Mark Twain". This doesn't mean the actor is actually "Mark Twain", it just means the actor is "performing". Edward is performing "as a psychic medium" - he could be performing as "Mark Twain", this doesn't mean he is actually Twain. I'd like to see the version with "performing" put back, until we can come to a new consensus on the issue. I like "professed psychic medium" in the caption of the photo, but it doesn't read very well in the opening paragraph. Dreadlocke ☥ 02:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to my earlier edit and do not agree with your point, performing in a professional capacity means doing not claiming to do. Performing is also ambiguous, ambiguity is for fiction not encyclopedic work.Belbo Casaubon 10:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And in return I must refer you to my earlier edits, and the definition of "performing". There is nothing ambiguous about using 'performing', it is very informative and describes what he is doing on the show: performing. It also does not make a statement either way about the reality of his presumed abilities. There's nothing "weaselish" about using "performing" or "acts" - because it is exactly what he is doing on the show. We're just arguing around in circles now. If you wish to pursue this further, please go through the Wikipedia:Resolving Disputes process. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes your earlier posts are interesting in that you clearly state:

"Performing" can be taken either way, as in "performing surgery" or "performing an act"., Elembis has very helpfully made statements of the same nature.

If this is not a definition of ambiguity, then I dont know what is, the problem with ambiguity is that it is in no way verifiable, it is my contention that ambiguous statements are not encyclopedic.

What we know about Mr Edward is that he appears on a television show, where he makes claims about receiving messages from those in the afterlife, this is verifiable.Belbo Casaubon 22:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Since that statement was originally made, I have further refined my definition of "performing" as it is utilized in the Edward article to better clarify the difference from what you are trying to claim is it's ambiguous nature and what I meant by my comments. It is clearly not ambiguous at all. He is definitely "performing" on his television shows, but "performing" does not make any statement either way about his presumed abilities - that is the very nature of NPOV. There is a distinct difference between the two, and I'm sorry I cannot seem to explain it to you or agree with you on the issue of using "performing", so like I said earlier, we're talking in circles. Go to the next step of dispute resolution and find a mediator. Perhaps a mediator can explain to one of us why we're wrong. The use of "performing" was the end result of a long discussion between many disputing editors, which finally ended that dispute. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Which alternate wordings (see above) do you like? And do you think there are other NPOV problems with the article? — Elembis 15:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the alternative wordings which tell the truth, and have no multiple meanings, the truth is that Mr Edward Claims/Purports/Asserts/Professes to have psychic powers, the manifestation of these claims are television programmes where he appears to communicate with the dead. He does Perform, but what he does perform is not verifiable, we really just have to take his word for it, which to be entirely pragmatic is questionable. I also kinda agree with Dreadlocke that the Article on the whole is down on John Edwardd, however trying to balance that with pragamtism, verifiable, and non-partisan information is difficult Belbo Casaubon 22:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you actually agree with me on that? That's something I didn't really expect to hear... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 23:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

BC, I think your understanding of "perform" ("to perform a surgery") is based on the transitive verb, when the intransitive form ("to give a performance") is being used in the article (see Webster's definitions; there's an important difference). You said "He does Perform", and that's exactly what the article says — it does not say what he performs (psychic readings or cold readings), but if it did we would be violating WP:NPOV and/or WP:V. In any case, I'm itching to see the NPOV tag removed. Can we agree on one of these wordings?

1. "John Edward ... is ... best known for professing to be a psychic medium..."
2. "John Edward ... is ... best known for performing on his shows..."
3. "John Edward ... is ... best known for performing/acting as a psychic medium on his shows..." (current wording)
4. "John Edward ... is ... best known as a purported/alleged psychic medium..."
5. "John Edward ... is ... best known for appearing/performing as a professed psychic medium on his shows..."

I prefer 3, followed by 5, 1, and 4 5, followed by 1, 3 and 4, any of which I will be glad to use if we can come to an agreement. (1 and 4 would make a mention of his shows in the same sentence awkward, but that's not a huge problem. 2 is clearly inadequate because it doesn't say "medium" anywhere.) Thoughts? — Elembis 15:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC) (modified 17:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

I like 5 as a compromise, it is clunky, but verifiable and importantly not potentially ambiguous (i.e. No multiple common meanings) therefore it cannot have the accusation of being the verbal product of a mustelid.

What it does say is that He performs as a psychic medium, if I were to say that I perform as a software developer, or my wife said that BC performs as a great lover :-) then I (or my wife) am/are making claims about my actions which might or might not be true, and are hence open to interpretaion, and are from either my or my wife's point of view. On the other hand I could say that what I actually meant is that blah blah blah, which means the statement cant stand on its own, and is therefore not NPOV, see Weasel words. I guess that most readers will not stop to think hang on is that performs in the transitive or intransitive meanimg, and if we go down that route we are arguing sematics. Yours in Good Faith - Belbo Casaubon 16:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Those are excellent (and amusing) examples. In fact, you've convinced me. =) It's better to be a little wordy than to espouse a POV out of vagueness. — Elembis 17:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

All this discussion is fine, but I don't see any reason that the current version using "performing as a psychic medium on his shows" doesn't work. It meets all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and was agreed to by the past disputing editors. That's why I believe this should go to an official mediator - it's necessary if we're going to change the current version. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a mediator is a good idea, so I'll ask for one. Thanks for the suggestion. I hope it helps. =) — Elembis 17:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Elembis. Belbo may be right and we may need more qualifiers, but it appears to me that the current version meets all the requirements of Wikipedia and doesn't need to be added to or cluttered up with unnecessary language. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If we have to start over from scratch, I'm tempted to start with the previous version (before performing was agreed to):

John Edward, is a television personality and performer who is believed to be a psychic medium who can communicate with the dead.

"Believed to be" was the previous version. How's that? Dreadlocke ☥ 18:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think "Believed to be" is weaselish. Anyway, I suggest that we leave it as it is ("performing as a psychic medium") until mediation is underway. — Elembis 18:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I understand, but that was the previous starting point. Just to give some history, we had five disputing editors back in early December 2006 who agreed that the current version using "performing" was acceptable. We now have one editor disputing that previous consensus. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Edward POV

Ok, I believe the overall article is anti-Edward POV. Someone please show me exactly where the "believers" have their viewpoint adequately represented. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that Elembis is giving more of John's side of things, this is a good start. Thank you Elembis! Although I did like the heading "History", since the article itself is a biography, but who am I to quibble... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 04:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked my edit. It sounds like you're talking about undue weight: "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Therefore, if a viewpoint is inadequately represented, at least one reliable source that supports the viewpoint is inadequately represented — we both understand that no viewpoint should be mentioned without reliable sources, and that, by extension, a brief mention of a viewpoint (or no mention at all) is not necessarily an instance of undue weight. I hope we're not ignoring significant pro-Edward sources, but if we are, you may be able to bring them to my attention and also recommend a way of mentioning them in the article. Any suggestions? — Elembis 04:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)-

I'm actually talking about zero-weight on the pro-Edward side, until recently there was absolutely nothing from that end of things - naturally giving undue weight to the skeptical side, thus violating NPOV. I wonder if transcripts are available from his TV shows, there are a lot of "believer" comments in those, his own website may have more comments. It's difficult finding online sources, because any pro-Edward sites that are not directly connected with him personally, are considered "fan" sites and are not considered WP:RS. Dreadlocke ☥ 04:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point about WP:LOW, thanks for pointing it out - I've seen the publisher included in most articles, but it makes sense not to keep it in - but I do have to wonder how that fits with this being the "English Wikipedia" and not really inclusive of all publishers worldwide. I wonder if our readers know how to find the publishing information from an ISBN number - seems like nice convenience to have a publisher listed - I never tried it out before, but I have to say that our ISBN information function is pretty neat! Dreadlocke ☥ 04:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Crossing Over disclaimer

I would like to know what is meant by saying this sentence in the Criticism section is "not a notable criticism". I agree that it is not as significant as cold reading allegations, for example, but it has still been published by two apparently reliable sources. I suggest that we put it back in after removing either the text in brackets or the text in braces:

Edward has been criticized for promoting Crossing Over "as a genuine communication with the dead" because the legal disclaimer shown at the end of each episode reads that {it was "produced for entertainment purposes only" [and that} its contents "are not meant or intended to be a form of advice, instruction, suggestion, counsel or factual statement in any way whatsoever."]

How does that sound? — Elembis 02:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Legal disclaimers are on every show out there, from Dr. Phil to The People's Court to adult movies, the criticism is specious and has everything to do with general television liability concerns and nothing specific to do with the show's content or Edward's abilities. This criticism is also not notable, since it is a very minor viewpoint that does not bear inclusion in the wikipedia article - that is unless the article has a lot more minor details about Edward and his life. You cannot include every minor complaint or criticism. It is not a significant viewpoint. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not the criticism is specious, I think the issue is that it's been made by reliable sources ("verifiability, not truth"^[1]) and does not appear (to me) to be a view "held by a tiny minority", so I don't think a brief mention represents undue weight. However, I don't mind leaving the sentence out of the article for the moment. I've tried to expand the article with both positive and negative sources and to elaborate on Edward's own views (especially regarding criticism), but it's been rather difficult for me to find biographical information from reliable sources. My next goal is to mention Edward's story about being led into his career after being the subject of a reading at age 15 (that's how I remember it, anyway), but that will have to wait until I can access one of his books again. If you have any other suggestions, I'd really appreciate it. =) — Elembis 03:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Where do you see that it's a viewpoint held by a significant number of people? I'd like to read it. I know all about verifiability versus truth, but no significant source who is knowledgable about television show disclaimers would dare make such a ridiculous suggestion. It just does not appear to be notable to me. Neither from the "Melbourne skeptic" making a complaint to "consumer affairs" nor the information from the "public relations director" of CSICOP seem notable to me. Not everything from CSICOP (now CSI) is notable. I'd like to see the research on television show disclaimers that show Edward's is out of the ordinary.

I think your idea about expanding the article with more of Edward's history is great - especially how he got into it and when he had his first "psychic" experience. I was going to do that, but I seem to be spending a lot of time just trying to keep the article NPOV and not turn into attack article on Edward (not you doing that Elembis, of course, your edits have been great!) Dreadlocke ☥ 04:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a "history" section for you to add more of his story! Dreadlocke ☥ 18:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not asking for the section to be re-added I think you might be missing the point. The reason why the disclamer is noteable is not because the disclamer itself but the content. Edward claims to be a psychic and he claims to be communicating with the dead on the show. As such, the disclamer effectively says he's not confident this to be true. Dr. Phil (as with other shows where advice is offered) is offering general advise to a specific situation and the disclamer is simply saying no one accepts any liability if you try to follow the advice. It's not really the same thing. (You might want to take a look at Dr. Phil's disclamer http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=News&id=1677880) 203.109.240.93 22:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Images

While I'm glad the article has two good images at the moment, I think it could use a couple more, including:

• An actual screenshot of Crossing Over or Cross Country. This would qualify under fair use.
• Images of Edward's most notable media appearances. One of these is surely the South Park episode, so a screenshot would be appropriate and would (I believe) qualify under fair use as long as the episode is discussed (as it is now). The episode shows Edward in several scenes, most notably on the set of Crossing Over and also at the intergalactic awards ceremony where he is crowned and given his "award". We could use an image of either scene.

If other media appearances deserve to be pictured, I'd like to know so I can try to track down images from them. — Elembis 16:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Expanding the introduction

Wikipedia:Lead section is a guideline for introductions. Since the neutrality of the lead is disputed at the moment, I'll offer my suggestions for discussion and amendment here on the talk page until the current dispute is resolved. In part, the guideline reads:

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article.

One suggestion the guideline makes is to "try to have a sentence, clause, or at least a word devoted to each of the main headlines in the article." I think this is a good idea, so here are the sections and my suggestion for each:

• Biography: Mention that Edward was convinced of psychic phenomena at 15, or perhaps "at a young age" — don't give everything away too soon. =)
• Television shows: Mention his current show in slightly more detail; both shows are already mentioned.
• Paranormal study, Criticism and Controversies: Say that he is a controversial figure or that he has drawn support and criticism.
• Appearances in the media and Books: Do nothing, since they are already mentioned ("Edward ... is an American author and television personality").

I don't think any of these changes should be applied to the first sentence. Here's one way they might be presented, with a little additional text to flesh it out:

John Edward McGee Jr., (born October 19, 1969 in Glen Cove, New York), better known as John Edward, is an American author and television personality best known for performing as a [professed] psychic medium on his shows Crossing Over and John Edward Cross Country.

Edward was convinced at a young age that he could become a psychic. After writing his first book on the subject in 1998, Edward became a well known and controversial figure in the United States through his shows and other media appearances. His current show, John Edward Cross Country, has been aired on WE tv since May 2006.

Amend away! — Elembis (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think the Wikipedia:Lead section guideline is going to make for some longer introductions than the actual article itself. Dreadlocke ☥ 08:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Edward and Randi

So the situation where Edward purportedly refused to participate in Randi's million-dollar psychic-giveaway: What, if anything, should we put in the article - if it can be WP:RS'd. It appears to be such a gimmick, with no scientific value. We'd have to add whatever Edward's reasons are too, not just a blurb on Randi's "challenge" all by its lonesome. Dreadlocke ☥ 08:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you calling a gimmick with not scientific value?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Randi's million-dollar challenge. Dreadlocke ☥ 04:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In what way is James Randi's challenge a "Gimmick"?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I’ll be happy to explain. There are two poles of possibilities, with a wide range of potentials arrayed between them.

• If one doubts Randi: then, as he has stated, “I always have an out”, which is interpreted by his detractors to mean that he would find a way to never pay.[5] They believe he has the power and ability to set up a test so the subject would fail, thus the challenge is gimmicked.

• If one believes what Randi says: (which is that he doesn’t believe anyone has paranormal abilities), this means he doesn't believe anyone will ever collect – so that too is just a marketing gimmick.

Instead of proving his opinion by empirical evidence, which would be the proper scientific approach – he uses a gimmick. And it indeed fits the definition of gimmick. (a “trick or device used to attract business or attention <a marketing gimmick>”)

Let’s face it, Randi was a professional magician – full of gimmicks to make it look like he was performing supernatural or paranormal magic – and that’s the way he views ‘’all’’ individuals who make a claim to have paranormal abilities. One can make anything look like its just plain old stage magic, whether you’re talking to the dead or walking on water and raising the dead.

Randi is still using gimmicks. And who can blame him? It’s hard to prove to people that the paranormal or supernatural doesn’t exist – that’s exactly why it’s paranormal and supernatural. He’s fighting what he perceives as fire with his own fire. Trickery and gimcrackery. Dreadlocke ☥ 03:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There is part of Randi's 'out' statement that you have missed out. The full quote is "I always have an out – I'm right!". I have to say, I take exception to what is written above – you have implied that the JREF would not pay out in the event of a genuine winner. A challenge application is a legally binding contract between applicant and the JREF, and serious legal consequences to the JREF would ensue were it not to pay out the money. As you yourself said here, personal attacks on talk pages have absolutely no place in Wikipedia. Do you stand by what you have written? — BillC ^talk 03:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I stand by what I have written. I know what the full quote purportedly is, but I am describing what his critics have said about his comment, not necessarily my own pov - I'm not implying anything. If you read what I wrote, it clearly describes both angles with "if, then" statements: "if you believe what Randi says, then" and "if you don't believe what Randi says, then..." Do you disagree that Randi does not believe that anyone has paranormal powers and therefore does not believe he will ever have to pay anyone the money? Do you disagree that his his statement about "having an out", even as you fully quote it, has been used by his detractors as I have indicated above? My only implication here is that I believe the challenge to be a marketing gimmick instead of an attempt at true scientific exploration. I'm sorry if you are offended, it wasn't meant to be offensive to anyone - I'll even delete the comment if you truly find it offensive (after reading and understanding my explanation, of course). I'll also be checking with others to see if this is a personal attack against Randi, I don't believe it is - but if it is - I'll retract, because a PA is not my intention. Dreadlocke ☥ 05:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I still stand by what I originally wrote, but I did rewrite it to better explain what my intent and meaning is. Now, does that mean I'm not really standing by what I wrote? I'm not actually sure....hopefully someone will drop by my talk page and explain it to me. And I've verified with a couple of folks that it's not a personal attack - at least in their professional opinions.... Dreadlocke ☥ 06:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the opinions I have written about above are verifiable from a WP:RS, and in no way violates WP:BLP as did the true personal attacks made by the editor to whom I made the remark you quote above. Dreadlocke ☥ 06:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarification, the quote I used when presenting the detractor's side: "I always have an out", sans any "- I'm right", is a direct quote from the person Randi said it to, Dennis Rawlins. It may be incomplete or a lie, but it's V. Dreadlocke ☥

For those who may be interested, here's the entire quote from "sTARBABY":

"Randi asked my advice on the Helmut Schmidt parapsychology experiment which some CSICOPs had been investigating. I simply urged that it be approached with all the caution KZA had thrown to the winds in 1975 and 1976. He assured me how cautious he was in the testing for his well-publicized $ 10,000 prize for proof of psychic abilities (for which he acts as policeman, judge and jury -- and thus never has supported my idea of neutral judgment of CSICOP tests. "I always have an out," he said."

Apparently, there has been some problem verifying Randi's version of the statement, as it is quoted by BillC above: always have an out quote?

Dreadlocke ☥ 07:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to refute your anti-randi triflings but this isn't the place to do it. This is a talk page for the John Edwards article. So discussing it here is against wikipedia policy. I will however direct you to the James Randi message board where you can start a thread discussing these things and I will refute them there. Here's a link to the forum [[6]]. It's free to register and post.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Self-proclaimed" is not a weasle word if it's sourced.

The dispute concerning this page deals with the wording concerning John Edward and whether or not to call him a "Psychic" or a "Supposed psychic" or a "purported psychic" etc. It is true that some of those terms should be avoided in encyclopedia articles in some cases. However specific terms such as "Self-Proclaimed" would be suitable as long as they cited the assertion. Calling Edward a "Self Proclaimed Psychic" would not violate wikipedia policy nor is it considered a weasle word if it's sourced. From WP:WEASEL

“ It is acceptable to use some of these phrases, if they are accompanied by a citation that supports the claim...Bertrand Russell, a self-proclaimed atheist (Bertrand Russell, Collected Papers, vol. 11, p. 91) ... ”

Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Links to Schwartz and Hyman articles

See this edit

Why not put in the links, since they make it more obvious that one can go and read the source, and it might be useful?? Is there something wrong with such links? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#External links says "You should not add a descriptive title to an embedded HTML link within an article"; that is, our links should look like [7] and not this. Also, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#URLs as embedded (numbered) links suggests that sources may be included as inline external links or as references in the References section. I recommend that we continue to use the latter system. — Elembis (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality tag?

What justification is there for keeping the neurality tag?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)