Talk:John Edwards

Tabloid scandal accusations

As many are aware, Edwards has been accused of scandalous actions by a supermarket tabloid. As per Wikipedia's policy regarding biographies of living persons, including information about the tabloids claims is inappropriate at this time because the tabloid does not qualify as a reliable source and current reports in more reputable news sources do not confirm the claims, only reporting the fact the tabloid has published claims about Edward's actions. The same policy that prevents inclusion of the accusations within the article also prevent details from being included on this talk page.

If the mainstream media picks up the story and verifies the claims of the story, not just reporting that the tabloid has made certain claims, then inclusion of this accusations will be appropriate. --Allen3 ^talk 16:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a list on Wikipedia of which mainstream media outlets are considered 'reliable' and which media outlets are considered 'tabloid', or is it up to individual users interpretations? Is USA Today 'tabloid'? Is the Drudge Report 'reliable' or 'tabloid' in its individual articles? Is Wikipedai 'tabloid' or 'reliable'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.227.99 (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no list of good (nor bad?) sources. However, while the Enquirer's use of anonymous, and paid sources diminishes their wiki-reliability, we should take into account that there is actual first hand reporting on this story. The Enquirer may be "tabloid trash" but they are not always wrong - sometimes they have broken real news stories. On the other hand it is wikipedia policy that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, in particular there should be more than one primary source. So everyone that is trying to add this material should hold off for a while: this "breaking story" is not fully "broken", and as such doesn't belong in an encyclopedia (yet). DiggyG (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia, not a news outlet. WP:BLP clearly and unequivocably states:

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".

— WP:BLP

Considering that these accusations: (1a) are from a tabloid source that (1b) pays it sources and (1c) often makes false claims; (2) are extraordinary in nature; (3) do not list the accuser; and (4) most definitely does irreparable harm to a politician's career, they are absolutely inappropriate for Wikipedia anywhere... talk pages, articles, or anywhere else. I'm not usually a fan of trimming information via WP:BLP, but this is exactly the type of situation WP:BLP guarantees protection against. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to point (2): The claim is not "extaordinary. It is the kind of claim made often, and often proven true. In response to points (1b) and (3): there is no "accuser," but there are named witnesses; the only "paid" sources used by the National Enquiere in this case are the paper's own reporters; there are no anonymous sources.

Furthermore, as of tonight, the story is being carried by the Los Angeles Times, Independent (UK), Times (of London, UK), Hartford (CT) Courant, FOXNEws, Philadelphia Inquirer, New York Magazine, etc. Here is an important point about the story, from the Hartford Courant coverage:

"Edwards later issued a brief statement criticizing the tabloids. He didn't address the love child story, though it was the right time to deny it if it isn't true. Whether it's true or not, his behavior was bizarre for a potential attorney general."

Now, is THAT notable? I think so. But if not, at what point -- after how many "reliable" papers take up the story? -- will Wikipedia deem it notable?

64.142.90.33 (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This policy only seems to be applied when political figures are involved. For example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_rod in which rumors of an affair between Alex Rodriguez and Madonna are cited based solely on an article in Us Weekly, despite having been denied by both sides. 198.68.199.218 (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the sources of his accusations are it's a fact that these "rumors" are being reported. There's many articles on celebrities with countless of these rumors from tabloids. I can't believe Wikipedia has chosen this despite the fact that a non-tabloid organization (FoxNews) interviewed someone with the exact same confirmation as per National Enquirer. Another example of politics talk!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.122.220 (talk) 05:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If her were a Republican, I GUARANTEE this would not be edited by the Wikipedia staff. And that is why people are so up in arms about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.89.210.50 (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Will the page please be updated to reflect other reporters could not confirm the accusations and doubted the veracity of the reports? e.g. From an interview with the LA Times blog editor (http://bloggasm.com/la-times-blog-editor-tony-pierce-responds-to-criticism-about-national-enquirer-story): "I asked Pierce if the metro desk had the chance to follow up on the story, and if so, would he send out another post allowing his bloggers to write about it. He said that to his knowledge the LA Times reporters hadn’t found any additional information and expressed some skepticism of the National Enquirer story’s authenticity." Annelise1012 (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is also important to note on his page that the alleged mother has named a father, and that man, Andrew Young, has also stated that he is the father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tradina (talk • contribs) 19:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Now there is proof.

So, when do all of you who claimed the National Enquirer's story about JE was a lie apologize? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.27.9.20 (talk • contribs) 16:10, July 25, 2008 (UTC)

If you read what has been said, no one has said that the Enquirer story is a lie only that the Enquirer does not qualify as a reliable source and that adding the claims of the story at this time is a violation of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. Do you have any reliable sources to substantiate the claims made by the national Enquirer? --Allen3 ^talk 16:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that the NE is not a Reliable Source, the notability of what the NE is saying has been picked up by several other Reliable Sources like the Washington Post, Slate and the LA Times. And it would seem that now we have confirmation of the details, in part, from Fox News [1]. CENSEI (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that the Beverly Hilton security guard that found him cowering in a basement bathroom is a pretty reliable source. I imagine the video and/or pictures will be forthcoming. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,391426,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.143.146.229 (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence that he was in the hotel avoiding tabloid reporters, possibly but not evidence of anything else. Please sign your posts by appending four tildes -- the curly character on the top left hand corner of your keyboard. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 17:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a good source to me. Also see this article in Slate. It definitely seems appropriate to cover the allegations as just that -- notable allegations. Obviously the article should not present the allegations as true just because the NE says so. PubliusFL (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should wait to put this in. Wikipedia is not news. Let's wait and see if this story has any long term importance. There really isn't a need to cover every single controversy as they crop up for major figures like Edwards all the time. --Leivick (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That’s not the standard as it is applied to other biographies. CENSEI (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is. Find an article that relies on a non-reliable source (say, the National Enqurier) as its only source and it should be removed. Be patient! If this is covered in the mainstream press extensively (not just coverage about the NE article but actual confirmation), it will be included. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To PubliusFL: To include allegations relying on only the National Enqurier with evidence from Fox that he was at the hotel (which confirms nothing else) on such an obvious red flag raising item such as this requires "extraordinary sources". Please read all the above comments re: biographies of living people and in fact read that policy itself to hone up on the criteria for inclusion. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

A number of other reliable sources have weighed in on this, and it is them that makes it notable, not the NE. CENSEI (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Allen3 already addressed your concerns here. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. Like WP:BLP says, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Also, in response to Mr. Leivick, this story has been around (and covered by the mainstream press) for the better part of a year now. Here is an ABC News/AP article from last October. I wouldn't have supported covering it during the initial flurry of stories last year, for the same reason Mr. Leivick urges, but it now appears that this story has some staying power. PubliusFL (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. And when it is "well-documented" by reliable published sources (National Enquirer is not an RS so currently we have a single source that provides evidence that he was at the hotel), then it is appropriate for inclusion. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This certainly raises WP:BLP violation issues - there is only vague tabloid speculation, including a specific refutation of the claim by a source other than Edwards; indeed the Slate piece is actually saying that this story has not received reliable source coverage. So the only thing we have confirmed in a somewhat acceptable (although clearly biased) source is that a Presidential candidate was avoiding tabloid reporters. To include that in this general biography of a person's whole life and career would raise serious undue weight issues as it is hardly even newsworthy, let alone encyclopedic. This is a wait and see. Tvoz/talk 18:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I agree with waiting a few days. I have no doubt the story will play out further in the media, let's wait for a little stability and some really good sources before including. Kelly ^hi! 19:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, we have a notoriously unreliable source making an extraordinary claim. The one security guard who "confirms" the story admits he did not recognize the Senator until later, coupled with the National Enquirer's reputation for paying for stories, is questionable. The Slate.com story, as others note, points out that this is not reliably sourced. FoxNews.com, bias in hand, has only pointed out the claim made by the Enquirer. As Kelly says, this needs some excellent sourcing and stability before we can consider adding it to a BLP. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that a gaggle of reporters was chasing a guy who kind of looks like Edwards, but wasn't Edwards? Why would anyone who isn't a politics junkie be expected to instantly recognize Edwards? The guard's story is good enough. (Not good enough to add this thing to the article mind you, but good enough to call it reliable when the time comes to add this whole story to the article.) Also, you're going to have to use the Enquirer as a source if/when they publish photos or video and other news people pick up on the story. They are not inherently unreliable. DiggyG (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't believe anyone is suggesting that. It is true that some of the stories the NE prints turn out to be accurate and, in fact, break a story that makes national news. For instance, it broke the Rush Limbaugh prescription drug story. Note on that page that though NE was credited with breaking the story, it is not used as one of the sources. Why? Because by Wikipedia's standards, it is not a reliable source which requires the outlet to have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, neither of which the NE has. If this gets national coverage in mainstream media known for fact checking, then those news outlets will be used as the cited sources if at all -- not NE. ∴ Therefore | talk 03:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Reliability depends at least in part on the quality of the reporting. The Enquirer's accuracy, public reputation notwithstanding, is fairly good - the problem with citing them on wikipedia, at least from my point of view, is that they don't name their sources, and thus their stories are not usually verifiable. In this case they have first hand, eyewitness reporting. They are, and will be the primary source for this story, even after other news orgs pick up on it (if it turns out to be true...) because their reporters are part of the story. DiggyG (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop playing games. There are now 1000 google news hits for the story. We do not judge whether the allegation are reliable, only if they are notable. The allegations are in the LAT the NYT the WP FOX ABC AP Reuters. Notable. Now move on. Bonobonobo (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants to write up a proposed addition to the article and post it to the talk page here, I think that would be OK. Posting straight to the article would probably end up being reverted, it's probably best to get consensus on the addition here first. Kelly ^hi! 12:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It may be better to first post links to the sources you want to use and then as a community we could comment on their usefulness. Although the number of Google news hits may provide an extremely rough if crude indication of notability, the important thing is how many reliable sources report on the circumstances themselves. Metanews, in other words, news reports about the news reports (or lack thereof), are not reporting/confirming/investigating the facts of the story itself. In other words, at this point, the story has been reported by the National Enquirer which is not a reliable source. Fox News, a reliable source, confirms only one element of the story -- Edwards was at the hotel. Should we add in a section, "Edwards seen at hotel". Not newsworthy. Until the other elements of the story are independently confirmed, the story has no encyclopedic value. If this story has legs, it will eventually be covered.

To Bonobonobo: I can understand your frustration -- you are anxious to have this added. However, this isn't an issue of playing games. Wikipedia should and does take seriously the policies that govern biographies of living persons for both legal and ethical reasons. That is on top of other policies such as reliable sources and neutral point of view. I invite you to read up on those policies, post any questions you may have here (or at their pages). ∴ Therefore | talk 14:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not anxious to have this added, I couldn't give a rats ass. I came here to read it and it wasn't here. It is being censored by you and others and I hate censorship, though I fully support wikipedia policies. Stop with the wikilawyreing bullshit and don't patronize me. Bonobonobo (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well then there is that, then. Good to hear you support Wikipedia polices (and understand them). ∴ Therefore | talk 14:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect two things are going on with the mainstream media in their coverage on this issue. One is that like it or not John Edwards just isn't relevant right now. That might change since he is a possible VP candidate and rumored to be part of an Obama cabinet. Until that happens he's still yesterdays news. The other thing going on is how the mainstream media fell hook line and sinker for a story on McCain having an affair a few months back. Then you read the story and shook your head because there was not one shred of evidence. They got burned on that one because McCain was extremely relevant and no one wanted to be last to report it. With Edwards not being relevant they're going to take their time on this one. Remember the scandal last year with Senator Craig? The newspaper in Boise had heard allegations for years about his behavior, but that's all they were, allegations. They weren't going to damage their reputation by publishing them when there wasn't one shred of proof. After the Senator got arrested for doing what was alledged all these years then suddenly these claims are way more credible. There may be nothing to this but then again it does kind of look like Principal Skinner trying to hide the fact his kitchen is on fire and burning down the house. When these allegations have firm solid legs to stand on I'm confident it will be included. Until then guys be patient this isn't a liberal conspiracy to protect his good name. If it was this whole thread would have been removed. I'm a conservative myself and agree with the desicions not to include this information at this time. Because I'm conservative I want more proof then he didn't want to talk to reporters. I was ambushed by the media once and had the camera pushed right up into my face to where I almost couldn't move. They intentionally do it to see if you'll self destruct. I smiled the whole time and it never made the news. I was a nobody and didn't implode, boring. Skywayman (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

[personal attacks/trolling removed] (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Very bitter. Please read up on how to make reasoned critiques, show some common courtesy and not be a dick. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 23:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

[personal attacks/trolling removed] 128.118.230.17 (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There, see? Now, was that so hard? ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 23:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You are a condescending jerk. Get over yourself. I also like how any comments the leftists mods dont like get branded "personal attacks" and deleted. I consider this comment to be a statement of fact. Your snide and sarcastic comments are disgusting, but all this is just a microcosm of the leftist control of wikipedia. Good as a source for computer games and old sit-coms, useless for real news because leftists control content. Sign this yourself, smartass.

Wow. I feel like a new person. I'll go out and..uh.. plant some trees or something. 128.118.230.17 (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, nice use of the vertexes of a triangle and your name, I wonder how many people get that. 128.118.230.17 (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice description of the symbol (really) -- never viewed it that way. Thanks. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 23:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I agree that Fox News should be considered a reliable source (as I have said previously) and is used accordingly in Wikipedia repeatedly. Even though good arguments can be made that there is frequently bleed-through from the editorial into the news divisions in all news organizations (Fox, NYT, WSJ, WP, etc.), most of the outlets can be used reliably. Fox's confirmation of Edwards presence of the hotel is not enough. If and when Fox or other outlets confirm the other elements of the National Enquirer story, then this item will be added. I don't yet see any bias here except for the bias to keep Wikipedia standards. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 23:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As I linked below (and here), The Sunday Times is now reporting on the story, which is one of the biggest names among the UK papers. Google News also seems to point to an article in the Independent (here) but for the moment the link isn't working for me. Joshdboz (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I copied your comment below to create a new section at the end and replied there too. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 00:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Early life, education, and family correction

Last sentence, third paragraph repeats what was already said earlier in the paragraph about Wade's essay. Established member please correct.--Bednarluck (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that - I have fixed it. Tvoz/talk 18:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hotel confrontation confirmed by Fox News

So, how long are the liberals going to keep us from putting this on Edward's Wikipedia page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.24.244 (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

How long will the whatevers going to post comments to the talk page without reading what was said previously? ∴ Therefore | talk 04:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I did read it; you said the National Enquirer is not a good source (despite the fact NO college or high school in America will allow Wikipedia to be used as a source) unless it pertains to Rush Limbaugh or OJ Simpson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.24.244 (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(personal attack removed) ∴ Therefore | talk 13:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wanted to add, Wikipedia will not allow Wikipedia to be used as a source either. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 21:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Worth noting that the London based Times is now running a full article on the story. [2] Joshdboz (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that plenty of foreign media are tackling this story and Fox News has confirmed this story from the security guard, I move that this incident be included in the article. It is no longer tabloid-based only, the mainstream media (in Europe) has taken off with it. Wikipedia should at least include that.

It seems rather protectionist not to include it now that ten major sources have reported the story. Are we to pretend it didn't happen, or that it was never reported that it happened?

The Sunday Times report

(copied from above)

As I linked below (and here), The Sunday Times is now reporting on the story, which is one of the biggest names among the UK papers. Google News also seems to point to an article in the Independent (here) but for the moment the link isn't working for me. Joshdboz (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting article. If this story develops, it includes some interesting angles such as the possible political reasons for the story's timing, that may be good for background. It is, though, about the National Enquirer article and the lack of reporting on the story in the MSM; there isn't any independent reporting. It doesn't corroborate the story as Fox News did to one element, it repeats it. Having a reliable source report on an unreliable source's story (as defined by Wikipedia), doesn't make it reliable unless they corroborate it. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 00:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we include it in the main article since Fox News has reported a new development on it? And I have read the above discussion, so please do not refer me there. Ethereal (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Fox confirmed that Edwards was at the hotel. Should we add in a section that says, "Edwards found at hotel avoiding tabloid reporters"? That is all that has been corroborated. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 03:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You're ignoring the contents of the Fox article. Not only was he at the hotel, but he was described by the guard as "shaken and ashen-faced" as well how he escorted John Edwards out without recognising him at first. Please also note that Fox's Hannity and Colmes ran a report on the story. This is from the Independent.Ethereal (talk) 04:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Not only does this Sunday Times article demonstrate the far reaching international coverage this allagation is receiving, but demonstrates that the controversy deserves a separate article. It's now much more than an allegation of an affair and fathering a child, but a documented media silence as reported by The Hill, like the Los Angeles Times memo strictly forbidding coverage of this story, the reported silence of the New York Times, the Newsweek's reporting on the hiring of Hunter and her salary and the Huffington Post's speculation as to what happened to Hunter's videos. All of this is outside the National Enquirer's "Hotel encounter" report. --Oakshade (talk) 05:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

How is any of that relevant to a biography of an individual that is supposed to be about his whole life and career? This speculation, fueled by two unreliable sources, Enquirer and Drudge, has nothing behind it other than avoiding tabloids and another person refuting the central salacious speculation, and that makes this a classic BLP violation, as well as being inconsequential to the man's life and career - at least so far. Things can change, and if they do it could be appropriate to add something reliably sourced somewhere on WIkipedia, but to get it in this article it would have to have had some kind of impact on his life. And a note to the IP editor who insists on posting the salacious speculation here on Talk - it will be removed each time, so why don't you stop doing it? We take BLP seriously here - and that goes for talk pages as well as articles. Tvoz/talk 05:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the international reliable press devotes major coverage to a story that was "fueled" or instigated by the allegations by the NE and Drudge, but that is now has major international secondary coverage of the story that is beyond the original National Enquirer report. As for the story being in this biography as opposed to its own article, The Times now speculates that this story has eliminated Edwards as a VP candidate, a topic that actually is currently in this article and will need amending. --Oakshade (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, before I'm accused of having some kind of right-wing bent, I actually supported Edwards in his most recent presidential campaign and contributed to it financially.--Oakshade (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Their speculation about the VP is hardly reliable sourcing - unless they have a crystal ball. And I agree with Therefore's points above. Let the story - if there is one - develop. We're not Wikinews - we don't rush to put anything into bios the moment it is reported - we try to get some perspective and see if the matter is truly notable for a biography. If it is, this will be obvious by the extent of third party reporting that goes beyond just repeating what one unreliable source claims. As for personal political alliances - one hopes that individuals' personal politics play no role in their editing here. I am not saying that you are doing this, but if I had a dime for every time someone supported or opposed an edit on the political articles while insisting that their own politics would suggest that they take a different position, I'd be rich. Let's please stick to the facts and the quality of the sourcing and the relevant weight of a matter and not get into motivation of editors - on any side of the issue. Tvoz/talk 06:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. Despite this story being instigated by the non-reliable source's reporting of the alleged affair, we can't get around the fact that the allegation in itself is a story now covered by very reliable sources, internationally no less, and that the specifics are now beyond the non-reliable source's reporting of the "hotel incident." And The Times, one of the most respected newspapers in history, speculating on the VP implications is reliable sourcing. --Oakshade (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

And as we've been discussing the VP implications here, the Irish Independent just published a story called "VP dreams end in Rielle nightmare" and the British The Independent just published "Love child and mistress claims hit Edwards" with even more speculation on the VP implications for Edwards. --Oakshade (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

All based only on the same specious original "story". (As for the Sunday Times being one of the "most respected newspapers in history", I believe that reputation is based on their previous ownership, and their current state would not likely earn them that acclaim. Do read that article and show me where there is any reliable reporting - it is the reporter's opinion, and a rather biased statement of it at that. This is a digression however.) Tvoz/talk 06:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter that the original "story" came from the un-reliable source, but that it's now a major international story reported by extremely reliable sources (by the way, one Wikipedia editor's political opinion on the ownership of The Times does not any manner change the reliability of the source. The Independent, not owned by Rupert Murdoch, is also one of the most respected news outlets in history with a long reputation of non-biasness) The allegation, based on an original non-reliable source or not, is now a major factor in the political life of this person and a major story in itself.--Oakshade (talk) 07:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. These are major international newspapers with fact-checking departments and reputations to uphold. Speculating about what the reporter should or shouldn't have done in an effort to discredit the stories is original research in and of itself, even if the speculator is an expert in journalistic processes (which I doubt any of us are). Anyways, I'm sure we can compromise by agreeing to wait until this is reported in one of the major American newspapers, some of who've said they are waiting for further information before publishing anything on this (like the WashPost). - Merzbow (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Agreed with Merzbow's comments. Agreed that the ownership isn't an issue -- The London Times, by Wikipedia's standards, is a reliable source as is The Independent as is Fox News. This issue remains: both stories are about the National Enquirer piece (a non-reliable source) and how other commentators have asked why there is (so far) no U.S. coverage. Neither of these have investigated further than that as Fox News has -- they are metanews, news about the news. A reliable source saying that an unreliable source said so-and-so, doesn't verify so-and-so unless they corroborate it. The Times article may be a good source in an article criticizing the U.S. mainstream media but it isn't directly relevant to Edwards' biography. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 18:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I only mentioned the Times' ownership parenthetically, in response to the claim that it is one of the most respected newspapers in history - that reputation was based on the "old" Times. And as I said, my comment was a digression that I probably shouldn't have included as it deflects from the point which is that that piece was based solely on the Enquirer and is, as Therefore says, "meta-news" and not appropriate to Edwards' biography. Tvoz/talk 19:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This is hilarious —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.171.70.13 (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Story Notable and Newsworthy, So Run It

This story has been in the news for several days now -- in addition to the earlier exposure last year -- and as of today it is being commented on by many "reliable source" newspapers, which are also reporting that the Los Angeles Times, which had previously spiked the story, is now running it -- itself a notable event.

So why is Wikipedia burying the story? It is notable. It is being reported by many news sources. Is this a deliberate cover-up ... or is it a sincere attempt to safeguard the legitimacy of Wikipedia by ignoring the story due to a misunderstanding of why The National Enquirer is generally considered "not a reliable source."

If the latter, let me clarify for those who are knee-jerk reacting to the "bad" reputation of the National Enquirer: The National Enquirer's reliability problem rests upon their use of anonymous sources -- but anonymous sources are nowhere to be found in this particular story, for the simple reason that the National Enquirer's own reporters and a hotel security guard (who has gone on record) are the witnesses to the event, and they are fully named in the story and in subsequent stories. Furthermore, there is now news of the reporters filing an "incident report" with the police, due to the way security was handled during their attempts to interview Mr. Edwards, which moves things to a new level of notability.

Note this headline from FOXNews: "Guard Confirms Late-Night Hotel Encounter..." -- and internal to that article, please find this: "Beverly Hills Police Sgt. Michael Publicker, meanwhile, confirmed Friday that an incident report was filed with the department by two of the tabloid's reporters." So the story has moved beyond the boundaries of "tabloid only" reportage, and is now embedded in stories published by other, more reiable, media outets, and an account of the incident is also on file with the Beverly Hills Police Department.

So run the story already.

64.142.90.33 (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this time without libelous details. The point is, 64, that we are not a newspaper - we don't "run" stories. We are an encyclopedia, and we are here editing a biography about a person who has had a whole life and career - he was born, went to school, was a lawyer, a Senator, a Presidential candidate a couple of times, a VP nominee, he's done other work - that's what this article is about. We're supposed to weigh the relative importance of the dozens of news items - when they are even legitimate news items which I personally do not think this one is as of now - and determine if it belongs in the article and if including it doesn't give too much weight to it in the context of his life. As has been said several times, it is possible that at some point this so-called story will become a real story, and it is possible that it will be well-sourced, and it is possible that it will have an impact on his life and/or career such that it belongs here or in some other article in the encyclopedia. But it is not at that threshold now. There is no "story" to "run". So please consider what other experienced editors are saying about Wikipedia policy, and if you have responses to the arguments, make them. Repeating that we should "run the story" is really missing what we're about here. Tvoz/talk 06:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't patronize me, Tvov. I have edited here for years, under both my name and from an IP address. One reason i edit from an IP address is that my doing so tends to bring out the haughty condescension in certain "experienced editors" to an amusing degree. First you left banning threats at my IP address talk page, and now you lecture me on word usage: "run the story" versus ... what? "write about the story." Sorry my history as a journalist is showing, but your incivility is showing too.

Also, more to the point, you are living in a fantasy world if you think that "it is possible at some point" that this story "will have an impact on his life and/or career such that it belongs here." It is having that impact right now!

The greatest impact on his career right now is that newspapers are reporting that he has not denied the primary story.

The second-greatest impact on his career right now is that several reputable newpapers have reported that the way he handled the hotel incident may serve to remove him from consideration as Barack Obama's presidential running mate -- and not because of the primary allegations, but because he ran and hid in a bathroom in the middle of the night, as reported by the eyewitness security guard, which has struck even those who have spiked the original story as notable in that it was unexpectedly cowardly or undignified.

64.142.90.33 (talk) 07:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The names of the National Enquirer reporters who broke the "hotel encounter" portion of the story are, for the record, Alan Butterfield and Alexander Hitchen. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-National Enquirer published works on the alleged affair and political implications thus far

(Editors should add more as they come.)

• Guy Adams (July 27, 2008). "Love child and mistress claims hit Edwards". The Independent. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Orla Healy (July 27, 2008). "VP dreams end in Rielle nightmare". Irish Independent. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Sarah Baxter (July 27, 2008). "Sleaze scuppers Democrat golden boy". The Times. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

--Oakshade (talk) 07:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

From the COurant: "Kevin Rennie is a lawyer and a former Republican state legislator." That is an opinion piece, not an objective news item, not based on an iota of reporting. The others are all based only on the Enquirer. Tvoz/talk 07:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point and I'll erase it. But that the subject in itself is being published by the larges newspaper in Connecticut, shows how notable the alleged affair is, based on an originally non-reliably sourced story or not.--Oakshade (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You guys can't keep the lid on this much longer. It's all over the internet now and Edwards is obviously cooked politically. If it was untrue he would have said so by now and would be issuing writs. Obviously it is true, and only MSM distaste for the Enquirer and sympathy for Elizabeth Edwards is keeping it out of the MSM. That won't last much longer. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Not trying to keep the lid on anything. Waiting for reliable reporting and to see if it has the impact that some speculate it will have. We are not supposed to be reporting speculation. Tvoz/talk 07:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's already having an impact: try this http://thehill.com/byron-york/the-democratic-ticket-and-the-john-edwards-affair-2008-07-23.html Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to put the citation immediately above into proper cite-format:

• Byron York (July 23, 2008). "The Democratic ticket and the John Edwards affair". The Hill. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

64.142.90.33 (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Mickey Kaus asks: "Will this be the first presidential-contender level scandal to occur completely in the undernews, without ever being reported in the cautious, respectable MSM? That's always seemed an interesting theoretical possibility--a prominent politician just disappears from the scene, after blogs and tabloids dig up dirt on him, but nobody who relies on the Times, Post, network news or Mark Halperin has the faintest idea why." Evidently Wikipedia has joined the MSM :) Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

How many people do you suppose have looked up Rielle Hunter on Wikipedia so far? I would guess at least a million. Yet the very fact of her existence is being actively suppressed by Wikipedia admins. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Fox News (unsigned) (July 25, 2008). "Guard Confirms Late-Night Hotel Encounter Between Ex-Sen. John Edwards, Tabloid Reporters". FOXNews. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

And, yes, Intelligent Mr. Toad -- the reason i came to this page was because after reading the news tonight, i wanted to learn more about Rielle Hunter and i chose Wikipedia as my source -- only to find her "not notable" enough to rate an article -- and so i picked the John Edwards article as my second choice and saw nothing there on the story, so as a third choice, i hit the talk page to find out what was going on, and, of course, found this all-too-typical wiki-fracas in progress. Thanks for mentioning the notability of the other party. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 07:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Gregg Herrington, Columbian staff writer (July 25, 2008). "VP guessing game is heating up". [Clark County, WA] Columbian. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) "...absent proof the story is false, Edwards is likely out of the VP game."

64.142.90.33 (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Phil Valentine, " author and syndicated radio talk show host with Westwood One" (July 27, 2008). "Media decisions over gossip vs. news get tangled in politics". The Tennesseean. {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) "Speaking of Lewinsky, remember, it was the National Enquirer that broke that scandal, too. [...] It was also the Enquirer that broke the story of Jesse Jackson's love child. [...] Whatever the Edwards story is or isn't, it's news. That much is undeniable."

64.142.90.33 (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Kevin Rennie (July 27, 2008). "A Star Turn For Elizabeth Edwards". Hartford Courant. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Yes, Tvoz, i understand that you previously noted that Kevin Rennie is a former Republican office holder and that this is an opinion piece, but i am reinstating it in our list because i don't like the way you have moved the goalposts. This section is titled "Non-National Enquirer published works" and not "investigative reportage." We are looking at the impact this story has had on the career of Mr. Edwards. We are assessing whether the news coverage to date indicates a serious impact on his career. Our debate with you is not about sourcing or authorship per se, but about whether there has been a notable impact on his career. Hence Kevin Rennie's piece should be included in the list of "Non-National Enquirer published works." 64.142.90.33 (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

How about the London Times? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4406814.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.99.228 (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That is addressed at Talk:John Edwards#The Sunday Times report. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 17:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that by this point, the several pages of discussion above make this almost by definition notable. Also, this talk page has been cited in an article here: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/07/28/wikipedia-disallows-any-mention-alleged-john-edwards-scandal. Rightly or wrongly on the merits of this article or even on the truth or otherwise of the John Edwards allegations, even as a media storm, this may require a separate article regarding the allegations as notable in that the internet is ablaze with rumor? Richmond ed (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a novel suggestion -- talk page chatter = notability. You may want to go the talk page of WP:V and see if you can get that added. The issue of internet angst is addressed exhaustively below. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 19:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Dan Barkin: Charlotte News & Observer

Mr. Edwards is from North Carolina. These quotes from Dan Barkin of the Charlotte, NC News and Observer can be found in several places on the web, both in blogs and newspapers:

"I can tell you that we're looking into it [the allegation]," says Dan Barkin, senior editor at the Charlotte News & Observer. [...] "I don't know how much I can say beyond that. It's something we're looking at and trying to determine what's there." [...] "[Edwards] remains a very newsworthy guy because of who he's been in this state and where we are. That's not rocket science to figure that out."

So we may have some breaking news ere long. Or not :-) 64.142.90.33 (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no "Charlotte News & Observer." The Charlotte paper is the Charlotte Observer; The News & Observer is based in Raleigh. 75.181.12.0 (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, and when we have "breaking news" that substantially corroborates the story, then it will be a candidate for including it in the Edwards' bio. As for all of the metanews items (news items about the news coverage), these are not candidates for the Edward's bio -- instead, you may want to add them into articles relating to mass media since they are, in fact, about that subject and not Edwards. To add this extraordinary claim requires extraordinary sources. Druge, National Enquirer are not extraordinary. This isn't exactly rocket science either. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 13:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, why is Drudge not a reliable source? He has broken so many news stories that it's almost like he does the MSM's job for them. Wait, is the only reason he's not reliable because he usually breaks stories that are not flattering to the left-wing political spectrum? NE I can understand, it's be like using "The Star" as a source, but Drudge...come on, he's as relaible a source as Media Matters for America or The Daily Kos, BOTH of which have been used as "reliable sources". 72.72.203.224 (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Media Matters and Daily Kos (NEITHER) are not reliable sources. We don't use that term informally, as in, do some consider their information reliable? Read up at what are reliable sources at Wikipedia. They are mainstream media with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Drudge, Media Matters, Kos are not mainstream. Blogs are never used in biographies of living people regardless. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 15:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that Drudge has broken stories -- i.e., stories that made it into the MSM, just as the National Enquirer has (and Kos and Media Matters). And until this story is investigated (vs. commented upon) and corroborated in the MSM, it has no business here. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 16:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so Fox News and The London Times have both confirmed that Edwards was in a hotel room with the woman, he hid in a bathroom for 15 minutes, he asked a security guard what people were saying outside the bathroom, and he looked like he had seen a ghost. We know that the same man had driven both Edwards and the other woman to the hotel. It has been discussed on talk radio, on cable news, and it has gotten international coverage. Why is there not an article on this yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.24.244 (talk • contribs) 11:15, July 27, 2008

Well, that is not entirely accurate:

• The London Times did not confirm anything, it repeated what was reported.
• We don't "know" anything about the man driving Edwards/women -- to date (and please correct me) that has only appeared in the National Enqurier article. Knowing = verifiable from a reliable source, on Wikipedia.
• You are correct that Fox News confirmed those elements of the story. So, you want a section titled, "Edwards avoids tabloid reporters"?
• Talk radio isn't relevant here (this isn't a blog). Where on cable news (vs. cable commentators)? The international coverage has been about the National Enquirer article not corroboration of the facts (as Fox has done). That a reliable source says that an unreliable source says something, doesn't make that something verified.

∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 18:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

So, if on Monday all the MSM outlets start talking about this and only cite National Enquirer, Wikipedia still wouldn't let the story appear on the website? And if the National Enquirer posted video and photos of the encounter, they still wouldn't do anything? Sounds a little biased to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowbellallen (talk • contribs) 11:58, July 27, 2008

First, please sign your comments. You do this by typing in four tildes (the curly character in the top left corner of your keyboard) like so: ~~~~ If and when MSM outlets corroborate the elements of the NE story, then they will report on them. If the National Enquirer has absolute proof, then it won't be reported here. NE isn't a reliable source. Period. However, if we accept your premise (they have absolute proof), then I guarantee as a matter of course that the MSM will corroborate and hence it will be included. The bias here is against the National Enqurier, you are correct. This isn't a political bias as you may be implying, this is a WP:BLP bias. Be patient. If all of this is factually reported in the MSM, then it will presumably make it here. The threshold hasn't yet been met. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 19:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for new paragraph

<undent> Therefore, with all respect, I think the dyke is crumbling around your finger. It's time to put together a paragraph on the controversy. Kelly ^hi! 19:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for thinking that I'm the dyke protector. I'm no gatekeeper, I'm here to discuss the merits of the addition. You need to justify its inclusion particularly for controversial additions to WP:BLP articles. So, let me suggest a title for this new addition for which the verified information is flooding in: "Edwards ducks tabloid reporters". OK, suggest the meat of it. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 19:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look at my other comment above, you'll see that I'm not some Edwards attacker, I've advocated holding inclusion until more info was forthcoming. But it's pretty obvious that the controversy has legs now. It would be dumb to mention "Edwards ducks reporters" without some mention of what the allegations are about. I think it's now appropriate to include a paragraph that states something along the lines of "On such-and-such a date, The National Enquirer reported that Edwards had fathered a child with (name of woman) (details here). Edwards denied the allegations (include details - has he really denied it, or just denounced the source? I'm not sure. That's not really clear from what I've seen.) The allegations made nationwide news (include details and sources here)." Kelly ^hi! 19:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I promise you that I'm not questioning your good faith. I know you have been straightforward here. This article is governed by WP:BLP:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

You want to include the "titillating claim" that Edwards has a mistress. Your proof? Well, that the National Enquirer said so. You argue that because reliable sources said that National Enquirer said so, that then becomes justification to say so here. But it isn't.

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. ... An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".

I guarantee that you will not find consensus here to include such an extraordinary claim simply because reliable sources have said that a disreputable source said it was so. Read up on the inclusion test:

1. Is the information already widely known? If it has appeared in numerous mainstream reliable sources over an extended period of time, then it is probably suitable to be included in the article. Answer: No.
2. Is the information definitive and factual? No.

All we have right now is one reliable source (Fox News) that confirms an element of the story -- he ducked tabloid reporters. The two recently published Great Britain stories are about the National Enquirer stories and are not confirming it. They are actually stories on why the MSM has not covered it. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 19:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

We do have to let this play out. In the end, it's better to have solid proof of something rather than rushing to include something tha will be taken out later. It's probably only going to be a few more days of waiting, be patient. All of you citing a liberal bias on Wikipedia, I feel where you're coming from, I really do. I've had run ins with some very thinly veiled NPOV claims from Admins like /Blaxthos...and I've been blocked for taking him to task for his OWN POV. However, it's better to wait on something likes this and get solid proof that CAN'T be taken away. It's inevitable it's going to come out, "Therefore" is just making sure this is done correctly. Notice he has not said the events don't belong on this page, just that allegations can't be posted (for legal reasons as much as anything else). As soon as the MSM does more investigating and reporting it'll pop up. 72.72.203.224 (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As Therefore and Tvoz have noted, this does not pass the inclusion test, it is not reliably sourced, and an endless supply of reliable sources simply pointing out claims made by one unreliable source does not rise above the core principles and explicit statements of WP:BLP. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing the non-reliably sourced allegation of the affair and "love child" and the now very-sourced controversy and the implications of the Vice Presidential spot. While the alleged affair is not confirmed by a reliable source and doesn't pass the inclusion test (not a policy, by they way) the controversy does. --Oakshade (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please show me the policy that justifies ignoring WP:BLP in favor of mentioning a controversy involving libelous unverified claims from an unreilable sourc against an active politician, especially given the core credo do no harm? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The allegation and controversy is confirmed by reliable sources. To write "Public figure x had an affair and fathered a child out of wedlock" would be a WP:BLP violation but "Unconfirmed allegations of an extra-marital affair has caused a great amount of controversy for public figure x" along with the now heavily available citations confirming that statement is not an WP:BLP violation.--Oakshade (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think "libelous" is very accurate. If there was any chance of libel, then the mainstream sources wouldn't be repeating/reporting on the claims. And, if it's libel, then where are the gag orders? No, this story has well and truly escaped those boundaries. Kelly ^hi! 22:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

To Oakshade: If it is determined (after a period of time) that these rumors took away any chance for the VP slot, it is possible that it can be phrased in a way that is neutral without revealing the details. But none of the sources establish that -- it's all speculation and, in my opinion, absent the proof that the rumors had substance, I doubt that a mainstream source could establish that as a fact. Otherwise, we can't backdoor in, contrary to the spirit of WP:BLP, these unproven allegations. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 22:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The controversy is already confirmed by numerous very reliable sources. That this is confirmed to ruin his chance for a VP slot is secondary to the already confirmed controversy. --Oakshade (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

To Kelley: We are not talking legality here, we are talking about doing no harm. You will not find consensus to add this, even if you do it in a backhanded sort of way. Go ahead and try but you will be reverted -- and I would concur since this is not yet supportable. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 22:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

To Kelley (again): You said: "Unconfirmed allegations of an extra-marital affair has caused a great amount of controversy." But it hasn't raised a "great amount" -- possibly you see a lot of controversy but so far its on partisan blogs (both left and right), talk radio, couple of cable commentary shows, supermarket checkout lines, some online commentators and a couple of U.K. newspapers. You're not there yet to make that characterization. It's not up to you determine if this is controversial or caused harm to Edwards, let's wait and see if the U.S. MSM takes this up. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 22:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(Therefore, I think you directed this to me). The Times, The Independent and the Irish Independent have confirmed the controversy and all are extremely respected reliable sources, not "right wing political blogs". There is no WP:MUST_BE_AMERICAN requirement or anything like it anywhere in Wikipedia:Reliable sources or any other Wikipedia policy or guideline. --Oakshade (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct that these are not "right wing political blogs" and I apologize if I implied otherwise. They are the well respected U.K. newspapers I was referring to. They did not "confirm" the controversy, they repeated it. If they had, in fact, confirmed it -- i.e., corroborated independently any of the National Enquirer allegations, then you would be right and hence they would be appropriate references for the article. As it is, they reported on the report and then reported on the fact that it isn't getting U.S. MSM coverage. The fact that extremely respected reliable sources said that a disreputable source said that Edwards had a mistress, that doesn't make it verifiable -- the Wikipedia requirement. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 22:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely there is no "must be an american" source -- find me a non-U.S. that corroborates the allegations, then it is a candidate. Most probably it will be a U.S. source, though. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 22:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Those articles most certainly confirm the controversy. You're confusing the unconfirmed allegations that Edwards had an affair and the current controversy that the allegations have caused. Nobody in their right mind would claim that these following articles are not confirmation that this is a controversy...

Guy Adams (July 27, 2008). "Love child and mistress claims hit Edwards". The Independent. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Orla Healy (July 27, 2008). "VP dreams end in Rielle nightmare". Irish Independent. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Sarah Baxter (July 27, 2008). "Sleaze scuppers Democrat golden boy". The Times. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) --Oakshade (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

But you're wrong. I'm not about to repeat what I just said. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 23:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

How exactly to these articles not confirm this controversy? Yes, we know they "repeated" the allegations of the affair, but these are extremely reliable sources confirming the controversy, even conceded by Blaxthos below.-Oakshade (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

A number of reliable sources have noted the accusations of the Enquirer, which does lend credibility to the idea that the controversy is notable. However, notability does not apply to article content; policy explicitly states that other policies should govern the inclusion (or exclusion) of material. The Wikipedia concept of doing no harm is sacrosanct; it is clearly stated in several policies, and has been consistently upheld by the Wikimedia Foundation as well as Jimbo himself. In a circumstance where the content of the controversy is unverifiable and unable to be included in Wikipedia per WP:BLP, including a mention of the controversy would erase the protections guaranteed by WP:BLP in the first place. Wikilawyering aside, this clearly isn't the intent or spirit of the policy. Since this is all still unfolding, the best course of action is to wait until the dust has settled, at which point the sourcing and attribution problems will be moot. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wish I had said it that well. :-) ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 23:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

An internationally reported controversy of the article topic by very reliable reliable sources "does not apply to article content"? The clause you linked applies to not giving undue weight to a specific aspect of article content, not somehow banning inclusion of a confirmed controversy. In fact, the full title of the clause is Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content which in fact supports including confirmed content. --Oakshade (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

We're arguing in circles. Go ahead and attempt to add the content. It will be reverted. Attempt edit warring. You will be blocked. Enough rounds of this, the article will be fully protected. Fact: You have not proven your case and you are not anywhere near gaining consensus for your point of view. Something of this magnitude requires consensus. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 23:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, I see you already have reverted 3 times in the last 24 hours and making hypocritical threats to other editors is not productive in helping improving this project. --Oakshade (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my response. Although not a threat but an unnecessarily rude way of explaining the process when I feel that further discussion won't be productive. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 00:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice work protecting this article from facts which are inconvenient or unflattering to the subject. Controversy? Nah, nothing to see here, madam. Please take note of the glowing POV we give to John Edwards and keep on walking, please. Just pretend it's not happening. Danger, Soviet style historical revisionism and protectionism at work, please wear hardhat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.168.77 (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! We try hard. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 23:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Threatening to editwar is not productive; neither is smart assery or rhetorical antagonism. The point, Oakshade, is that your idea that widespread reporting of the unverified accusations must mean it deserves mention does not override the core protections guaranteed by the spirit and the letter of WP:BLP. You will not find any policy or guideline that advocates hasty inclusion of still-developing unverified issues regarding a living person. There's no deadline, and (again) the best course of action is to wait until the issue has solidified; doubtless there will be numerous reliable sources at that point anyway. /Blaxthos ( t/c ) 23:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(removed sentence as I noticed "threatening to edit war" comment was directed at user:Therefore.) The point is, whether we like it or not, this is now a confirmed major controversy on this article topic. A major controversy is worthy of inclusion. Articles are always edited as information comes in. Look at the current 2008 Ahmedabad bombings article and you will see it's in constant flux as new information arises. --Oakshade (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I never threatened to edit war in any fashion. But am happy to accept the indictment of being smart-assey. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 23:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

My original reply was to everyone, and wasn't meant as much of an indictment as an attempt to de-escalate the debate. Sorry if feathers were ruffled. To Oakshade: Please link the guideline that establishes the criteria for "confirmed major controversy", and the policy that states "a major controversy is worthy of inclusion". It would also be great if you could show what policy gives that authority to override WP:BLP with a controversy regarding unverified facts. Until you deal with the specific points I've repeatedly raised, I don't see the utility in continuing this conversation. Rephrasing the "A major controversy is worthy of inclusion" argument doesn't show why it should trump the protection of WP:BLP. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no overriding of WP:BLP policy when WP:BLP policy is not being violated. To request an official WP policy for "a major controversy is worthy of inclusion" is quite silly Wikilawyering.--Oakshade (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP (the policy cited for exclusion of any mention of the controversy)

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

Example

"John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is it important to the article, and has it been published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out.

Example

A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source.

Exert great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses — or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them. Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.168.77 (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This is sad...

This is entirely sad. I came to Wikipedia to get the real scoop of what I've been hearing snippets of on the blogs and... NOTHING. Usually when I hear a rumor, I turn to Wikipedia to find that some resourceful and resilient editor has found verifiable documents or stories from reliable sources. When I heard the rumor that there was tape of Michelle Obama saying "whitey," I came here to find it was false. But this story? Nothing. Why is Wikipedia, burying this scandal as other news outlets? I think there are enough sources out there to stick this on biography of Edwards. If some editors from on high dictate that it shouldn't be on this page, will they kindly remove scandalous news from the pages of Republicans such as Larry Craig and Mark Foley?

I am sorely disappointed. From scanning the talk page, I think there are sufficient sources to at least write a paragraph on the thing.

TuckerResearch (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny you should mention Mark Foley. Blaxos, the editor Gatekeeper who is blocking any mention of the John Edwards scandal here, has maintained the Mark Foley article on Wikipedia, and apparently has no problem with the allegations thrown about there. More, Blaxos is the AUTHOR of the What Happened article, which perpetuates anti-Bush allegations and criticisms made by the president's former communications advisor. Let's NOT pretend that the blackout imposed on the John Edwards controversy is being made without a personal POV. Neutrality -- no, that's not what's happening here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.168.77 (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just so you are aware: Even the right-wing hacks at Conservapedia have not added anything about the National Enquirer story to their John Edwards entry. A glance at their talk page shows that even they don't believe the National Enquirer serves as a reliable source for their "encyclopedia". I was in favour of including it in the article here, but it turns out that no other sources apart from the National Enquirer has published anything on it. All Fox News did was corroborate a few elements of the National Enquirer story but not the main claim itself. Still that doesn't mean it's not newsworthy. We'll just have to wait until it is so. By the way, your point on Larry Craig and Foley is irrelevant. Both their stories were covered by the mainstream press, and not just a gossip tabloid. Ethereal (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not like the mainstream media hasn't noticed the allegations. Obviously they're all quite wary of acting in a defamatory manner, which is plenty indication that we should too (indeed, the point of WP:BLP). Undoubtedly they all have investigations going, and if there is fire instead of smoke you can rest assured they'll run it. Until then, we have no deadline; an encyclopedia's mission is not coverage of current events. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there was an incident involving Edwards at the LA hotel has been widely reported in the MSM, even if not in the US, and it has not been denied by Edwards. I don't see on what grounds references to this fact can be suppressed. I agree that the allegations concerning his personal life should not be mentioned, but I don't see how the suppression of the current paragraph can be seen as anything but political censorship. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Using words like "suppressed" and "censorship" - attacking editors who see things differently from you - is not going to further any attempts to reach consensus on this, so can we please try to stay away from accusations of bias here? The source articles that were cited even in the reduced material include BLP violations in both title and content, so they are being removed on sight as called for by BLP policy, and not subject to 3RR restriction. We do not have consensus for including anything about this story in the article - that's why we are discussing it here. The matter of avoiding tabloid reporters has not been shown to be particularly encyclopedic - and is not even seen as newsworthy by most reliable sources at the present time. This is a biography of an individual's entire life as outlined above, and despite the response that comment got, I stand by what I said there. Even with the blatant BLP violations removed the lack of reliable sourcing and lack of notability - failure to pass any inclusion test - as well as serious question of weight, and its pure speculation make the addition of this story inappropriate at the present time. It has been said repeatedly that we are not the news, there is no emergency requiring our premature addition of an unsubstantiated story or a peripheral, inconclusive incident - if the story actually breaks with reliable sourcing, and if it is deemed important enough to have had an impact on his life/career such that it is appropriate for his general biography, we'll likely achieve consensus to put it in. Meanwhile it is none of those and doesn't belong here. Tvoz/talk 07:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

For the record, I left a note at the BLP noticeboard about this article, just to make sure more eyes are available to assure things develop according to policy here (if they develop at all). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Tvoz/talk 07:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Alleged affair controversy

Issue: Should the reported controversy of John Edwards' alleged affair by mainstream reliable sources such as The Independent, The Times and the Irish Independent be included in this article?

• Per WP:BLP's WP:WELLKNOWN, "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."--Oakshade (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• As detailed above on this talk page, all of the sourcing listed here stems from one unreliable National Enquirer report. There has been absolutely no verifiable, reliable reporting on the allegation, and it is a BLP violation to include it as it is potentially libelous. This has nothing to do with whether the subject likes it - this is in direct violation of the policy quoted here. This matter has also been raised on the BLP noticeboard. (And, the sources used in the "deleted section" mentioned below include potentially libelous article titles and content and are therefore also BLP violations.) Tvoz/talk 07:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• In fact there has been several extremely reliable sources reporting on the allegation. There is absolutely nothing in the deleted section that hasn't been reported by reliable sources. But this is actually a Request for Comment to get community wide input, not a rehash of repeated arguments by the already-debating parties. --Oakshade (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

See my reply on your talk. Tvoz/talk 08:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think something that gets enough popular coverage should at least be mentioned in a Wiki article. Regarding verifiability, when all else fails you can always attribute each "fact" to its source, this avoids any accusation of libel. Tvoz, think of this as an opportunity to trash The Independent, The Times and the Irish Independent for not checking their sources. Find a WP:RS that explains what you've explained, that their reports stemmed from the National Enquirer report, and include it in the article. AzureFury (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've detailed why Wikipedia must wait to include this information above; I am not going to bother re-posting all of the reasons here again, especially when they were not addressed above. Responding editors should take the time to read the paragraphs above (especially here). In summary, there is no rush to inclusion, as we're not a news site and this issue (nor its impact) is fully clear. Mainstream media is shy about including this for good reason -- they have their own version of WP:BLP enforced by lawyers. There is nothing responsible in premature publication of tabloid fodder. Thanks.  ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Since when has the independent been a london newspaper?Geni 14:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• The National Enquirer, a disreputable tabloid source, alleged an exceptional claim about Edwards and when the Enqurier approached Edwards at a hotel, he avoided them. Fox News (a reliable source) provided evidence that in fact, when he was approached, he avoided the tabloid reporters but not the exceptional claim. Some U.K. newspapers reported that the Enqurier made these allegations (without corroborating them), pointed out that the mainstream media didn't pick them up and speculated that these (unproven) rumors were hurting his chances at getting the Vice President nomination.

Some editors argue that the controversy is now notable and that the implication for Edwards is noteworthy given that several U.K. reliable sources have speculated this may hurt his VP chances.

Other editors (including myself) argue that an exceptional claim by a disreputable source even when echoed (but neither confirmed nor said to be credible) by reliable sources shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The RfC author (Oakshade) agrees with this and refers to the claim elliptically in his suggested text as "rumors concerning Edward's personal life". The suggested text then focuses on the "pursuit" in the hotel and the quotation from a U.K. source that the U.S. MSM have been silent. Editors argue that Edwards' avoidance of tabloid reporters is not notable for an encyclopedia. Additionally, that the MSM have not covered this is irrelevant to his biography and in fact reinforces why this backdoor mention of these rumors are proscribed by WP:BLP.

Previous to this RfC, extensive discussion occurred on the talk page in an attempt to reach consensus and to lay out the criteria for if and when this material could be included. No consensus was reached, partially due to a breakdown of civility on my part which most probably caused the end of discussion (which Blaxthos successfully de-escalated), and partially due to the sense that debate was going in circles, and edit warring ensued. Comment is requested on this: Do the sources to date:

• the National Enquirer,
• Three U.K. sources echoing the allegations, stating that the U.S. MSM is ignoring the rumors, and speculating on its potential harm to Edwards
• Fox News confirming that Edwards was hounded by National Enquirer reporters

"erase the protections" to "do now harm"? We have made repeated calls to "be patient" until this matter is more fully corroborated in the MSM given the extreme tabloid titillating aspects of the allegations. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 15:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

See my post below. You are being disingenuous about the extent of the reporting there are full reports in the Los Angeles Timmes Harford Courant and New York Magazine among others, and the UK papers are not asking why it is reported they are reporting the story. Do no harm is nice but censorship is certainly harm, we need to ballance harms see? Bonobonobo (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The Courant printed commentary by Republican activist Kevin Rennie saying the National Enqurier made these allegations. The LA Times explicitly informed their bloggers (the post you are referring to) to not discuss these unproven rumors. An online post at the New York magazine, again, simply repeated the National Enquirer's allegations. 15:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this summed up the situation nicely:

Usually when I hear a rumor, I turn to Wikipedia to find that some resourceful and resilient editor has found verifiable documents or stories from reliable sources. When I heard the rumor that there was tape of Michelle Obama saying "whitey," I came here to find it was false.

'Nuff said. People come here for the truth on rumors. Google it, it's a rumor, and a popular one seeing as how we are engaged in a debate about it. I support inclusion if only to refute the claim. You want to talk about policy? This is from WP:HARM:

Unconfirmed allegations may only be included in Wikipedia where they have already been widely publicised by the mainstream news media; in these cases, the allegations should not be given undue weight.

It seems to me the only thing left to debate about is how much weight it deserves. AzureFury (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The function of Wikipedia isn't to negate rumors or tabloid allegations -- that would be appropriate in blogs. I don't consider (yet) that these allegations are "widely publicized". The U.K. articles, in fact, make note that they aren't publicized at all, so the exception to WP:HARM isn't applicable. And, in fact, the redacted text didn't go about refuting the allegation but to restate it. As an aside, where in the Michelle Obama does it refute this unfounded rumor? Thanks. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 18:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - if you look up the page to when the scandal first broke (this time, I mean), you'll see that I advised waiting until it was obvious the story had legs. Well, the scandal pretty obviously does - I'm seeing mentions of it everywhere. I think we're looking silly by not including some mention of it at this point, and should focus on making sure whatever mention of it we have is accurate, neutral, and not of undue weight. There are some high traffic sites driving viewers here now, including Instapundit, apparently. Kelly ^hi! 01:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment In response to the RFC. At this point, the Edwards scandal is household knowledge to political junkies. A bare recounting of the allegations and tentative facts, from reliable sources (take your pick of national, international newspapers), is certainly called for. The lockdown on the page has the practical effect of making Wikipedia appear to deny reality, in a biased and partisan fashion, and reflects discredit upon Wikipedia as a whole. RayAYang (talk) 06:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't see the "whitey" comment in the Michele Obama page. It's covered under Rickrolling#Michelle_Obama, it has its own section too. AzureFury (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This article is a biography, not a running commentary on media frenzy. If reliable sources can confirm that Edwards had (or has) a mistress, than it might be worth a sentence or two in the section on his personal life. There needs to be information before anything can be written, but the frenzy itself has nothing to do with Edwards. No substance has (yet) been reported. Wait and see. -- Macduff (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This pointless censorship is getting into Google News. Proud?

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

Example

A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source.

That is the exact example from the WP:WELLKNOWN that tells us that we must include the allegations reported in the relevant papers. THIS IS THE PRECISE CIRCUMSTANCE WE HAVE, so we don't need to debate this at all - we have the answer! The quality of the original rumormonger does not come into the equation at all. Note "A politician is alleged to have had an affair" it doesn't matter if it is Charlie Manson making the allegation, if the allegation is reported by major reliable outlets such as the Times and The Independent and the LAT it goes in.

We are simply making wikipedia look partisan and censorious by keeping this out and it is shaming us all.

Can you kindly swallow your pride and compromise in some way to save this silly internal wikifued from becoming a cause celebre across half the Internet.

Bonobonobo (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

[trolling/personal attacks removed] 72.72.203.224 (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

So you are going to let the New York Times decide for you what is newsworthy and what is not? Considering they had no problem publishing the "McCain had an affair with a lobbyist" story that was debunked before the paper's ink was dry, I would think that you would decide for yourself. But that's the problem, I think. Apparently the censors at Wikipedia don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.56.83 (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And the McCain article makes no mention of this. To answer your question, yes the New York Times (and the Washington Times and Fox News and the Washington Post, etc.) trump the National Enquirer. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 18:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008#Alleged_inappropriate_involvement_with_lobbyists But that was from a Reliable Source. -- SEWilco (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The information needs to be added, no matter how unsavory to a small minority of users who repeatedly abuse their power to remove it. Wikipedia is starting to be ridiculed on multiple news sites now due to this article. see:http://gawker.com/5029921/john-edwards-wikipedia-page-strangely-love-child+free etc. Unlock this article and do the responsible thing and allow this pertinent information to be added. --Elysianfields (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please address the concerns that have been raised by a multitude of editors (not a small minority). Multiple "news sites" = multiple blogs and forums. Possibly, the confusion of the two is a source of the problem. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 19:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

I have protected the article for 48 hours, in the form which does not reference the allegations in question. The basis for the protection in this version is the biographies of living persons policy. To elaborate:

• Edit-warring is bad. There is already enough edit-warring to justify protection.
• Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Biographies of living people need to avoid sensationalism. This is the essence of the biographies policy.
• There is potential for real-life harm here. The goal here is to get the article right, not to have something up immediately. This is not Wikinews. We don't lose by waiting 3 days to get our coverage right. We lose by edit-warring and repeating poorly sourced and unconfirmed reports. At the moment, while the allegations have been reported in several reliable sources, those sources are hedging considerably:
  • The editor of the Los Angeles Times stated: "Because the only source has been the National Enquirer, we have decided not to cover the rumours or salacious speculations."
  • "The New York Times has not deigned to touch the story"
  • "The National Enquirer may publish photographs corroborating Edwards’s presence at the hotel this weekend."
  • From the Washington Post: "To be quite honest, we’re waiting to see the pictures. That said, Edwards is no longer an elected official and he is not running for office now. Don’t expect wall-to-wall coverage."
  • This blog post describes the concerns of a major media outlet about covering the story, sourced as it is only to the National Enquirer
  • "The Enquirer hasn't been able to produce quotes, photos or even eyewitness accounts. And the mainstream media seems to be ignoring it, for the most part."
• From WP:BLP: Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?

There may well be a place for coverage here - both of the allegations and, eventually, of the substance or lack thereof behind them. But at this point, given that the reliable sources are hedging considerably and this is a breaking story based on unconfirmed reports from the National Enquirer, we need to be circumspect about how we handle it. The discussion on that front needs to take place here, on the talk page, not in the form of edit-warring on the article.

I have posted this action to the administrative incidents noticeboard for wider feedback from other editors and administrators. MastCell ^Talk 17:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia now getting laughed at by Gawker.com and others over controversy omission

From "John Edwards' Wikipedia Page Strangely Love Child-Free":

After all this Mickey Kaus blathering about MSM gatekeepers censoring the news and preventing the reader from learning "what happened yesterday" (or, at this point, last week), it's wonderful to see the citizen-journalists and crowdsourced new guardians of information acting just as ridiculously about this supposed John Edwards scandal. As you'll recall, the National Enquirer caught John Edwards sneaking into a hotel late one night to visit former staffer Rielle Hunter and her child. When they confronted him on his way out, he hid in a bathroom. Fox News confirmed the visit. But none of this meets Wikipedia's high standards of notability! You won't find Rielle or the Beverly Hilton even mentioned on the Edwards entry.

Despite the fact that the basic facts of the evening seem to be proven, Wikipedia's power-mad power-users are immediately deleting any and all mention of the John Edwards lovechild scandal the second any other user adds it. You could go over there and add "In July of 2008, Edwards was confronted at a Beverly Hills hotel by National Enquirer reporters searching for evidence of his participation in an extra-martial affair"—all true and verified by more "reliable" sources!—and it wouldn't last two minutes. (Actually you couldn't add that. The entry has been locked.) It's not notable enough for them, apparently. Though this is. And hell, so is this!

But no, the details of the probable end of the political aspirations of one of the 2000s most visible Democratic politicians are just not as notable as the fictional history of the Wookee homeworld."

The Conservative Newsbusters is also reporting the complete lack of Wikipedia coverage on this. [3]

This has now made a thread at Wikipedia Review [4] --Oakshade (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate how this has relevance to the editing of this page? Our objective here is to reach consensus through collegial discussion, not to worry about if outside parties understand Wikipedia policies. I would think this may be more appropriate for the talk page of biography policies. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 17:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's 100% about the editing of this page.--Oakshade (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for being obtuse, but you could you explain why? ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 18:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

To be clearer, how does this help us come to a consensus on how to handle this topic? ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 18:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Coverage of this page by outside sources is relevant to anyone deciding on how edit this page.--Oakshade (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

...and why should we care? These are blogs and forums, and editors at Wikipedia should not be cowered or convinced by outside influences on how they should edit in response to potentially false information that has yet to be fully verified. seicer | talk | contribs 18:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

To Oakshade: Are you recommending that page editors, administrators change Wikipedia policy on-the-fly due to blog (not press coverage) activity? Are you looking to reach consensus by collegial discussion or by pressure? ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 18:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's about the editing of this article. Anyone can decide how to edit for themselves. That's what talk pages are for. I can't believe this. We're actually discussing content of a talk page now. That's how ridiculous this discussion has become. --Oakshade (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually an article talk page is indeed only intended to be about discussing ways to improve an article and any off topic discussion particularly on a high traffic article is always strongly discouraged. You're right that anyone can decide how to edit for themselves. However they are supposed to look to wikipedia policies and reliable sources not blog coverage of misunderstood wikipedia policies. If you're not already aware of anything I've just said, I suggest you re-read aforementioned policies Nil Einne (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

To Oakshade: I'm sorry that you are frustrated about this. If you read the very top of the talk page, it tells you what talk pages are for:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Edwards article. ... This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

It's not to discuss how those in blogs and forums disagree with Wikipedia policies -- it serves no purpose. I recommend we continue our discussion on how to improve this page -- the purpose of page protection is to give us that opportunity. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 18:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

All we gotta do is get Instapundit and Little Green Footballs to link this article and you guys are screwed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.24.244 (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I think it's worthwhile to start discussing this as a POV violation rather than a BLP one, which it clearly isn't, if framed properly. The latest "good" version, which has been reverted 3 times now, simply states that there is a controversy over an alleged incident and that the alleged incident has been reported by numerous sources, citing the unreliable source. This is true, and is clearly not a violation of BLP. In fact, is exactly how BLP says that such an incident should be handled.Cjbreisch (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This is addressed here and here. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 19:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is not addressed in either of those spots, but thanks for playing. They just discuss protecting it and possible changes. I think that it should be flagged with WP:POV-Check or WP:POV and protected, since there is quite clearly now reason for some to dispute its adherence to NPOV. The current protection doesn't even allow for an NPOV dispute to be initiated.Cjbreisch (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Ah, yes, you are correct, I misunderstood you, sorry. It appears that you are arguing that this article has a POV problem because it doesn't include this information, is that correct? ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 19:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct, Therefore. POV can be violated by exclusion of information as well as by inclusion.Cjbreisch (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is failing its users

I know that Wikimaniacs love the policies, no matter how vague and useless they sometimes are, but the fact is, people don't come to Wikipedia to see what the Wikipedia Policies say they should see. They come to Wikipedia for information, and Wikipedia is withholding information. (Smart) people don't come to Wikipedia to get absolutely definitive yes/no answers as to whether a controversial incident happened (no offense), but do expect a biographical article to tell them about the relevant, noteworthy, and newsworthy elements of a person's life.

Years from now, if you ask an informed person what happened in John Edwards' life during the 2008 presidential campaign, they will tell you among other things, that he was accused of having a mistress who gave birth to his child. The fact of allegation, regardless of whether or not it is true, is part of the story of John Edwards' life.

I don't know who all is involved in either side of this WikiControversy, but there are obviously some editors (you know who you are) who need to give yourselves a good hard slap upside the head, because you are making a mockery of everything good about Wikipedia.24.199.87.237 (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Pleas see WP:Crystal ball and when you're done, can you hand me your crystal ball so I can win the lotto, get rich and retire? Nil Einne (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

To 24: Wikipedia does love its policies, you are correct. Where they are vague and useless, I recommend you go to their respective talk pages where you can be both unvague and useful by working to change them. People come to Wikipedia for verified information. The rest of the net is for unfiltered information and allegations; this is one place where standards are in place. At this point, this is not yet widely publicized except on blogs, supermarket checkout lines, a couple of partisan commentators and in a few U.K. newspapers. I suspect you are well connected to one of these avenues of media and mistake it for being "widely publicized" -- understandable. Unless this develops further, in fact, only a few partisans and tabloid readers will remember this. We certainly are under no obligation to memorialize these rumors here. Could you please read the concerns raised by a multitude of editors and address them in particular (I'd like to avoid repeating them) so we can move this conversation from off-topic derision to productive discussion on how, if and when to include this information. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 19:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That Wikipedia deems the NYT article about McCain's romance with a lobbyist to be verified while finding the Edwards story to be rumor raises serious questions of bias in my opinion. Upon reading the two articles, the Edwards story seems to have allegations that are clearer and backed up (by a security guard at the hotel), while the McCain story relies on 8-year-old suspicions of unnamed former "aides". Freeth (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The allegations here are from the National Enquirer, a non-reliable source. Fox News, a reliable source, has confirmed only that Edwards was at the hotel, a not-yet notable element of the allegation. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 02:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that a New York Times article with far less evidence than the Enquirer's Edwards article is used as a source in McCain's page still makes wikipedia look bad. Foxnews also quotes a "former campaign staffer" of John Edwards who "wishes he [was] 'more surprised' to hear reports Edwards was visiting Hunter". That sounds exactly like the NYT's McCain article. Feel free to disagree but for many this raises serious red flags in terms of the objectivity of wikipedia as a whole. Freeth (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on what goes on at McCain's page (his campaign page, to be exact). Go to the Bill Clinton or Eliott Spitzer or tens of others page if you believe that only conservatives get mentioned. The Enquirer is not a reliable source and hence is not usable. I expanded on this and why the issue isn't partisanship here. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 03:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Who determines what is a reliable source? I personally don't consider any newspaper to be a 'reliable' source at this point, they've all made blunders of staggering incompetence in the last few years. I see no reason why the NE should be deemed less reliable than the NYT. It's not wikipedia's job to vet all the different newspapers and decide which ones are or are not reliable - our job is to make information available to wikipedia's users. We have signally failed in this specific instance, to such a degree that the petty little admin wars are leading to yet another black eye for wikipedia. There is simply no reason to claim the story of the Edwards affair simply isn't 'reliable' enough when the far less thinly sourced McCain affair story got a mention. No reason other than petty partisan political hackery, that is, which doesn't mind making a mockery out of what wikipedia stands for in an effort to protect a politician.

The answer to your question may be found here: WP:RS. This page is about improving the John Edwards article and not about whether the definition of reliable sources (mainstream publicatons known for fact checking and accuracy) should be used at Wikipedia. I would recommend going to that the WP:RS talk page and making your argument there and when you change policy, then come and make your argument. If you have a sincere interest in my response to your partisianship charge, please see here. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 03:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm - one thing I've never seen explained is exactly why the Enquirer is considered unreliable. I understand that it is tabloidy in nature, but that's not necessary a disqualification - for example, I saw a discussion on another article regarding the use of TMZ.com. TMZ is tabloidy as hell, probably even worse than the Enquirer, but it was determined, based on a review of the evidence, that they were reliable because they upheld journalistic standards of fact-checking, etc. Now I am old enough to remember when the Enquirer consisted primarily of stories about UFO visitations and claims by women that they had been impregnated by Bigfoot, but that seems to have changed at some point and they now break serious stories - though the tone of the paper still seems lowbrow to some. I guess it would be helpful to the discussion to have an explanation of exactly why they can't be trusted in this case. Kelly ^hi! 04:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I would never consider TMZ.com to be a reliable source. Nor the National Enquirer. I explained why here. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 04:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I did read that - National Enquirer's poor reputation stems form its gossipy, ill-conceived, sensationalistic writing style (did you actually read its story?) and the general tenor and misleading color of many of its articles. I understand that this is your opinion about the publication, but is it any more than your opinion? Is it because they cover celebrity news and gossip? I admit this is distasteful to me, sometimes, as well, but the standard should be in regards to their journalistic practices. Once again, using TMZ.com as an example, there were sources that indicated the site's reliability.[5] [6] [7] A scan of various stories shows that the Enquirer has also reliably broken other big news stories in the past. I guess I'm just politely asking if it's just your opinion that the Enquirer is unreliable based on a gut instinct, or do have some kind of evidence to back it up. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 04:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind but I answered at "National Enqurier reliability" at Talk:John Edwards#Arguments for inclusion. I'm trying to keep the threads somewhat centralized. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 04:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody add a picture that's not from a decade ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.147.146 (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tabloid

Thank you to whoever is responsible for protecting this article. RFerreira (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia is a partisan tabloid. Just browsing through this talk page it is quite obvious. For example, right-wing smear jobs with NO evidence and just a couple "anonymous" sources have no problem making it to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_lobbyist_controversy%2C_February_2008(71.109.6.175 (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC))

Formerly Reliable Source

To my amazement, I noticed the following story in the Times, where they actually quote the Enquirer as their source of information. I suggest moving this particular source from the RS category to one where for controversial negative BLP, it needs to examined whether it is in fact degenerated to one of the tabloids. DGG (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As someone that just came from the UK and had the opportunity to read several of their local newspapers, I can say that most or just one step above supermarket tabloids. Heck, the Times dedicated several pages to Max Mosley's lawsuit victory against News of the World where most of the articles (and there were several) were just a recounting of the allegations NotW just lost £510,000 for making. Although, considering the common ownership between the two papers, perhaps one should not be surprised. ;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that snottiness about the National Enquirer is --

1) Based on incidents from 20-plus years ago (but other newspapers have since been sued for libel or found out to have published falsified stories and yet they remain wiki-endorced "relaiable sources")

2) Based on NE's routine use of paid soucres (but that is NOT the case in this incident).

3) Based on NE's routine use of anonymous sources (but that is not the case in this incident -- the reporters who witnessed Edwards running and hiding were named in the story [Alan Butterfield and Alexander Hitchen] and also, other papers have used anonymous sources ["Deep Throat," anyone?] and remain on wiki-list of "reliable sources).

I think that what is going on here is a continual moving of the goalposts in a partisan attempt to set higher and higher hurdles, to make it impossible for any editor to note what is obviously a notable event in this man's career.

64.142.90.33 (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

National Enquirer's poor reputation stems form its gossipy, ill-conceived, sensationalistic writing style (did you actually read its story?) and the general tenor and misleading color of many of its articles. Although it is commonplace at Wikipedia for a partisan to accuse partisanship when arguing on political pages, the bias against the National Enquirer is one of standards, not a political bias. If the National Enquirer printed a story that (say) Mitt Romney had a similar situation, then, naturally, Huffington Post would be screaming that it was being suppressed and Newsbusters would be silent and partisans on his page would be screaming about right-wing bias, censorship, etc. And I'd (and most other editors) would be making the exact same arguments against its inclusion. This happens all the time, believe it. Go to the left-wing blogs -- they bitch about Wikipedia just as much as do the right-wing ones. The problem is biography of living person policy and not a structural political bias. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 01:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, can you provide any examples of that? I mean, where a page was locked to protect the reputation of a right-wing living person against an unsubstantiated rumor or tabloid piece, and where the left-wing blogs were screaming about it? I'm on your side on this John Edwards lockdown/wait-and-see approach, but Wikipedia does have a very real problem with overt left-wing partisanship, like it or not. Smitty1276 (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't related to the John Edwards article, but since you have challenged us to provide an example of left-wing whining about Wikipedia editing, I can do so. A quick search on Google yields the following from Dailykos.com: [8]. As for an instance of a right-wing political figure whose article was protected, simply navigate over to the George W Bush page. I rest my case. Ethereal (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The George W. Bush page? The one that begins with "George Walker Bush likes to masturbate to pictures of dead al-Quada members?" You rest your case on THAT?

To readers being directed here from Right Wing blogs and News sources

I have been asked to point out that the following is my oponion only, and like 99% of wikipedia is not official.

Though you probably come to this site often you might never have noticed this talk page thing. You are probably getting an idea how this all works just by reading it. I strongly recommend that you set up an account and if you do you will be sent a welcome pack with loads of good advise.

Wikipedia can be fun, though this page is not a good example. People of all political persuasions are truly welcome here.

Wikipedia has rules but in the end passionate people need to enforce them and personal biases can often creep in, especially on controversial topics, and it is amazing how the most random things can become controversial.

In this case for example the rule is clear but is being evaded but a group of excellent and talented editors. The rule here is:

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

Example

A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source.

That is the exact example from the WP:WELLKNOWN rule (that is the shortcut for the rule) that tells us that we must include the allegations reported in the relevant papers. So even though we have the answer explicitly in wikipedia policy and even an example that is a precise parallel, there can still be debate, and intransigence and this may seem obscure but people have strong opinions. It is your job to engage in reasoned debate to convince people of your point.

Wikipedia rule number one is NO PERSONAL ATTACKS!

So, don't let this color your view of wikipedia generally. Get yourself an account. Comment here using four tithes, and always be polite as if you were talking to you grandma!

As soon as you have an account you are as a much an member here as the biggest big shot editors who spend 18 hours a day on this site, so don't let anyone talk down to you!

Welcome, good luck, have fun and don't take things too seriously! Bonobonobo (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I though carefully about this comment and it took me 20 minutes to write. It contains no personal attaks, and is a gentle warning to the trolls who are attacking this paage reelnlessly, calling us the c word. Feel free to ignore it, but do not delete my reasonable comments again. Bonobonobo (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this helpful advice. You may want to move the section from "In this case for example the rule is clear" through "So even though we have the answer explicitly in wikipedia policy and even an example that is a precise parallel" into its own section titled, say, "Support for inclusion". Then, add in not just declarative statements such as "it's clear", "explicitly", "that tells us we must include it" but also argues which part of the cut and paste policy applies here. And then address the multitude of issues summarized here and here concerning other issues such as and do no harm and inclusion test and so forth. Although you see this as "clear", "precise" and "exact", very very few issues are clear, precise or exact and hence why they require consensus and collegial discussion. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 01:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, its just the thing is in this case the example from the policy is kinda the edwards story exactly just sub "New York Times" with "London Times" (or any one of the others). I have a feeling that people feel bad for Mrs Edwards here, I that is truly noble but y'know life does suck sometime. Bonobonobo (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As to your noble objections: DNH is merely an essay, despite efforts. It is an essay b/c it conflicts with the policy WP:CENSOR. This is a man who was a frontrunner a few weeks ago (as recorded in RS's) to be VP of the USA. His career (according to many RS's) is now in tatters b/c of these unmentionable allegations. Yet this is not mentioned in this article and people reading it will assume that all is fine and dandy for him and are left with the line "The Associated Press reported that according to a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, the names of Edwards and Sam Nunn are on Obama's vice presidential shortlist." Yet RS that say this is no longer true and that his political career may well be over whether or not certain unmentionable rumors are officially confirmed by a grand jury cannot be quoted here. I think the text that was deleted was a very good compromise. Bonobonobo (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Concentrate on the word "relevant" in the policy. These allegations are eminently "relevant", it is impossible to understand the man and his current political position without referencing the fact that there are unproven allegations about his private life that have circulated through hundreds of reputable media outlets, (and by the by he has not denied lately despite being given the opportunity). It is not for us to go round questioning reporters integrity and the RR of the worlds major news outlets, that would be WP:OR anyway. We need to work out a compromise text forthwith, since this is making us all look really really dumb. Bonobonobo (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have had my reasonable comments deleted from this talk page twice and have received threats of being permanently blocked at my user talk page sinmply for posting on THIS page -- and i never once attempted to post on the article page itslf even before he "protection" (freeze) was put into place. This is weird, to say the least. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, first sign in and pick a name for yourself. Read the rules, and make sure you keep your remarks civil and freindly. Bonobonobo (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Also read the WP:BLP policy carefully if you haven't. I don't mean to lecture you but it is a very important policy. The National Enquirer is not a reliable source for our purposes and neither are blogs. Bonobonobo (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Credibility of the Enquirer on this story

I found this interview with the Enquirer's editor-in-chief about the background, investigation, and fact-checking that went into the story. No editorial comment from me (I think it's best if the participants here start with an open mind), but I do invite folks to read it and comment on what it does for the story's purported reliability. Kelly ^hi! 01:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, if you asked anyone here, about whether the Enquirer story is true anyone having watched that of edwards failing to deny would tell you, yes he is guilty as hell. But this does not make the NE a RS. So it can't be referenced directly. The policy is clear thhough, that since the allegations have been reported widely in RSs, note should be made of the notable allegations in the article referencing the RSs which recorded them. Bonobonobo (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to take issue with editors authoritatively stating that the Enquirer isn't a reliable source. This is not official wiki policy. The quality of their reporting on this is much more transparent than their usual unsourced pieces: i.e. they have eyewitness accounts. At the very least, the facts of the hotel encounter can't possibly be challenged by any reasonable person. DiggyG (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing

Just a note to let everyone know that I'm going to withdraw from the discussion for a while. This is largely in part because of all of the hijinx and tomfoolery that has descended upon this page, as well as the off-site press that singles out my contributions specifically. As many have noted, there are partisan establishments that have encouraged like-minded POV warriors to come and join the discussion. Accusations of censorship, ad hominem attacks, and strawman arguments detract from the core discussion based in policy. While we welcome the community's input writ large, we also expect editors to respect the community's policies, mores, and norms; much of the discussion on this talk page seems to come more from a particular point of view than it does a desire to build a neutral and respectable encyclopedia. I would caution against feeding the trolls, and I suggest that it is in the project's best interest to listen more to the opinion of seasoned, established editors than to single-purpose urgings to hastily publish questionable material. I may be reached on my talk page should my position remain unclear, or if someone wants to let me know that productive discussion has resumed.  ;-) Best of luck! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The funny thing is half the references already included in the john Edwards bio could be considered not reliable 18:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it ironic that when someone doesn't agree with you they are "POV warriors", "trolls", and not conducting "productive discussion". To make your post hypocritical you then say THEY do 'ad hominem' attacks. (71.109.6.175 (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC))

Arguments for inclusion

This is in response to User:Bonobonobo's comments from here and others.

First, it will be more productive to avoid sarcasm as "noble objections" as they conflict with our goal of keeping things civil.

I'll address your concerns one at a time broken down by section so we can keep each point threaded:

For the record, I was not being sarcacstic. Your motives are indeed noble. Bonobonobo (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Do no harm" is trumped by "Wikipedia doesn't censor"

"DNH is merely an essay." According to WP:BLP:

An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".

This essay is the backbone of WP:BLP -- the "do no harm" mantra is not to be dismissed so easily. I would take the time to read WP:HARM as it explains what it is and isn't; You may be reading it literally -- it doesn't mean "never do harm". Additionally, WP:NOTCENSORED speaks to inappropriate content. No one has asked to exclude this text because it may offend a reader. So I am unsure how it trumps "do no harm" -- could you please explain?

Nope its not the backbone is a "rule of thumb", and it is an essay it is not policy. Policy is passage I quoted which unfortunatly for your arguement gives this very example and answers: include. Bonobonobo (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, then your challenge is to convince editors on this page that "do no harm" is so easily dismissed. I predict you will find this challenge difficult -- any BLP editor, administrator and Jimbo himself will disagree with you. But consensus can change, so, go for it. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 02:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Everything can do harm, butterflies in Japan and all that... just too nebulous. Harm? To Edwards? Water off a ducks back doncha think after all the publicity? Bonobonobo (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I addressed the lack of publicity issue at "Hundreds of media outlets have reported on this". As to harm, I don't think that you have yet moved the page editors, BLP administrators nor Jimbo Wales who created the saying. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 03:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, are you reading the entire WP:HARM section? This is the second time I'll post this quote from that policy

Unconfirmed allegations may only be included in Wikipedia where they have already been widely publicised by the mainstream news media; in these cases, the allegations should not be given undue weight.

WP:HARM says include. The only refutation I've seen to this argument was someone saying it's not widely publicised except by 'blogs, supermarket checkout lines, a couple of partisan commentators and in a few U.K. newspapers'. That seems pretty publicised to me. We know that the NYT also mentioned it. The fact that a number of sites are criticizing Wiki for not including it tells me that it's a pretty popular issue.

Let me be clear here. I am a democrat, and I favor inclusion. I do not think Edwards is guilty, I think the NE is complete trash. I still favor inclusion just because this is such a popular issue. This is not a partisan issue, this is not about the NE being a reliable source, the only issue here is whether or not this allegation has been publicised enough. This is the fastest growing talk page I've ever seen, I think that alone says something about the notability of this story. AzureFury (talk) 08:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not been actively involved in this discussion, but let me just say that I agree 100% with AzureFury. As allegations in themselves, they are more notable than a great deal in this encyclopedia. It is not for us to judge the reliability of the Enquirer story and neither is that even pertinent in this situation. They have become notable because of much 3rd party coverage in reliable (not blogs, etc) media outlets, and therefore deserve inclusion. No harm is being done because these allegations are already common knowledge, and in whatever we write in the article we will not be making a judgement as to whether or not they are true. Joshdboz (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This is my position as well. I'm not saying that the article should include a paragraph saying that he's had an affair and fathered a child out of wedlock as if it's fact. I would say that it should say that the tabloid (and I agree that NE is not a reliable source) NE has made allegations against him and that these allegations have been picked up and circulated in news media worldwide. This is undeniable, and I believe that even if the story is found to be false and Edwards turns out to be clean as a whistle, that something along this line needs to be part of his entry because it is part of noteworthy information about him. Now speculation as to whether this affects his political career would be OR and should be removed.Cjbreisch (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

John Edwards career is in tatters

You say, "His career (according to many RS's) is now in tatters b/c of these unmentionable allegations." We are talking about several, not many, that speculated that this would harm his chances (let alone there is no truth that he was the "front runner"). Much more would have to be established to conclude that at this point then speculation. It may come.

The point is that this allegetaion is highly highly relevent, which means it must go in. Bonobonobo (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You are arguing for the actual allegations themselves? And your argument is that "it's highly highly relevant" and, hence, must go in. Let's see if the page editors are convinced by your rationale. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 02:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't particulary care if the allegetions are spelled out or not frankly. But that there are allegations must go in. Everybody in the damn USA knows there are allegations and what they are exactly. I can't see what use it tip-toing around them, but if poeple here wont wear it, whatever, its still dumb.

Bonobonobo (talk) 02:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So, your argument for inclusion is that everybody knows this? They don't. In fact, the reliable sources that you want to use contradict this -- they say explicitly that it hasn't been publicized in the U.S. What is your source that "everybody" knows this? 150 Google hits? Lots of blogs? You are plugged into this partisan bit stream but I guarantee you that "everybody" doesn't know this. Regardless, you would need to find a reliable source to make that declaration which will be a problem since the sources you have say the opposite. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 02:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you kidding? It was on FoxNews and ABC and in the biggest selling national tabloid. Everyone who gives a rat's ass about politics known this story. But this is besides the point, I dont care if they are not spelled out. But it must be mentioined in some bloody way so the article makes sence in terms of the political reality.Bonobonobo (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No, not kidding. Fox News confirmed he was at the hotel. That is all. That is not noteworthy. Please provide the ABC News source. Tabloids are meaningless and its stories are typically not common knowledge unless it hits the MSM -- believe it or not but most folks don't believe in aliens or 95% of the stuff printed in the tabloid. You say that it is required to make "political reality". By which, I presume you mean its impact on his VP chances? I addressed that already at "John Edwards career is in tatters". Because it must be true? ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 03:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hundreds of media outlets have reported on this

You say "circulated through hundreds of reputable media outlets." Hundreds? are you conflating media outlets with online blogs, forums and the like? A Wikipedia reliable source is a published one. Blogs are never allowed on BLP articles. There have been three U.K. sources that, as explained, speculated on the effects of this rumor. There have been a couple of blogs associated with newspapers that have done the same.

You say, "It is not for us to go round questioning reporters integrity and the RR of the worlds major news outlets." How am I doing that?

I count 150 in Google News right now. Not all but many are serious publicaions. It is also in Der Spiegel by the way [9] and probably in many other non english sources too. Bonobonobo (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

150 Google News? And how many of these are published mainstream sources with the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? A handful. I think this is part of the confusion: You are so plugged into this that you don't see that this is not yet widely publicized. In fact, the handful of reliable sources you want to use say just that. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 02:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at least a dozen, it doesn't really matter. New York Mag LAT and the Times and the Independent and others are enough by themselves. Any one would be enough. Bonobonobo (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It does matter, particularly for something of this magnitude and potential cause of harm. The New York mag was an online blog that did nothing else but repeat the allegations. The LAT was an online opinion blog that counts for nothing. The three U.K. publications simply repeated but not confirmed the allegations. You don't think that is relevant but all other longterm editors have so far disagreed; we want to see this corroborated and not simply echoed. You need to expand on your arguments in order to shift this consensus. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 02:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any distinction between blogs run by major publications and the dead tree versions. Certainly defamation law does not. But anyway there are many sources, in many languages that I can barely read.Bonobonobo (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Good, this helps. Blogs aren't allowed here. We are only interested in mainstream publications. You should make the habit of doing Google News searches -- 150 after an entire week with 98% of them online blogs (mostly from non-major publications) is a pittance. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 03:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly regular blogs don't count i couldn't agree more. Here is Edwards local NBC affiliate reporting the story [10]. Here is one of the Hannity and Comes show report on it [11]. That link alone makes it simply retarded (just plain pointless, water off a ducks back) not to mention the fact that there are allegations. Bonobonobo (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This part of your argument has relative merit. It needs to be balanced against the "do no harm" issue that most editors feel is overriding, even if you don't. Most editors want more than simply people talking about the allegations -- they want MSM corroboration. If this has on-going legs, it will make it in. Everything that is discussed on Hannity and Comes (or Olbermann or Air America) or local affiliates don't necessarily make it into Wikipedia. You believe this is true, Bono, so why not wait until the MSM corroborates it? Can't you be patient so that we don't include a story that is potentially false? At this point, it lacks encyclopedic value. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 03:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So basicly we agree, under the rules a mention should be made, but you say DNH. I say the DNH can't possibly have any meaning in a case that has already been wiely rereported. Wikipedia is simply adding another drop to what is already an ocean of harm. Think of Brian Peppers when you think of DNH, invoking DNH necesitates that you demonstrate that Wikipedia itself do something major and active. Here we are just trying to passive record, and it is not credible to argue otherwise. Bonobonobo (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That is where we disagree: "widely reported". I say not but it has certainly been reported and certainly there are many who believe it is true. Once (if) it is widely reported, then it will be included. All floating allegations (particularly when sourced from a disreputable source) don't have to make it in. I don't know who Brian Peppers is. I would appreciate if you could clarify your comments about DNH as I'm unsure of what you are getting at. DNH here is not being passively used -- it sets a bar for inclusion that requires it be widely known (which I and others disagree with your assessment -- Spitzer was widely known, Bill Clinton, David Vitter, all widely known) and that the information be definitive and factual. It isn't. It may be. We'll see. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 04:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It has been widely reported in Europe and on Fox News. You said if and when it has been widely reported it will be included. So when will it be included? 72.198.90.208 (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

When it has been corroborated and/or a wider spectrum of MSM outlets report on it. The reports from Europe focus primarily on the fact that it hasn't been reported on here. Why do you see the harm in waiting to see if the facts are corroborated when we avoid the risk of including a potentially false story? ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 04:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)I have a problem with DNH being applied here, but maybe I just need to take it to the BLP page. DNH seems to have too much weight to me. It doesn't appear to me that Wikipedia is doing harm by recognizing that allegations have been made and picked up by the media. Wikipedia would be doing harm if OR was put in the page by an NE employee alleging scurrilous details of the alleged affair. Wikipedia would be doing harm if BobsRandomPoliticalBlog alleged the affair and it was noted here. But, while NE may not be reliable, it is noteworthy, and since this has now been picked up on Drudge, Fox, and various European Press sites, the entire story falls into the noteworthy category. I guess I'm saying that noteworthy should trump DNH. I understand the other side and admit this is a grey area. As I said at first, maybe I need to take my thoughts to BLP.Cjbreisch (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, you've claimed that the "majority of editors" support you at least 3 times now. Have you even counted? Less than half the editors are opposed to inclusion. If the consensus remains the same, the story will be included. The burden is on you to change editors' minds.

Let me reiterate, WP:HARM says include:

Unconfirmed allegations may only be included in Wikipedia where they have already been widely publicised by the mainstream news media; in these cases, the allegations should not be given undue weight.

The accuracy of this allegations is not the issue. The extent of their publicity is what makes them worth including. AzureFury (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:HARM is only an essay, it doesn't count as official policy guideline one is obliged to follow. Furthermore, the fact that there have been numerous reports (a number of them by notable sources) by the international media on the allegation means that it is news worthy. We just need to be careful as to how we word it. Ethereal (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN is applicable

You argue that the WP:WELLKNOWN policy is 100% applicable and claim it is self-evident and not trumped by any other policy.

Let's look at the policy:

multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from

We have three U.K. publications that echoed but not confirmed the National Enquirer's unproven allegations relating to this relationship and speculated on its impact. We don't have a multitude yet.

If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources,

How are these allegations well-documented? Exactly which form of the text did you prefer as there were several iterations. You think it is important to note that he avoided tabloid reporters? Do you think it is important to mention the allegations, either elliptically or explicitly?

Yes I do claim that, and I do not dignify DNH as a policy is a mere essay and a "rule of thumb" an idiots guide to BLP, that is of no use to us since we are advanced users and can read the policy all the way to the bottom where our problem is addressed PRECICELY.

I think we need only mention what the RS say the Enquirer story said in the most general terms and then mention a comment about his general denials, and perhaps a quote about ho it has affected his chances as VP frontrunner since last week. But I am not fussy, I though the last revert that I made was a pretty good text. It just needs to be mentioned with sources so people can follow the narative of him political career if they want to enquire further can can follow the links to the Times etc. Bonobonobo (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, we have your declarative argument and suggestion. Let's see if it gains consensus. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 02:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I would basically agree with Bonobonobo here, with the exception that I think saying his "political career is in tatters" is OR, and even if you could find another RS that said that, might violate DNH. It's speculative and not factual. I also generally like the last revert that essentially just stated the allegation and that the allegation had been picked up and repeated by other RS.Cjbreisch (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

We need to do this now

"We need to work out a compromise text forthwith, since this is making us all look really really dumb." First, a comment such as that is counterproductive and is not an argument for inclusion. Secondly, speed is not a Wikipedia policy. Here is policy for article development in this case: Defend your positions and then reach consensus. General consensus on this page (and at the ANI BLP vio board and the ANI request for review of page protection) is that we wait and see how this develops and do it right, not quickly. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 02:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Speed is not the issue, we have an OK text that could go back in in 5 seconds. It is making wikipedia look dumb though, it also weakens the BLP policy to use it in this way - it gives it a bad reputaion, this is just my view, not an arguemnet on the point though. Bonobonobo (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed your last header since it was not an arguemnet that I made for inclusion , on the contrary I was making that point to show someone why we could NOT include anything from the NE even if we personally believe the story is 100% true. I do believe this, I think it is blindingly obvious that the NE has done some 1st rate reporting for a change but this is my opinions and I don't suggest we should included this stuff based on my beliefs. Bonobonobo (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, in the spirit of collegialism, I won't object. In the future, it would be better to lodge your request for removal along with your concerns and let the editor self-revert. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 03:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

One admin locking the page does not determine consensus Therefore. Go through and count how many people have advocated waiting and how many people have not before you make such a claim. AzureFury (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

National Enqurier reliability

Hmmm - one thing I've never seen explained is exactly why the Enquirer is considered unreliable. I understand that it is tabloidy in nature, but that's not necessary a disqualification - for example, I saw a discussion on another article regarding the use of TMZ.com. TMZ is tabloidy as hell, probably even worse than the Enquirer, but it was determined, based on a review of the evidence, that they were reliable because they upheld journalistic standards of fact-checking, etc. Now I am old enough to remember when the Enquirer consisted primarily of stories about UFO visitations and claims by women that they had been impregnated by Bigfoot, but that seems to have changed at some point and they now break serious stories - though the tone of the paper still seems lowbrow to some. I guess it would be helpful to the discussion to have an explanation of exactly why they can't be trusted in this case. Kelly ^hi! 04:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I would never consider TMZ.com to be a reliable source. Nor the National Enquirer. I explained why here. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 04:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I did read that - National Enquirer's poor reputation stems form its gossipy, ill-conceived, sensationalistic writing style (did you actually read its story?) and the general tenor and misleading color of many of its articles. I understand that this is your opinion about the publication, but is it any more than your opinion? Is it because they cover celebrity news and gossip? I admit this is distasteful to me, sometimes, as well, but the standard should be in regards to their journalistic practices. Once again, using TMZ.com as an example, there were sources that indicated the site's reliability.[12] [13] [14] A scan of various stories shows that the Enquirer has also reliably broken other big news stories in the past. I guess I'm just politely asking if it's just your opinion that the Enquirer is unreliable based on a gut instinct, or do have some kind of evidence to back it up. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 04:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I use WP:RS

Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press.

Certainly, it is difficult for me to think of the National Enquirer to be included on that list or as high-quality. I've never read it (well, I read the Edwards article and its quality made me cringe) so I have a bias based on the general reputation of all tabloids. Maybe that is an incorrect opinion. As I said at Talk:John Edwards#Now there is proof.:

It is true that some of the stories the NE prints turn out to be accurate and, in fact, break a story that makes national news. For instance, it broke the Rush Limbaugh prescription drug story. Note on that page that though NE was credited with breaking the story, it is not used as one of the sources. ... If this gets national coverage in mainstream media known for fact checking, then those news outlets will be used as the cited sources if at all -- not NE.

If you find anywhere on Wikipedia that the National Enquirer is used as the source, then feel free to delete it because you won't get any complaint. A poor opinioin of its use as a reliable source is doubtlessly uncontroversial. Again, I would not consider TMZ.com a valid source here on Wikipedia -- other organizations may consider it such. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 04:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious about the origin of rule that Wikipedia has about the quality of sources. Magazines like NE have broken legitimate stories as well as false ones. Its history & practices are documented [15]. I thought the purpose of a cite is so the reader can trace the origin of what they are reading. That reader can then determine the weight to apply to that source, thus allowing cites to e.g. opinions. Is it the duty of the publisher to determine allowable sources, or to simply validate their accuracy and allow the reader to evaluate? Wikipedia's own definition of a cite [16] don't place a restriction on the quality of the source. It references faulty or omitted citations as a problem, not that the source material doesn't meet a certain standard. A report from a questionable source is a record of an event, and one that would probably cause less sensationalism and be more quickly dismissed than all the discussion I see here. From a curious Wiki user, first time poster, apologies for convention mistakes. 66.17.248.1 (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this left-wing bias?

Although it is commonplace at Wikipedia for a partisan to accuse partisanship when arguing on political pages, the bias against the National Enquirer is one of standards, not a political bias. If the National Enquirer printed a story that (say) Mitt Romney had a similar situation, then, naturally, Huffington Post would be screaming that it was being suppressed and Newsbusters would be silent and partisans on his page would be screaming about right-wing bias, censorship, etc. And I'd (and most other editors) would be making the exact same arguments against its inclusion. This happens all the time, believe it. Go to the left-wing blogs -- they bitch about Wikipedia just as much as do the right-wing ones. The problem is biography of living person policy and not a structural political bias

But what about McCain? First, that was from the New York Times and it was covered in hundreds of mainstream media outlets. Secondly, the McCain articles (his main bio page doesn't mention it) include much material criticizing the Times for the report. At this point, we are taking a wait and see attitude to see if the allegations are corroborated by the mainstream media. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 05:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Publications Covering the Story

The following is a partial list of American publications that have covered the story about John Edwards and Rielle Hunter originally written by Alan Butterfield and Alexander Hitchens of the Natioal Enquirer. I have included both print journals and a few selected blogs. I have not included the extensive non-English-language coverage from Europe and Japan.

July 22, 2008

• New York Magazine (unsigned) (July 22, 2008). "'National Enquirer' Still Chasing John Edwards–Affair Story; Claim to Have Caught Him in Hotel Tryst". New York Magazine. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

July 23, 2008

• Byron York (July 23, 2008). "The Democratic ticket and the John Edwards affair". The Hill. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

• "Mondoreb" [preudonym] (July 23, 2008). "John Edwards Affair: Interview with David Perel, Editor-in-Chief of the National Enquirer". Death By 1000 Papercuts. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

• Jack Shafer (July 23, 2008). "Why the Press Is Ignoring the Edwards "Love Child" Story". Slate. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

• Amina Khan (July 23, 2008). "National Enquirer alleges John Edwards affair; blogosphere readies salt shaker". Los Angeles Times. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

July 24, 2008

• Tampa Bay Times (unsigned) (July 24, 2008). "Edwards scandal: Silence, please". Tampa Bay Times. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

• Darryl Levings (Jul 24, 2008). "The buzz: A bit bitter about 'The One'". Kansas City Star. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

July 25, 2008

• Fox News (unsigned) (July 25, 2008). "Guard Confirms Late-Night Hotel Encounter Between Ex-Sen. John Edwards, Tabloid Reporters". FOXNews. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

• Gregg Herrington, Columbian staff writer (July 25, 2008). "VP guessing game is heating up". [Clark County, WA] Columbian. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

• Howard Gensler (July 25, 2008). "Tattle: 'Enquirer' links John Edwards, Rielle Hunter". Philadelphia Daily News. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

July 26, 2008

• Lee Stranahan (July 26, 2008). "Say It Ain't So, John. Why Progressives Need To Get Out In Front Of The John Edwards Affair Rumors". Huffington Post, NY. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

July 27, 2008

• Sarah Baxter (July 27, 2008). "Sleaze scuppers Democrat golden boy". The Times. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

• Guy Adams (July 27, 2008). "Love child and mistress claims hit Edwards". The Independent. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

• Orla Healy (July 27, 2008). "VP dreams end in Rielle nightmare". Irish Independent. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

• Phil Valentine, " author and syndicated radio talk show host with Westwood One" (July 27, 2008). "Media decisions over gossip vs. news get tangled in politics". The Tennesseean. {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) "Speaki

• Kevin Rennie (July 27, 2008). "A Star Turn For Elizabeth Edwards". Hartford Courant. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

July 28, 2008

• Times of India (Unsigned) (July 28, 2008). "Obama's running mate in sex scandal". The Times of India. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

• Alex Beam (July 28, 2008). "You can run, but you can't hide, on Web". The Boston Globe. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

I believe that those who think that this story must not be included in the John Edwards page because it violates Wikipedia policy regarding the biographies of living people are well-intentioned but essentially misguided. The man is a public figure, hence reportage on his life is part of what makes his career succeed -- or not succeed. The "scandal" -- even more than the verifiability of the allegations -- is itself the story.

64.142.90.33 (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for putting in the work to compile these articles. The notability of the affair is as clear as day. Algabal (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful summary of sources. TuckerResearch (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent research, but those who are protecting Edwards from bad press continue to do so. It's sad. As others have pointed out already, conservatives do not receive equal protection here. CsikosLo (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Stupid question ...

... but can someone summarize what about this incident are just speculations (which obviously don't belong to Wikipedia), and what exactly is known for sure / is proven (which may belong to Wikipedia if it passes the relevance treshold)? Thanks! 87.163.94.234 (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we can agree that he was in the hotel, and that's about it. Without anything else, that would not qualify as relevant and would also clearly violate DNH. IMO, what does qualify as relevant is that allegations have been made and picked up by several media outlets. That is a fact and noteworthy. I don't see that as a violation of DNH, but that's because I think DNH carries more weight than it should, and I admit that I have not established a consensus on that and that such a discussion likely doesn't belong here.Cjbreisch (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds all plausible. One remark/question: The fact that media outlets have made (unproven) allegations is a fact about the respectively medias, not about Edwards. So doesn't that belong to the respectively media entries of Wikipedia, but not in the Edwards entry anyway? 87.163.94.234 (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose one could argue that, but it's necessary to look at it from the user's point of view. If I come to Wikipedia to look for information on this story, am I going to look for the information on the pages for FoxNews, or London Times, or National Enquirer, or am I going to look for it under John Edwards?Cjbreisch (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Cjbreisch, the story needs to be associated with Edwards, not the news organisations publishing the reports. AzureFury (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Separate Article

A separate article should be created with all the information about this affair and scandal. Everything in the article should need references, and then at a later point the article can be linked or partially included in the main Edwards article. Fox News has confirmed the National Inquirer report, so those who do not call the National Enquirier a "valid source" have a place to find confirmation. It was said that if the "aminstream media picks up the story and verifies the claims" that inclusion is appropriate. Well, mainstream media has done so. The UK Sunday Times and Kansas City Star both reported on this, as did Fox News. Domain41 (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Reading through the Fox News story,[17] shows the following:

FOXNews.com could not independently confirm the Enquirer's allegations. Perel also declined to identify where the Enquirer received the information about Edwards' alleged visits.

I do not know what you mean by "confirmed the National Inquirer report", but you will excuse those of us that have read the story if we do not share your enthusiasm. --Allen3 ^talk 14:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should include it in the article given the extensive coverage it has gotten, as can be seen from the listing all the published web sources. I don't think we should create a separate article just to cover a news report of an allegation made by a tabloid. Ethereal (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that there is an argument here as to whether to include even a paragraph or two in the John Edwards article, I think at this point we can characterize the suggestion of a separate article as "not going to happen". And even if there were to be new developments and/or media coverage, it seems unlikely that the matter will ever need more than a couple of paragraphs (because WP:NPOV says that undue weight for any part of an article is inappropriate; giving something like this its own article is therefore massively undue weight). And per WP:NOT, Wikipedia isn't a tabloid - it would be bad precedent to start creating separate articles for matters like this one. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

New Article Needed On Undernews

It is indisputable that Wikipedia's intransigence on this issue has created a newsworthy phenomenon called 'undernews', possibly coined by Mickey Kaus, which would rightfully point to the alleged Edwards affair controversy.

As for the supposed harm done to Edwards over the Enquirer story . . . that horse has left the barn. Everyone BUT Wikipedia is talking about it. Even if it is a mere unsubstantiated rumor, that rumor has been enough to undo Edward's chance for being vice-president, and that alone, regardless of its veracity, is reason enough for inclusion in the Edwards bio. Wikipedia not talking about it is harming Wiki's reputation.

Since Wiki is the first stop for many people seeking information on this, it is in a unique position to warn readers about the possible unreliability of the Enquirer.

And if you read just below, you will find that it is being worked on. We apologize if adding in rumors is done in a deliberate fashion. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 18:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of article context

List of possible sources

64's list is an excellent list of the sources. Characterizing them will help in determining the level of notoriety and evaluating which ones are useful.

• Tabloid press (initial story)

Alan Butterfield and Alexander Hitchen (with help from five other uncredited on-site reporters, as stated by the National Enquirer editor David Perel in a July 23, 2008 interview with the partisan blogger "Mondoreb" in the blog Death by 1000 Papercuts, cited below) (July 22, 2008). "Sen. John Edwards Caught with Mistress and Love Child!". National Enquirer. {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

• Published/broadcast news corroborating some part of the story

Fox News (unsigned) (July 25, 2008). "Guard Confirms Late-Night Hotel Encounter Between Ex-Sen. John Edwards, Tabloid Reporters". FOXNews. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

• Published/broadcast news echoing story, noting non-MSM coverage

New York Magazine (unsigned) (July 22, 2008). "'National Enquirer' Still Chasing John Edwards–Affair Story; Claim to Have Caught Him in Hotel Tryst". New York Magazine. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Tampa Bay Times (unsigned) (July 24, 2008). "Edwards scandal: Silence, please". Tampa Bay Times. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Darryl Levings (Jul 24, 2008). "The buzz: A bit bitter about 'The One'". Kansas City Star. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Gregg Herrington, Columbian staff writer (July 25, 2008). "VP guessing game is heating up". [Clark County, WA] Columbian. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

One paragraph

Sarah Baxter (July 27, 2008). "Sleaze scuppers Democrat golden boy". The Times. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Guy Adams (July 27, 2008). "Love child and mistress claims hit Edwards". The Independent. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

One paragraph

Alex Beam (July 28, 2008). "You can run, but you can't hide, on Web". The Boston Globe. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

One paragraph

Times of India (Unsigned) (July 28, 2008). "Obama's running mate in sex scandal". The Times of India. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Belfast [Ireland] Telegraph (Unsigned) (July 28, 2008). "Love child and mistress claims rock former White House hopeful John Edwards". Belfast [Ireland[ Telegraph. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Stuart Watson (July 29, 2008). "Tabloid reports threaten Edwards' future". WCNC (North Carolina TV station; an NBC affiliate). {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

• Published commentary

Byron York (July 23, 2008). "The Democratic ticket and the John Edwards affair". The Hill. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Jack Shafer (July 23, 2008). "Why the Press Is Ignoring the Edwards "Love Child" Story". Slate. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Phil Valentine, "author and syndicated radio talk show host with Westwood One" (July 27, 2008). "Media decisions over gossip vs. news get tangled in politics". The Tennesseean. {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Kevin Rennie (former Republical office-holder) (July 27, 2008). "A Star Turn For Elizabeth Edwards". Hartford Courant. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Jim Morrill "veteran polital reporter" (July 29, 2008). "Did Edwards' VP chances take tabloid hit?". Charlotte (North Carolina) Observer. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

• Online news blogs associated with major media

Amina Khan (July 23, 2008). "National Enquirer alleges John Edwards affair; blogosphere readies salt shaker". Los Angeles Times. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

The LA Times, as noted in the press, explicitly thereafter informed their bloggers not to mention this story arguably because of its reputation for accuracy.

• Published gossip columns

Orla Healy (July 27, 2008). "VP dreams end in Rielle nightmare". Irish Independent. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Howard Gensler (July 25, 2008). "Tattle: 'Enquirer' links John Edwards, Rielle Hunter". Philadelphia Daily News. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

• Partisan blogs

"Mondoreb" [preudonym] (July 23, 2008). "John Edwards Affair: Interview with David Perel, Editor-in-Chief of the National Enquirer". Death By 1000 Papercuts. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Lee Stranahan (July 26, 2008). "Say It Ain't So, John. Why Progressives Need To Get Out In Front Of The John Edwards Affair Rumors". Huffington Post, NY. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Thank you, "Therefore", for sorting my preliminatry date-sorted list by context. This makes the case for notability even stronger. I have taken the liberty of resorting the same sources within your contextual listing, again by date. This gives us the clearest view of the time-line of the developing scandal (and note again, i am dealing here only with the scandal, not with the verifiability of the allegations). To this list, i have made some additions, as the story continues to develop:

• I have added a full citenews tag for the National Enquirer article, for the convenience of readers wishing to actually study the sources.
• I have added a broadcast source in Edwards' home state of North Carolina (WCNC).
• I have added a political opinion commentary column associated with The Charlotte Observer, Edwards' North Carolina home-state "paper of record."
• I have added a print/online article from the Belfast (Ireland) Telegraph which i previously overlooked

cat yronwode ("64") 64.142.90.33 (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC) -- and updated the same evening 64.142.90.33 (talk) 04:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I would argue it decreases it notability. Many would view the unsorted list as if each item is equal, so the sum of its number determines its notability. That is, at best, a crude indicator. Sorting them allows each category be given differing weights. Tabloid: near nil; corroborating MSM: near highest; echoing national MSM: middling; echoing local MSM: less than middling; partisan commentary: below middling; blogs/gossip: zero. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 16:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is based on a fundamental error, that of characterizing "all MSM reports" as "echoes." The July 29, 2008, North Carolina local stories by the NBC-TV affiliate and The Charlotte Observer do NOT fit your paradigm that all MSM stories take as their topic the non-reportage by the MSM. The story itself has evolved greatly and no longer fits your paradigm. Read the North Carolina stories as a jounalist would, and you will see that they express a very important concession, *in Edwards' home state*, that his career has been hurt. When the home-town reporters dump you, you are on the skids. Thus the North Carolina stories represent an extremely significant change in the tide of Edwards' political career. I comment on this fundamental paradigm shift further below. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I do read them as a journalist would -- equal to you. Again, I ask, are you saying that these stories corroborate the allegations or state that it will impact his chances (which isn't a paradigm change)? ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 17:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I reply to this, and your other question, in the next section below. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments and suggestions

There are two issues:

1. The allegations themselves.
2. The notoriety of the allegations.

Has the level of notoriety risen to Wikipedia's threshold? Should details of the rumors be mentioned? I think we can all agree that the bare existence of notoriety isn't enough -- there must be some level, even if subjective and case dependent, to be reached before it meets the level of encyclopedic value. This is where consensus kicks in. I'm not asking for an up or down vote because that is not how consensus works. Instead, I invite you to discuss the relative merits of the sources and discuss why you believe it has reached that threshold. If we do come to consensus on the notoriety of the allegations, do we discuss in detail the allegations -- suggest text. Please be civil, calm, minimize hyperbole and sign your thoughts.

• Clearly there has been some reports on its notoriety: Fox News covered it along with Hannity and Colmes as did the New York Magazine along with several local outlets, though frequently just a brief mention. Additionally, there have been scattered partisan commentaries and several major international publications discussing this -- but they all note that there has been no U.S. mainstream coverage (Fox the only exception). Here is what doesn't count: Blogs, gossip columns, wide chatter in the bit stream. Several of the sources make mention of these but the chatter itself is irrelevant at Wikipedia. Internet angst is part of its culture (a good thing -- vibrant exchange of thoughts and outlets for skepticism) but Wikipedia isn't a place to memorialize its ebb and flow. I don't characterize this coverage as "widely known", the requirement of the inclusion test:

  Is the information already widely known? If it has appeared in numerous mainstream reliable sources over an extended period of time, then it is probably suitable to be included in the article.

  In fact, all of the sources attest to this fact: it isn't covered in the MSM, the definition of "widely known". So, we have two issues here: should the details of the allegations be detailed? My answer: No. It fails the first inclusion test and certainly fails the second:

  Is the information definitive and factual?

  Should the article note the notoriety? Well, mentioning the notoriety causes much less harm and hence would accept a lower threshold for both tests and I answer that question: yes. Therefore, I would suggest this text:

  In July 2008, several news media outlets speculated that Edwards chances for the vice presidency were hurt by unproven tabloid rumors.

  Then we use the Fox News Source and most of the sources listed under "Published/broadcast news echoing story, noting non-MSM coverage". This is the appropriate weight given to this matter -- and weight is a critical consideration. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 15:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say that MSM echoes are not MSM coverage? AzureFury (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There are some MSM echoes. All of the MSM echoes note that it isn't widely reported in the MSM though. The echoes don't support inclusion of the details but possibily support mention of its possible impact for the reason I outlined above. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 16:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Therefore," i think you are behind the curve in your contention that "all of the MSM echoes note that it isn't widely reported in the MSM." Speaking as a person with some background in journalism, it is my opinion that the two MSM North Carolina stories that i inserted into the list this morning -- which, for an Edwards story constitute "the local angle" -- have radically changed the texture of the coverage.

As of July 29, 2008, the stories out of North Carolina are no longer about how MSM outlets are avoiding the story. Rather, they are themselves MSM reports (one from an NBC TV affiliate and one from an important North Carolina newspaper) -- and they discuss the impact on Edwards' career.

I think that these reports signify that the threshold has now irrevocably been crossed between earlier iterations of "MSM fails to report" to the new narrative theme "this story has hurt Edwards' career and may end it."

Allowing the North Carolina local NBC affiliate and the state's own "paper of record," The Charlotte Observer, to break the story in this new way will allow for measured consent on the part of other MSM outlets to develop. When the "home town boys" run with a story that shames one of their own, the national media will follow.

Respectfully, cat yronwode ("64") 64.142.90.33 (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Couple of questions: Isn't the Charlotte item a news sponsored blog vs. published iN the newspaper? Second: Are you arguing for inclusion of the allegation details? Are you saying that these two new sources make the allegations details "definitive and factual"? Or are you arguing that his VP chances are impacted by the rumors? If the latter, then we aren't in significant disagreement. If the former, then can you explain how these articles corroborate the National Enquirer story because I'm not seeing it. Thanks. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 17:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

To your first question: The piece bears the imprimatur of the Charlotte Observer and the writer is a veteran print-journalism staff reporter of the paper, not a mere blogger. You need to read the subtext here. On the URL itself we find the following information: "Jim Morrill covers politics for The Observer, where he's worked since 1981." So this was a masured and planned report, written by a veteran print journalist who has 27 yars of staff history at this newspaper.

To your second question: No, i am not arguing at this time for the inclusion of the allegation details. That will come later. I am arguing at this time for a full disclosure of the fact that in the middle of the night of Tuesday, July 22, 2008, John Edwards visited a Beverly Hills hotel where he was not a registered guest and had an encounter with several tabloid reporters, who were registered guests at the hotel, and that when they attempted to question him as to why he was there and who he was visiting in the hotel at that late hour, he fled and hid in a man's bathroom for 15 minutes until he was escorted from the premises by a hotel security guard, after which two of the tabloid reporters filed a criminal complaint or "incident report" with the Beverly Hills Police Department. THAT is the story that has been confirmed to date.

Cordially, cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As to the matter of the blog: Yes, I did read it carefully. It wasn't trying to demean the entry but to understand its means of distribution, online vs. traditional publication -- hence why I said "news sponsored blog" as distinguished from personal blogs.

You are arguing for the details just without the most lurid aspects. Please write up the suggested text and we'll see if it gains consensus. Please read up on WP:UNDUE and I disagree that because two local (but important) MSMs echo the details that it overrides "do no harm" or the POV problems of undue weight as explained above. Please note the current state of consensus:

• RfC which mostly argues against mention
• BLP noticeboard where they deleted a version of the suggested text as being inappropriate even there
• Admins review of page protection
• Statement of page protector
• Comments of other long term editors
• An edit war commenced when details were added. This is going to be added only if consensus is reached.

My above suggestion is compromise text (you see that, right?). It may or may not pass consensus or change the minds of these editors. Your task is to suggest text and see if it receives support. In my opinion, we should go with my suggested text and if this story is corroborated by the MSM, as time goes by, we can expand upon it. At this point, the only thing corroborated is that Edwards was at a hotel, avoiding the hounding of tabloid reporters. But, go ahead and suggest your text. If neither of our texts receive consensus, then the default position, no mention at all, stands. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 18:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"All of the MSM echoes report that it isn't widely reported in the MSM." Do you not see the contradiction here? Talking about not talking about it is talking about it.

"The echoes don't support inclusion of the details..." Says who? I don't see a policy that specifies secondary sources as unacceptable content for Wikipedia. The WP:BLP#Well-known_public_figures says to include the allegation. We could probably cut it down to one sentence, but we need more than "unproven tabloid rumor." AzureFury (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can see why there is an apparent contradiction, particularly if you leave out the premise "There are some MSM echoes." So, I'll clarify: Some MSM echoes exist. All of these existing MSM echoes state that the U.S. mainstream media has not widely reported on this matter. Hopefully, that clears up things.

I've explained above my reasoning -- please directly rebut the issues I outlined and suggest what text you would like to see and we'll see if it receives consensus. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 17:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking to the point of including any details of the allegation - I think a reader new to the article would immediately wonder "Unproven tabloid rumors? Rumors of what?" and try to "help" by including the nature of the rumor in the article once they found out what they were. Also, the mainstream sources themselves are stating the nature of the allegations. I believe it would be appropriate to include a brief statement of the nature of the report, as well as Edwards' response to them. Something like:

In July 2008, several news media outlets speculated that Edwards' chances for the vice presidency were harmed by allegations published in The National Enquirer that he had fathered a child outside his marriage, and that he had recently visited the child's mother in a Beverly Hills hotel. When questioned, Edwards referred to the allegations as "tabloid trash".

Perhaps it can be cut down a little further, thoughts? Also, on a somewhat related note, Ms. Hunter also apparently denied the allegation in an interview with Extra (TV series) - snippet here. Kelly ^hi! 18:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If the reader goes "what unproven tabloid rumors?", then they can go to the sources which is why they exist. Unproven tabloid rumors, which is what they are right now have no place on Wikipedia. To provide this much acreage to this event would be a point-of-view pushing violation of giving undue weight. We now have two suggested versions of the text. Please read above where I outlined the current state of consensus and my suggestions for moving forward. I continue to recommend mine because it gives appropriate weight without any of the tabloid details. And it has a somewhat reasonable chance of passing consensus. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 18:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, your assumption of consensus is getting tiring, as is your refusal to acknowledge the the policies you are citing explicitly state to include the allegation. I, and other people, have pasted the quotes from these policies specifying why these allegations are worthy of mention, brief as it may be. You advocate civility, and now you are beginning accusations of POV-pushing? No one is saying to include these allegations as fact. As said several times, the allegations are the story, not the affair.

With regards to your comment on the "echoes", you say they do not warrant mention of the allegation based on your completely one-sided interpretation of the WP:BLP policy. This does not mean you can state this as fact as there is a statement in that exact policy that refutes your entire argument. I really don't understand why I have to keep saying the same thing here. The policy you are using says to include the allegation if it is publicised enough. If you want to argue about the extent of publication, then fine. If you want to argue about the due weight, that's ok too. But don't act as if this is a trivial matter of WP:RS. AzureFury (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no comment to make about this. Consensus is the cornerstone of Wikipedia. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 19:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, and consensus is that the allegation will be included. AzureFury (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wording suggestions Redux

I have moved Kelly's suggestion here to this new section, because the previous section is getting a bit long in the tooth. I hope this is okay.

(Kelly suggested):

In July 2008, several news media outlets speculated that Edwards' chances for the vice presidency were harmed by allegations published in The National Enquirer that he had fathered a child outside his marriage, and that he had recently visited the child's mother in a Beverly Hills hotel. When questioned, Edwards referred to the allegations as "tabloid trash".

Perhaps it can be cut down a little further, thoughts? Also, on a somewhat related note, Ms. Hunter also apparently denied the allegation in an interview with Extra (TV series) - snippet here. Kelly ^hi! 18:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, we actually have, as previously noted, THREE stories here. (1) The Hotel Incident. (2) The adulterous affair and out-of-wedlock parentage allegations. (3) The impact that these stories have had on Edwards' political career.

Your wording is too vague for my taste. I prefer a direct narrative, along the lines given here in this quote from Jim Morrill of The Charlotte Observer cited above in the "published sources" list. Said Mr. Morrill:

"The Enquirer, which months ago alleged an affair by former N.C. senator, this week said its reporters caught him having a rendezvous with the woman, Rielle Hunter, at the Beverly Hilton in Beverly Hills.

"The paper said Hunter had two rooms at the hotel Monday night. It said a team of reporters watched Edwards go into the hotel at 9:45 p.m. and then ambushed him on his way out at 2:40 a.m. when, it said, he ducked into a bathroom.

"The paper published no photos or no eyewitness accounts beyond those of its reporters. A hotel spokeswoman declined to talk about the alleged incident Thursday, citing a “non-disclosure policy.”

"Asked about the allegations in Houston Wednesday, Edwards said, “ “That's tabloid trash. They’re full of lies. I’m here to talk about helping people.”

"But the political damage may have been done."

That is, in my opinion, good, clean, non-dicey reporting. It gives portions of all three stories, which stretch back far earlier than your weak "In July 2008" opening. It covers almost all of the bases, from the name of the woman and the time and place of the hotel incident to the response by Edwards and its probable effect on his polical career. (It does leave out Rielle's denial, which you kindly cited.) Furthermore, it is citable in itself, coming from a reliable source, as it was written by a 27-year veteran political reporter for the Charlotte Observer. I would like the Wikipedia mention to be as careful and as THOROUGH as the Jim Morrill report, with the addition of Rielle Hunter's denial.

I am not sure that Rielle Hunter is notable enough for her own page at this point, but if that is the consensus opinion, i think her page should include mnention of her Edwards campaign "webisodes," their pull-down by the Edwards campaign shortly after the first allegations were made (linking her article to the Edwards article), and her statement about who fathered her child.

cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to move down my concerns here. If the reader goes "what unproven tabloid rumors?", then they can go to the sources which is why they exist. Unproven tabloid rumors, which is what they are right now have no place on Wikipedia. To provide this much acreage to this event would be a point-of-view pushing violation of giving undue weight. We now have two suggested versions of the text. Please read above where I outlined the current state of consensus and my suggestions for moving forward. I continue to recommend mine because it gives appropriate weight without any of the tabloid details. And it has a somewhat reasonable chance of passing consensus. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 18:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

To 64: Please show us your suggested text and we will open up comment to the community the three versions to date. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 18:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

To Therefore: I would like to do so, but i am already three hours overdue to go to work on my regular day's routine, due to my writing here. If no one else makes further suggestions by late tonight, i may do so, but in any case i shall then weigh in with comments. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Therefore: If we keep the language regarding the allegations neutral (like the mainstream sources), I don't think it can be considered POV-pushing. And I don't think half a sentence regarding the nature of the allegation could be considered "undue weight". I do have concerns about the longer version proposed by the anon above - appropriate for a newspaper, I think, but not an encyclopedia. Kelly ^hi! 19:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point that I may be overstating the word count although others, I suspect, will argue that any mention of the unproven tabloid details is of and by itself undue weight. We, then, are required to consider the inclusion test I outlined at Talk:John Edwards#Discussion of article context. Could you respond how this passes either the "widely known, numerous mainstream sources, extended period of time" or even more critically "Is the information definitive and factual?" (I go into more detail at the above section.) Finally, if you could, do you think your expanded version will pass muster when the previous version didn't given the current state of consensus I outlined above? ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 19:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(were you talking to me?) I guess I'm not understanding your objection at this point - are you saying that the nature of the allegation is not widely known or included in numerous mainstream sources? I think all of the mainstream sources that have been cited above state the nature of the allegations. In regards to the "definitive and factual" - huh? As numerous people have said, we're not presenting the allegations as factual, but simply stating that they have been made, and the allegations have been covered and restated by other press sources. We're proposing on discussing them as allegations, not as factual. I thought that was understood, how did we backslide? Kelly ^hi! 19:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that -- which I argue is a runaround the spirit of the text. The "definitive and factual" test isn't mine but from WP:HARM. I argue that it hasn't been widely reported as explained above -- in fact, most of sources confirm just that. What harm is there in waiting for corroboration in case this unproven allegation is false or continues to be unproven? ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 19:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I get you. It looks like our difference is whether the allegations have been "widely reported" - I believe they have, whereas you don't. Would you say this is now the fundamental point of disagreement on which consensus has to be achieved? Kelly ^hi! 19:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say you are about right. Other editors (listed just below in the consensus summary) have also bring up other "do no harm" issues involved with repeating here the allegations in a tabloid. Generally, we wait for corroboration and not echoing. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 20:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, we've been trying to tell you all along that that the "allegations" have been reported by reliable sources, not as "facts." As you seem to understand that with your last comment, why on earth did you drag this out so long?--Oakshade (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)I appreciate that you are in a rush. If you think that you can get the new version by the community, then you have gained consensus. I'd recommending reading these -- these are the folks you need to convince:

• RfC which mostly argues against mention
• BLP noticeboard where they deleted a version of the suggested text as being inappropriate even there
• Admins review of page protection
• Statement of page protector
• Comments of other long term editors
• An edit war commenced when details were added. This is going to be added only if consensus is reached.

I stand by my version:

In July 2008, several news media outlets speculated that Edwards chances for the vice presidency were hurt by unproven tabloid rumors.

which is neutrally written and imparts the salient fact that some have speculated his vp chances are harmed. You want the tabloid details explicitly included (whereas they are available in the included sources). That didn't fly before. My goal here is to come up with compromise language between zero mention and Kelly's.

There is no time limit -- we can't edit the page regardless until we come to consensus. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 19:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious. So you're stalling edits by bucking the consensus THEN claiming there is "no consensus." A transparent tactic if ever there was one. The Edwards kerfuffle is notable and has been reported by numerous reputable sources, conveniently collated by ip-64. Stop this intransigence; because it is looking more and more like it is politically-motivated and defensive the way you're digging in your heels in the face of copious reporting from secondary news sources. 220.255.7.204 (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If I felt that that was a productive comment or civil or hadn't been said a hundred times before or directly addressed any of the issues we are discussing then I may have responded to it. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 20:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't been directly addressed insofar as you haven't explained why numerous secondary sources do not merit inclusion on the Edwards page. Come on now, it's all getting a little ridiculous, and you know it. 220.255.7.203 (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The comments in RfC that are not from the three editors against inclusion (including one long comment from yourself) and from outside this debate, which what RfC is for, does not "mostly argues against mention." As for the BLP noticeboard, it only takes one administrator to delete a version with a mention of the scandal, not "they." That is not any gauge of consensus.--Oakshade (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

But, after reviewing, you are correct -- the number of outside sources were extremely few and mixed. I would consider the others on my list also. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 20:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know Oakshade, I think the BLP noticeboard is a gauge though certainly not a determining one. All I'm saying is that you will be facing the same group of editors/admins that you did when the earlier version was inserted. If you feel that you have satisfied their concerns, then you have reached consensus. (Though I don't agree with this version but consensus isn't unanimity). If it doesn't fly, then we are back at square one. I'm suggesting we start with my version and see if that passes. And then if further developments corroborate the story, then we can add. Do you see a problem with waiting for the details? ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 20:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I still think not including some mention of the nature of the allegation would greatly increase the "WTF factor" for anyone coming to the article, though I agree that this description should be kept as short and neutral as possible. Kelly ^hi! 20:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec):Um, characterizing as purely "tabloid" rumors ignores the corroborating evidence from Fox News. By now, pretty much everyone knows what's being discussed. And failing to mention the alleged affair and the love child makes WP look silly. Ronnotel (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Abided by your request and changed it. --Oakshade (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Accordingly removed my objection -- thanks! ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 20:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand this point of view -- but it isn't one that holds much weight -- silliness -- we hear it all the time. If you object to the protection of the page, here is where you can go: Admins review of page protection. If you object that we are being careful before including damaging potentially false information in the page, well, you have a lot of people to convince that that is a good idea. If you object that the vast majority of MSM aren't covering this, then you should go to them to complain. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 20:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks, I know how to request unprotection. And the reason I think it's silly to make reference to a scandal that is potentially ruinous to a major politician's career, without actually describing what the scandal relates to, is, well, silly. Just who do you think is being protected? Ronnotel (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Therefore is correct in that there's no real rush here. The pause in editing caused by the protection has prevented edit-warring on the page, and has allowed time for other media sources to pick up the story and provide corraboration. Yes, some of the off-wiki criticism makes me cringe, but it will soon fade away and be forgotten. I actually think we're close to achieving some kind of consensus here. I wish people would offer honest comment on the alternatives, or provide an alternative of their own, rather than sniping. It's not helpful. Kelly ^hi! 20:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. WP is becoming the story - something that should never happen. The time for putting something, anything, up is well past. Ronnotel (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

By story you mean internet angst on blogs and forums. Happens all the time. You are advising us to bend to outside partisan pressure. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 20:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Righto. Gawker is "partisan" in a rightwing sorta way. 'Pressure' is the reporting from numerous notable, reputable sources that have been collated by ip-64. Apparently none merit inclusion on the page because... just because. 220.255.7.228 (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"No real rush" meaning "until the storm blows over"? Cynical. And people wonder why this article has attracted outside comment from Gawker (hardly "right wing"). Because of the transparently political nature of the edit lockdown, you think? It's embarrassing. 220.255.7.209 (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that you got that off your chest, and disparaged the page editors, what are you recommending? Which of the above two version are you supporting? If you want to protest the protection, there is a methodology. I'm unsure what you want besides venting which not only improper talk page behavior is of no use. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 20:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a recommendation: unlock the article and implement Kelly's version. Or else edit based on the secondary sources so far collated. What is NOT done is blocking edits indefinitely because of "a lack of consensus" despite the existence of numerous reliable sources to the contrary. It's not rocket science. (This reply was delayed because the usual malfunctioning wiki automatons have intermittently and mistakenly identified my ip as a TOR node. Fix the silly script already.) 220.255.7.242 (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Kelly's version is by far the superior. Ronnotel (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I endorse Kelly's version. Bonobonobo (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I like Kelly's version too. It wouldn't be exactly what I would write, but it's close enough and accomplishes the goal of reporting the fact that allegations have been raised rather than reporting the allegations as facts.Cjbreisch (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I support Kelly's version also. I never thought this deserved more than a few sentences. Detailing the timeline seemed to be too much weight. Looks like we have consensus. AzureFury (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I am a little lost

Can you explain why we should mention "unproven tabloid rumors", link to the articles that detail them and not add a line saying what the unproven rumors are. It is Pravdaesque.I see no valid rationale apart from priggishness. We all know what needs to be done and all know that in the end this article will contain a proper description.

People need to take a step back and just put something in the article that does not leave bizzare questions begging as though there was some kind of British style press gag in force.

We all know this needs to be done, the vast majority of comment on this page is in support of this, now let it be done. It should not be protected anymore, and certainly not without a NPOV tag.

Bonobonobo (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Pravadesque", "no valid rationale", "priggishness", and on and on. These are uncivil, unproductive statements that serve no purpose. We don't argue here by pressure tactics or disparagement but by collegial civil discussion. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 21:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, man alive. Can you stop dragging this discussion out, there is now a general consensus. Bonobonobo (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This comment by you is just inverse flaming, deliberatly misconstring my meaning and feigning offence and playing the victim. Note you are now alone on this matter as best I can tell. Bonobonobo (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Unique take: When an editor calls you on uncivil behavior, you perceive it as uncivil. You never did grasp what my role was in this process; I clearly understand yours. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 22:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for comments on alternatives

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In the spirit of moving this process along, I'm going to lay out the three options. Feel free to add to the arguments for and against and we will revise accordingly. Then add your comments/sigs under which version you prefer.

Longer version

Text

In July 2008, several news media outlets speculated that Edwards' chances for the vice presidency were harmed by allegations published in The National Enquirer that he had fathered a child outside his marriage, and that he had recently visited the child's mother in a Beverly Hills hotel. When questioned, Edwards referred to the allegations as "tabloid trash".

Arguments for

The statement doesn't state that these claims are true but simply reports that the National Enquirer has alleged them, so it doesn't violate "do no harm". There have been reports on this in Fox News, Hannity and Colmes, North Carolina (Edwards's home state) local media, the New York Magazine along with several other local outlets, though frequently just a brief mention. Additionally, there have been scattered partisan commentaries and several major international publications discussing this matter.

Arguments against

Using sources that echo the National Enquirer but do not corroborate the claims does not satisfy the "do no harm" guideline as it repeats unproven tabloid allegations. Most of the sources state that the U.S. mainstream media is not reporting on this which arguably detracts from the standard of being "widely publicized".

Editors who agree

1. As author - Kelly ^hi! 21:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Bonobonobo (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Ronnotel (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Oakshade (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
5. — goethean ॐ 21:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
6. TuckerResearch (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
7. This looks pretty good -- I might add one more sentence to further inoculate against the possibility of "doing harm" by mentioning the substance of the allegations: "Of these allegations, only the fact that Edwards was present at the hotel has been corroborated by independent media outlets" (citing to the Fox News report). PubliusFL (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Jakk55 (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
9. I would add the hotel confrontation. But this is a good start. DiggyG (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
10. It should certainly be mentioned in some capacity, and the shorter version is just cryptic. john k (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
11. Jobius (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
12. Yep. 220.255.7.231 (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
13. Generally good, but I agree that something should be said about the hotel confrontation. Bmcdaniel (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
14. Yes, but Edwards did not refer to the allegations as "tabloid trash." He referred to the National Enquirer as "tabloid trash." He carefully avoided denying the allegations, from which only one inference can be drawn. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
15. Yes. The shorter version lacks context; hotel incident requires some mention b/c it is the more substantive and documented episode; agree w/ Mr. Toad for precision. Also, the diplomatic and orderly nature of this rfc is a breath of fresh air. Kudos to both sides. Evensong (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
16. Concur. Of the three options listed, this is the best. Macduff (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
17. Joshdboz (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC) As others have stated, this is the best of the options laid out. Slightly more context would be useful in establishing the timeframe of the allegations and the media response to them.
18. I can agree on something along these lines, but I would change the last sentence to Edwards has since refused to comment on the allegations, referring to them only as "tabloid trash". Ethereal (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
19. Something along these lines would work, but it should be noted that Edwards has refused to explicitly deny the allegations, and that Fox News has independently confirmed his presence at the hotel. RayAYang (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    Edwards said: "I don't talk about these tabloids. They're tabloid trash and just full of lies." So he did NOT say the allegations were tabloid trash. He has NOT denied the allegations. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    I would be amenable to including the full quote above, as opposed to the "tabloid trash" snippet of it. Kelly ^hi! 03:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    Just to be clear. We should leave out the fact that he has not denied the allegations because that seems to be a implicit suggestion that they are possibly true because of his non-denial. A better way to word his reaction would be either to include his quote on this matter or state that he has refused to comment on it, or perhaps both. Ethereal (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    How about a combination of suggestions above - Edwards refused to comment on the allegations, stating "I don't talk about these tabloids. They're tabloid trash and just full of lies.". Kelly ^hi! 03:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    Yes I can agree with that re-wording. Ethereal (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    If a public figure is accused of something, and fails to deny it, that is a relevant and significant fact. Readers are entitled to know that Edwards has not denied these allegations. They will of course draw the obvious inference, but that is their business. That wording is OK with me. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    For that matter, President George W Bush has not denied that he would divorce his wife after the November elections. Google "Bush Condi Rice affair" to find tabloid articles on this. Yet clearly, he also hasn't denied a whole host of other tabloid rumors about him and his presidency. It is far more neutral and NPOV to quote his actual response or note that he has refused to comment on it then to say he hasn't denied it. The latter is implied by the former, in any case. Let the readers draw their conclusion from their unwillingness to address it. Ethereal (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    If Bush was asked if he was having an affair with Rice, and he did not deny it, that would most certainly be significant. He hasn't been asked, presumably because no-one believes it. Edwards has been asked about these allegations, and failed to deny them. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    Why should we be ascribing significance to their actions? It's not our job to highlight the significance of a particular response by a public figure. That should left to the blogs. The difference between highlighting the fact that he has failed to denied it and that he refused to comment on it PLUS the the quote of his response rests entirely with how you choose to interpret his response. It has nothing to do with the factual reporting of his response. We are concerned only with the facts and not subjective interpretations of those Ethereal (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    So, is your position that the quote should be included, but without any statement as to its implications one way or the other? Pusher robot (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

20. Support, with reservations. Pusher robot (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
21. I support this weakly because (1) it does not describe the hotel confrontation or its corroboration by Fox News (i.e. corroboration of the fact that Hunter was a guest in the hotel, Edwards was not, or that Edwards hid in the men's roo for 15 minutes); (2) it does not contain the text of Edwards' non-denial ("I don't talk about these tabloids. They're tabloid trash and just full of lies."), (3) it does not contain the text of Hunter's denial and her claim that Edwards' campaign finance guy Andrew Young is the father -- and i think she should be named and quoted as giving that denial rather than pushed aside into the shadows. But this is a start, and so i support it. catherine yronwode a.k.a "IP-64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
22. I agree with IP-64 above that this should be expanded somewhat, but this is definitely much better than no mention of anything at all. Kelly, thanks a lot for organizing this! --76.189.104.71 (talk) 04:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    Actually, the real thanks should go to Therefore, who organized the discussion into this great format. My hat's off to him. Kelly ^hi! 04:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

23. Concur with IP-64, additional factual details needed. Bellis (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
24. This longer version is excellent. It states the notable fact of the controversy, without giving undue weight to the yet unsubstantiated allegations. It counters with an appopriately weighted response by Edwards. Excellent, and if adopted, actually justifies the heretofore moratorium on comment that I had prevoiusly argued against. A fair comprimise. The shorter version, however, is useless.

Shorter version

Text

In July 2008, several news media outlets speculated that Edwards chances for the vice presidency were hurt by unproven tabloid rumors.

Arguments for

See arguments against the Longer version. This statement is supported by the sources and is written in a neutral tone of voice. Recommending waiting for the MSM to corroborate further. Until which time, this version is adequate.

Arguments against

Excludes the details of the allegations, making the article incomplete.

Editors who agree with this version

• I concur with this version. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 21:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• I prefer no mention at this time, but could live with this one, assuming no BLP violations are included in the citations. Tvoz/talk 05:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No mention whatsoever

Arguments for

This lacks notability and doesn't have any encyclopedic value. Speculation on its impact is not encyclopedic. Wait until more developments occur.

[Note: argument against including this at the present time is more developed in my comment below . Tvoz/talk 02:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)]

Arguments against

This has been mentioned in several reliable sources and some believe that not including it leaves the project open to partisan criticism.

Editors who agree with no mention

1. At present there is no reliable sourcing about the story; random media speculation about the effect of the story is not encyclopedic, it is just their opinion - if reliable sources were to report, with proper confirmed sources, that this story and/or rumblings about it did derail any VP possibility - not that they think it might - then it would likely be appropriate to include; the only semi-confirmed material is that he avoided tabloid reporters and that is not a story worthy of an encyclopedia biography. There is no rush to include this - we are not the news - and the appropriate action is no action for now. As I've said already, this is a wait-and-see. If the story comes out in a real way, properly sourced - not relying on the unsourced National Enquirer article (and the reporters can't be their own sources for heaven's sake) - then we would look at it again. This is politics pure and simple, and the fact that right-wing blogs and snarky media gadflys have talked about this talk page only proves the point. We aren't the news, we don't run stories, we don't include speculation and innuendo. If the story becomes real, it will be quite obvious and we'll have our choice of sourcing. Further - the statements above do not indicate which sources they are considering using - that is crucial, as some of the overseas news articles have titles that are BLP violations themselves as well. Tvoz/talk 02:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

There is clear consensus for the first version to be included in the article at this time, and I have accordingly done so. As soon as the protection expires or is lifted, the text may be amended through the normal editorial process, but I advise that this should only be done as soon as relevant new information becomes available through reliable sources.  Sandstein  07:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources

Unless there's a major change between now and expiration of the protection, we seem to be approaching a consensus on the "longer version" above...if that version is included, I think it would be adequate to use the two most reliable sources from the list above - this one from The Times and this one from Fox News. Opinions? Kelly ^hi! 03:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was ahead of you and inserted some sources supporting the text. --Oakshade (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem! I think we could drop The Hill (that seems to be primarily an opinion piece by a National Review regular) and the Irish Independent (fairly short piece that simply retreads the Enquirer allegations). Kelly ^hi! 03:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree about The Hill piece, but the Irish Independent one does support the "several news media outlets speculated that Edwards' chances for the vice presidency" sentence. --Oakshade (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, speaking for myself, that sounds fine. Kelly ^hi! 03:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest using the Jim Morrill "Campaign Tracker" column from the Charlotte Observer as a source. It is written by a 27-year North Carolina policitcal journalism veteran who has had years of experience reporting on Edwards both locally and in his bids for national office. cat yronwode a.k.a. IP-64 64.142.90.33 (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No one, not even Edwards, has challenged the Enquirer's most recent reporting (except to say it's sleazy... which it obviously is). I think that needs to be included as a source. DiggyG (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The National Enquirer is not a reliable source as a tabloid. Which was why inclusion of this allegation was delayed over concerns of notability. Non-denial does not necessarily imply factual accuracy. Ethereal (talk) 04:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no wiki-list of banned sources. And they're part of the story. DiggyG (talk) 06:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That does not imply that every single trashy tabloid article is newsworthy. Take for example, as I said earlier, the claims of a Bush Condi Rice affair. That claim has been published by tabloids in the US, bu that alone does not make it worthy of inclusion. Ethereal (talk) 09:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Merely being a tabloid does not render a newspaper untrustworthy. The Times, The Guardian and the Wall St Journal are all tabloids. For the NE to be classified as an unacceptable source, you have to demonstrate that it has a history of false or careless reporting of political matters. I've never seen it, but from what I gather it does do investigations of political matters and sometimes breaks genuine stories, even if in a sensationalist manner that NYT readers don't much like (and nor do I). If this story was a complete fabrication Edwards and Hunter would both have denied it by now, and probably sued as well. The fact that they haven't done so has led virtually everyone to conclude that the story is true. That's why "the dog that doesn't bark" is significant in terms of Wikiedia's coverage. I therefore assert that the allegations made in the NE story should be summarised here. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As said by DGG, "tabloid" does not refer to the physical dimensions of the newspaper, but of its reliability as a source. You seem to have the inclusion criteria for news stories backwards. A news source should not be treated as trustworthy until proven otherwise, and the very fact that the mainstream media have not independently corroborated or reported on the alleged accusations calls into question the reliability of the source. Usually if a report is published by a trustworthy source, the mainstream media would report on it as well. To that effect, so far none except Fox News have attempted to corroborate the story and even the Fox News article itself clearly states it was unable to confirm the National Enquirer story independently. Ethereal (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Tabloid in this sense is not physical dimensions, but editorial policy.,as in "tabloid journalism": The WSJ despite recent ownership changes, is not a practitioner of tabloid journalism and remains an unquestioned RS. I suppose the Guardian likewise. As for the Times, I consider its standards going downhill fast. I'm waiting a few weeks for some good sources commenting about their standards, which I imagine will be forthcoming, and I'll then be trying to us them for an edit in the article. I still regard them as a RS for most purposes, but not for negative BLP--but MrToad is right that this needs to be demonstrated by more than my opinion. Just a comment on sources, not on the edits. DGG (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree regarding not using the Enquirer directly as a source here per the previous discussions, and WP:REDFLAG. This morning I saw an interview with an editor at the Los Angeles Times saying that their Metro Desk is working on this story, so I have no doubt that further details, either corraborating or debunking, will be forthcoming before too long. Right now, the allegations themselves are the meta-story in the press. Kelly ^hi! 13:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the Enquirer doesn't count as a reliable source for verification purposes. However, there's no reason to exclude mention of the article and the sourcing. It is an authentic primary source in the making of this scandal, and we should reference it, to assist readers conducting further research. RayAYang (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The American (and Pulitzer Prize winning) Times-Picayune just published an article about the scandal and goes into detail about the reporting, or lack of, by other American newspapers.[18] --Oakshade (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

How often does the Enquirer have to be right before people can accept that they're reliable? They have a pretty good reputation amongst journalists for the accuracy of their stories. I think we're in danger of excluding accurate reporting due to snobbery. Don't get me wrong, I'm as big a snob as Kelly, RayAYang, or anyone else: these people make a living from invading the privacy of famous, and semi-famous people; the crap they report is almost never important; and their writing style kills brain cells. I'm not saying that the Enquirer is a good newspaper. I'm just saying that they're pretty accurate, and in this case they're the primary source (and have a 7 month head-start on other news orgs). DiggyG (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what, head over the to George Bush page and add in that the National Enquirer reported he started drinking again (just read that in the recent blog post that praised the efforts of this page). Shouldn't be a problem since several MSM echoed the story. They have a terrible track record in terms of accuracy or precision. We are snobs, you are right. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 22:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Today's the day, isn't it? The article was protected until at least 30 July 2008.

"This page is currently protected from editing until 30 July 2008 or until disputes have been resolved." Today's the 30th of July or until disputes have been resolved. Personally, I think the story has been mentioned in enough news sources that the longer, referenced version in the highlighted box above should be used. If the shorter version was used, I'd tag it with a "fact" template, if someone else didn't tag it first -- the short version is incomplete. Thus, the longer version should be used. Adding or deleting a reference can be done either acrimoniously or harmoniously after the mention has been added, but to keep dragging our feet over whether or not to mention the allegations on the main page because one editor prefers a different news source and wishes to see it referenced and another editor dislikes another news source, etc., seems to be tying the allegations up in red tape. Banaticus (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to discuss and reach consensus first before any substantive changes are made; otherwise the page will be protected again if edit warring recurs. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 11:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Once protection expires, I was planning to include the longer Edwards quote per the discussion in the RfC above. I do think it's a more accurate statement than the two-word snippet that's currently there. Kelly ^hi! 13:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the dispute appears to be resolved based on the discussion and resulting consensus above, I have unprotected the article. (I am a completely uninvolved admin who has been monitoring this talk page and the content dispute since the ANI report.) Obviously, further edit warring will result in re-protection. Many thanks to all, especially Kelly and Therefore, for their efforts toward resolution. — Satori Son 13:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

[out] The quote that was included and footnoted to this Fox News article, does not appear in that article. I replaced it with the quote that does appear in the article. Tvoz/talk 17:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I want to applaud what's been done here, even by those I disagreed with. It took too long to get here, IMO, but for the most part, the dialogue was constructive and a proper consensus was reached. So, in particular, I thank Kelly and Therefore, for keeping the place honest. We just need to start the consensus process sooner (when possible) in response to cases like these in order to keep Wikipedia editors from appearing partisan or obstructionist. Which is probably an unfair criticism in any event (despite the fact that I made it). How long would it take Britannica to respond to something like this? A year? Encarta might get it in a month. It took Wikipedia, what, a week? That's still pretty good.

I do agree that some protection needs to be in place for pages in times like this so that DNH and BLP are respected. Despite my earlier comments, I am not interested in throwing either of those out, just tweaking them somewhat, and now that this has died down, I'm going to take my arguments there.Cjbreisch (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Reopened/Semi-protected

As other admins have noted, a consensus formed above, it was implemented in the article, and the page unprotected. Since then, two edits have been made by those who would be affected by semi-protection and reverted by Kelly. These edits appear to totally disregard the existence of the prior consensus (did they even see it?) and to violate the policy on biographical material about living people. It would be helpful if other editors who agree with that consensus could pitch in and help evaluate and respond to new edits, instead of leaving all the work to Kelly. Remember that all the named parties in this matter are living people. I don't want to semi-protect the page at this time, but I am evaluating this on an ongoing basis. GRBerry 16:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll help. AzureFury (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, AzureFury.

Virtually the same edit has occurred, and been properly reverted, once again. I am beginning to favor semi-protection for a short time. — Satori Son 18:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article again due to the edits by IP and new account editors. In the 10 hours since it was unprotected, we've had 12 WP:BLP violating or otherwise vandalous edits by such editors with no useful contributions from them. Established editors are welcome to continue editing in compliance with policy. I caution Grundle2600 and Therefore that their behavior with regard to the environmental stuff is verging upon edit warring. GRBerry 21:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

New NE charges: $15,000 / mo.; baby's name is Frances

Those of you who have been following this story rather than cluck-clucking about the definition of "tabloid" will recall that in his several published interviews online, National Enquirer editor David Perel has said that he and his reporters were "following the money" and that there would soon be more corroborating information.

Today, July 30, 2008, the other shoe fell. The National Enquirer has published a new story claiming that they have evidence that John Edwards is using a thrid party source to pay off Rielle Hunter to the tune of $15,000 per month; that the couple's child is named Frances Quinn Hunter and she was born at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital; and that Andrew Young, the Edwards campaign finance person who originally claimed to be the baby's father and who is the registered owner of Hunter's BMW vehicle, is also receiving monthly hush-money from the same third-party source that sends Hunter her hush-money. Also, in unrelated developments, Hunter is said to be in financial negotiations with a major network for a tell-all interview.

National Enquirer (unsigned; possibly Alan Butterfield ad/or Alexader Hitchen, the two reporters previously covering this story for the paper) (July 30, 2008). "Edwards' Hu$h Money to Mistress". National Enquirer. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

At this point Edwards -- a lawyer -- should be about to sue the National Enquiirer for libel, or he should cave. Anyone want to take bets on which way the cat's a-gonna jump?

While we wait for that to play out, i propose that we stop this senseless wrangling over whether the National Enquirer is a tabloid (yes, it is, get over it!) and consider the bottome line: No newspaper editor, no matter what his editorial policies, would go to the wall and risk dismemberment of his paper through libel lawsuit on a simple adultery-paternity story concerning a potentially has-been politico unless he felt that his reporters had the goods. David Perel has pursued the Edwards story for many months, and has devoted many reporter-hours to it (he has had up to seven reporters working the story at a time, according to his interviews) -- all of which indicates that he had faith in the story, and that it is not a chimera.

To Tvoz and Therefore: i hope that this is a lesson to you about how snobbery can blind one to the reliability of a source. I say this in the kindest way, with full recognition that you both were fighting for what you believed in and with gratitude that you have agreed to abide by the true consensus here. However, i do want you to see how your intransigence exposed Wikipedia to extnsive public ridicule, which would not have occurred had you thought this thing through past your prejudices against the "tabloid" paper that broke the story.

Also, for Tvoz: you have never apologized to me, and so i will bring forward to this public venue my continued concern over your behavior. You deleted my posts to this talk page; you posted a block/ban threat at my talk page; and when i blanked my talk page to remove the threat, you restored it, at the same time charging me with "vandalism" of my own talk page for removing the threat. I want you to understand that threats of permanent blocking from Wikipedia are really harsh and chilling and do not assume good faith when summarily inflicted on editors you have never met and with whom you have no history of conflict. I also want you to realize that such threats can fail to have their hoped-for chilling effect when those who edit from IP addresses are actually well-intentioned, long-time editors here, who use the IP address in part as a test of the civility of their colleagues. You failed that civility test miserably, Tvoz.

In closing, to restore some good humour here, and to assuage those who still are chafing over the fact that the National Enquirer is a "tabloid" and that it is "sleazy" and that "sleazy tabloids" shouldn't be breaking major political scandal news -- let me say that, well, yes, they broke the story explicitely, but it is obvious that the story was already known to other reporters, who refused to pursue it.

All professional journalists editing here should re-read the December 28, 2006 Newsweek article by Jonathan Darman describing Rielle Hunter's "webisodes" for John Edwards:

Jonathan Darman (December 28, 2006). "Politics 2008: John Edwards, Untucked". Newsweek. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Darman and his editor were well aware of the affair and were quite carefully alluding to it without committing themselves. Darman wrote: "In the midst of a short theme sequence that begins each Webisode, the camera lingers over the former senator's behind as he tucks a starched white shirt into his pants. Still, Hunter, now under contract with Edwards's organization, says she sees the untucked John Edwards coming more and more to the fore."

I mean, read it as a writer would! Her camera "lingers over [his] behind", she is "under" contract, and then the "untucked Edwards" starts "coming more and more to the fore" Geez!!!! This is nothing more than a smartly updated variation on the hoary old newspaperman's cliche, "Miss Assistant, who has served under Mr. Politician in a variety of positions, [...]"!

By the way, at the Newsweek site, Darman's prescient article from 2006 has been recycled with a new headline: "Politics 2008: John Edwards, Untucked." By retitling it thus, they are all but screaming, "Yes, we knew it back then!"

Cordially, catherine yronwode a.k.a. "IP-64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, catherine, since this article talk page is not the place for answering personal attacks, I'll try to keep this short. But you've given me no choice since you refuse to allow discussion on your own talk page.

• Try getting your facts straight. I posted exactly one time on User talk:64.142.90.33, and that was to let an IP editor know that posting material that may violate BLP policy on a talk page is not allowed. I didn't research your IP address to see if you were an experienced editor using an IP address and I didn't make random threats - I used an existing template. You did not respond to me.
• Further, here's where you are also quite wrong - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are mistaken: I did not restore anything on your talk page and I never accused you of vandalism. Read more carefully before making wild accusations. I am not User: Hmrox who is the person who restored the template I had posted. I posted on your talk page one time. One standard advisory. If you had a problem with my post you could have found your way to my talk page - I'm not hiding. In fact you never said anything to me other than to acknowledge that you understood my point about BLP here.
• As for what you've posted here - when you stopped including specific details on this talk page, I stopped removing your posts - and you acknowledged that in your edit summary here. I believe posting names and uncorroborated "facts" is potentially a BLP concern and I see you are continuing to post uncorroborated details here that I think should be removed for BLP reasons. I'll leave it to someone else to decide.

I don't owe you any apology - it's actually the other way around. And so far the Enquirer stories remain uncorroborated as far as I've seen. If you'd read what I've written here, you'd see that I have consistently used phrases like "wait and see" and "at present" - I am not making a determination of what will be in the future. If and when the story is corroborated and supported by reliable sources there will be plenty of time to include it somewhere - if it has an actual impact on this person's life and career worthy of being in his general biography, not just the speculation of some random writers who have no sources telling them that his name has been removed from a VP list or similar - I will support it being here. But I seriously question why, since the sourcing is so poor, it is deemed so urgent right now. As for my being in any way responsible for Wikipedia being exposed to public ridicule - you must be kidding. "They" do it all by themselves. I think I defended the project quite well on NPR and in the Washington Post, as a matter of fact. Tvoz/talk 18:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Tvoz, for responding.

You are correct, and i apologize abjectly, because the person who "restored" my talk page -- User: Hmrox -- was not you.

As for your other point, yes, i did say that i understood why you took my mention of Rielle Hunter off this talk page. I was being very humble and polite to you. What i did not understand -- and still do not understand -- is why you removed my text from the talk page for mentioning the name Rielle Hunter and threatened me with a ban -- but never deleted the talk page text written by other editors who mentioned the name Rielle Hunter, nor threatened them with a ban. The only difference i can see is that those other editors signed with their names and i signed with an IP address. Until you explain these actions to me in words i can understand, i will say that i think you are enforcing a double standard that is harmful to Wikipedia. Real civility and politeness are ingrained; the deletions and banning threats should have been across-the-board, not inflicted solely upon IP-address editors. Kindness is best when it is given equally to all. Restrictions against posting "forbidden" text are best when they are enforced equally against all. Fair is fair -- and you did not play fair. As for your defending Wikipedia, well, i shall follow Thumper's Momma's Advice [[19]].

Sincerely, 64.142.90.33 (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Cat, I think you are being just a touch over-sensitive here. I reverted your comments because they went over a BLP line to me by naming names and spelling out details that were not needed on the talk page in order to decide whether to include the material. We all can follow links to articles and read them. (And your post above is more of the same - do you have any limits?) It may come as a shock but I didn't know or care who you were, nor did I target you because for some reason you use an IP when you edit. If I saw BLP violations that were posted by a named user and went over the line I would have removed those too. Take a look at my edit history if you like - I think you'll see that I post standard template warnings on editors' pages across the board - usually for vandalism, or NPOV, and sometimes for BLP. Yes, many of them are IPs because - guess what - most often they are new editors and may not know policy, or when they are vandalizing don't care about policy. I regularly template named editors when needed too. So does everyone else who tries to keep the encyclopedia free of crap. You're barking up the wrong tree. I accept your apology for your utterly incorrect accusation, and assume the apology is also supposed to cover your accusing me of "snobbery" and "incivility". And your Thumper comment was just more of your same snarky attitude - but you know what? I don't actually care what you think of me or my work. I'm finished with wasting space on this talk page with this conversation. I would have this exchange on your talk page if you approached Wikipedia the way just about all editors do - with talk space to hash out disagreements. Apparently you have different rules, but I am not going to burden this page with this any further - you can do what you want. Cheers Tvoz/talk 10:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think talk pages have to adhere to the same policies as articles... AzureFury (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No, but anything that is legally defamatory must be. This was not since it was repeating comment from another which can never be defamatory in Florida. Bonobonobo (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In a way you are correct AF, but BLP restrictions apply to talk pages also. From WP:BLP:

We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. [emphasis from source]

Note that the standard isn't legally defamatory but poorly sourced. FWIW, Florida law is irrelevant in terms of BLP. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 20:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There's considerably more latitude concerning this issue on article talk pages. It's not like we're saying "John Jackson is a dirty child molester that lives on 123 Elm Street in Cornhole, Arkansas"; it's discussion of material regarding a public figure that is appearing elsewhere in the press. Things on the talk page are unlikely to be seen or read by the normal article viewer, and they are soon archived in any case, removing them even further from view. The statement above is a good general guideline, but it's not really workable in specific cases like this one. If it was rigorously applied, the inclusion of controversial material could not even be discussed (how would consensus then ever be reached?). Also, there is no legal risk, though I understand that fear of being sued is not the primary reason for WP:BLP. Kelly ^hi! 20:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kelly, you said what I suspected. AzureFury (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

To Kelley: I don't believe we disagree. 64's post here concerning the newest NE allegations is an example of something that is, by definition, poorly sourced, contentious and is therefore a candidate for removal. What was being debated here was whether Tvoz was following BLP standards in reverting what was then a NE only allegation and I was responding to the counterargument that only legally defamatory information should be removed -- but BLP policy unambiguously calls for the immediate removal without discussion of poorly sourced information. That doesn't preclude the foregoing discussions of the previous allegations echoed in well sourced publications, which is what you are referring to. Even the BLP noticeboard removed all mention of the details at that time. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 21:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Edwards' mansion and the environment

This is proof that Edwards does not care about the environment. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand, Grundle, I went and looked at your source. But WP:BLP is unambiguous on the use of blogs:

Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs.

Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 20:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

My thought is that the blogger is barking up the wrong tree. He claims that Edwardses "hate forests." I think, rather, that they wish to "use" forests, as well as pasturage, to provide a setting for their mansion-home. Human beings are not generaly comfortable living in deep forests. Like Chimpazees, they prefer forest clearings. So part of what is happening there is species-preference. But, to take it a step farther, if i look at this specific instance of landscape mutilation as pure "design", what i see here is the aesthetics of a would-be "lord of the manor" and the creation of a lordly "vista-view." This English and English-colonial approach to landscape aesthetics is based on a series of premises that include the idea that a wealthy land-owner will control a specific mixture of pasture land (for the grazing of his domestic animals), agricultural land (for the upkeep of his household), and forest land (for his privileged hunting), and that the manor itself will be situatied on a rise or prominence (a remnant of earlier fortification-defence mechanics). When these considerations are put into play in a forested area, the result is almost always an artifical forest clearing landscape that allows the lord to look out and "survey the view" from on high while forcing visitors and guests to approach from below, through the winding areas of pasture, as if inferiors. The Edwards home thus suits the species need for a forest clearing and the aesthetics of an English-colonial country gentleman. And, for all the bad one can say about the impositions of such a mansion layout on forested land, it also must be said that no one in America truly owns land: we all pay rent, in the form of property taxes to the state -- and because animals can't pay taxes, animals are always being evicted from their land. Edwards will pay taxes on that land, and his choice of aesthetics is such that he will pay for the land-use of many hundreds of small woodland and grassland animals. For this they (and we, as their friends) can be thankful. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

John Edwards and the Haircuts

OK, I've read that cite for the Washington Post article (which was written in July 07, when he was still a serious contender) and it is all about what a goof Edwards was not to know how much his haircuts were costing and the other candidates and how much THEIR haircuts cost. Nowhere in that article did the reporter tie ANY of the information with his stance on the environment - that leap is, clearly, a Synthesis and as such, is 'out'.

If the editor who wants the haircut controversy in would like to write about it based on its published perspective, power to 'em. I'm not sure it would survive the 'important enough for this bio', considering it's up for GA, but that's a horse of a different color. |EBY| (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the explanation. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia gets good press -- film at eleven

Thanks to Kelley for the head's up check it out. So, possibly there might be a different perspective than than the partisan (Newsbuster) or gossip (Gawker) viewpoint. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 22:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And here. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 22:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, if you have no problem posting coverage about the John Edwards Wikipedia article here, why were you all combative at me just for posting other coverage earlier? [20] [21] --Oakshade (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure if I would characterize it as "combative" -- I inquired why you felt that partisan and gossipy criticism had any relevance to improving the page. Because much was said (see 64 just above) about this criticism, I believe it is helpful to see other perspectives who have a non-partisan, non-gossipy viewpoint and appear to understand the purpose of this deliberative process. Bringing outside partisan pressure into the project interfered with what we were trying to (and in spite of the challenges did) accomplish. I believe that showing non-partisan reviewers praising the effort would reinforce the value of what we are doing -- a different motivation entirely. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 23:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually your quote was "Could you please elaborate how this has relevance to the editing of this page? Our objective here is to reach consensus through collegial discussion not to worry about if outside parties understand Wikipedia policies. I would think this may be more appropriate for the talk page of biography policies." By posting these you seem to have no problem if anyone worries "if outside parties understand Wikipedia policies." I don't mind you posting these outside articles about this Wikipedia page (by the way, the Wired piece is a neutral reporting of what happened here and the second is an opinionated blog that supports your point of view), but I would suggest not attacking other editors who do the same thing. --Oakshade (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't perceive the above comments as an attack, I'll consider your suggestion, thanks. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 23:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Contradictory sentence

We now have a sentence that says: "Edwards refused to comment on the allegations, stating "I've responded, consistently, to these tabloid allegations by saying I don't respond to these lies and you know that."" Well, obviously in that sentence he does comment on the allegations - he says they are, quote, "lies." Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well if that quote is accurate then it clearly disproves the notion that he has not denied them, doesn't it? On the other hand, I can see how the wording could be improved. I'll try this:

When questioned, Edwards responded by dismissing the allegations, stating "I've responded, consistently, to these tabloid allegations by saying I don't respond to these lies and you know that."

Ethereal (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I was focusing on the fact that the quote that was in our article did not correspond to the quote that appeared in the source. I 'd say we should not characterize his comment, just include it as: When questioned Edwards stated, "I've responded, consistently, to these tabloid allegations by saying I don't respond to these lies and you know that." Tvoz/talk 10:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

He's actually been very clever in his answer - he didn't say "these specific allegations are lies," he said "tabloid allegations generically are lies," while the use of the word "these" gives the appearance of having denied them. Thus he has the option in the future of saying either "I have denied these allegations" or of saying "I did not deny these specific allegations," depending on how much real dirt it turns out there is on him. Don't forget he was a very crafty lawyer before he became a politician. Sooner or later, however, it will all come out, as it always does. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from ad hominem attacks. Your personal opinion of Edwards has no place on Wikipedia. If there are new developments in the mainstream media, I'll be in favour of including them. I agree with Tvoz we shouldn't characterise his response too much to avoid a POV. That is, as I have said earlier, the job of blogs and opinion pieces. Ethereal (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that calling someone a crafty lawyer was an ad hominem attack. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Background Information on IRS implications

Here's an article on possible IRS tax implications for John Edwards. I am not suggesting that it be used un our encyclopediac biography entry, but it provides legal insight on a topic that may come into play, so this is a heads-up on background for editors down the line. The subject: If secret payments are made to a mistress for child support, who pays the gift tax? -- or, conversely, if the secretly paid money was not a gift, has the recipient paid income tax? The author uses the case of Eliot Spitzer as a model for how a hypothetical Edwards tax case might unfold, if the allegations are true. It also makes use of Wikipedia (but not this specific page). Find it here: [[22]]. Cordially, 64.142.90.33 (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

College for Everyone Being Phased Out

The News & Observer reports that his College for Everyone program is being pulled. Since the program is specifically mentioned on the page, we should look at adding information about this as well.Cjbreisch (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Main article is locked off and inaccurate. Can some Editor take care of this? http://www.newsobserver.com/news/higher_education/story/1160097.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.227.99 (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

His Wife is Dying of Terminal Cancer

I'm a little surprised and somewhat shocked that no-one has even considered the fact that his wife is dying of terminal cancer. A search for the word wife on this page came up empty. Those foaming at the mouth in the news and blogosphere to see some blood never even mention this. Spouses fooling around is as old as human-kind, a personal matter, and not news. Let's all have some compassion for Elizabeth Edwards, get out of the gutter, and focus on something actually important - there is no shortage and the world needs your productive help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reliablesources (talk • contribs) 11:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, protecting Elizabeth is one argument for suppressing the truth. Not a very good one, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.185.67 (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "make sure you don't hurt anyone's feelings" is a great standard for Wikipedia to use. Lots of things are true, noteworthy, and encyclopedic, and still make some people feel bad. -- Narsil (talk) 00:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia moves the MSM (shouldn't it be the other way around?)

Interesting speculation that the addition of the allegations may be moving the U.S. MSM to report on this: Aaron Barnhart article. Now we have a national U.S. MSM source: McClatchey report. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 20:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating...wow. I'm glad we took this seriously. Kelly ^hi! 20:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The same McClatchey journalist has another article Birth certificate of child linked to Edwards lists no father (Edit: Similar story from the NBC station in NC [23]) which could be useful in the future. Joshdboz (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Are birth certificates public in CA? I thought those things didn't become public until some time had passed? DiggyG (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, these sources show precisely why were right to be careful and not include the information until it was clear the story was widespread in the MSM Nil Einne (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Father not named on birth certificate

We are now informed by a reliable source that the baby's birth certificate does not name the father. This seems noteworthy given the earlier claim that the baby's father was Andrew Young. It's difficult to imagine how it is in the baby's best interest to omit this information. It certainly reflects on the credibility of this earlier claim. Is there a good reason why it should not be included? Ronnotel (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is. It's not really supportive of any of the possible explanations. Young is married - it's got to be pretty common for married men to not want their names on the birth certificates of children fathered outside of their marriage. Or maybe she's the one that doesn't want the father named. Or maybe she doesn't actually know who the father is... it's not significant enough to be added, IMO. DiggyG (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a good catch, Ronnotel, but i support DiggyG's thinking. Our role here is not to write an investigative piece. Mentioning the baby's not having a listed father on the birth certificate would make better sense on a page on Rielle Hunter (Lisa Druck), along with a brief description of her claim that Andrew Young was the father, taken from "reliable sources."

Until that foundation is laid, i suggest we focus on Edwards's second round of press-ducking, adding something very brief along the lines of, "On [date], after this story made national headlines, Edwards was again approached by reporters, but refused to talk to them. [citing WCNC and the Charlotte Observes] 64.142.90.33 (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to include every micro-development in this story reported by the media. If we were to do so, then the pages on John McCain and Barack Obama would easily be 10 times its current length. Let's stick to significant developments. Ethereal (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

To be consistent (and avoid charges of partisanship), shouldn't we apply the same standards as were used for David_Vitter#Prostitution_scandal and Larry_Craig#2007_arrest_and_consequences? Ronnotel (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You appeared to have left off your list Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal, Bill Clinton#Sexual misconduct allegations, William J. Jefferson#Corruption investigation, Lewinsky scandal. Did you forget White House travel office controversy, White House FBI files controversy, or Chappaquiddick incident? I could go on and on. Or are you arguing that consistency means giving as much information as the Republican Vitter (with a hundred times more MSM coverage) because Edwards is a Democrat? Or do you mean that every time partisan criticism arises (it comes equally from the left as the right), Wikipedia needs to "correct" itself?

You consider these new developments significant and worthy of addition. The most productive way to proceed in these matters is to give your reasons, suggest the text, and then we can discuss, amend and decide. Let's put aside implied partisan criticisms at this point ("we should include this because other pages do") and justify the changes of and by themselves. It really works best that way. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 17:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

How about:

The child's mother, Rielle Hunter, and a former campaign assistant to John Edwards, Andrew Young, had both claimed in December 2007 that Young was the father. The birth certificate, issued in February 2008, does not name the father.

Justification: These facts may be innocuous. However, failing to the list father on the birth certificate, when Mr. Young has already admitted paternity, is open to a simpler and more likely explanation that Ms. Hunter wanted to avoid filing a false document. Note that the text makes no such accusation, but simply enables the reader to draw their own conclusion from the available, reliably-source facts.

Ronnotel (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest these changes:

In July 2008, several news media outlets speculated that Edwards' chances for the vice presidency were harmed by allegations published in The National Enquirer that he had fathered a child outside his marriage, and that he had recently visited the child's mother at the Hilton Hotel in Beverly Hills, California.[59][60][61] When questioned, Edwards stated "I've responded, consistently, to these tabloid allegations by saying I don't respond to these lies and you know that."[62] He subsequently has avoided press contact. McClatchy Newspapers reported that the child's birth certificate doesn't identify the father even though an Edwards' aide had earlier claimed paternity.[24][25][26][27]

I'd like to give this several hours to allow comments before adding. I agree with your arguments, just a bit less detail -- the source will flesh that out. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 17:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I added in three additional references: the PDF of the birth certificate, The Raleigh Telegram and The Mercury News. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 18:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't use the Mercury News source -- it is the same article as the McClatchy source. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 19:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Ronnotel (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this too. The McClatchy citation need not be in the text, but placing it there does visually balance out the National Enquirer portion of the story, by showing a "relaiable sources" angle as well as a "tabloid" angle. By the way, i know that speculation is not our role, but i would like to say that Ronnotel makes a convincing case that "Hunter wanted to avoid filing a false document." Again, time will tell. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned that this whole thing may be starting to gain undue weight and possibly sound biased. Ms. Hunter chose not to put the father's name on her child's birth certificate. Speculating, or implying, a reason for her decision (here by the use of "even though") is outside the purvue of Wikipedia's mission. Additionally, the fact that the child is mentioned directly after the speculation that Edwards may have a child certainly implies that the child being discussed is in fact his. Macduff (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a concern. However, McClatchy is a reputable reliable source and found this a significant development. This section relies on this from the source:

But the space for the name of the father is blank, even though the child was born more than two months after Hunter identified Andrew Young, Edwards' campaign finance director, as the father.... [emphasis added]

This is one of the reasons it is important to attribute this to McClatchy to avoid a POV problem. It is written in a neutral tone of voice without excessive detail that would cause undue weight problems. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 01:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I agree that the source is making the suggestion that this is evidence that it possibly could be his child. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 01:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to include minutiae and tabloid-style developments of this sort of nature. This is an encyclopedic article about John Edwards, not a coatrack. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The sources are not tabloids, they're mainstream reliable sources. I would disagree with the coatrack claim on this. Kelly ^hi! 01:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure how this is a coatrack -- could you please explain? ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 01:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

"Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject, a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias." To make it balanced, one would have to include the explanations by Hunter and Young and their attorneys as to why no father was named, which puts them on the defensive and really has no place in a bio of John Edwards either; making the section even more of a coatrack. The real subject matter at hand here is the effect this is having on Edwards' shot at being a running mate. NPR[28] merely states, "he has been the subject of unflattering rumors about his private life" which is more on target. Macduff (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the definition of a coatrack. How is this article going out if its way to find facts that support a particular bias?

If you feel that the information is inadequate, what wording do you recommend that would make it more balanced and complete?

I've made a request on Blaxthos's talk page to please come and discuss this matter. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 02:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Would the addition of this satisfy your concerns for balance?

The mother's attorney responded that it "was a personal matter".

∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 02:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, The edit is well referenced. I dont see how it violates WP:COAT. I also think the mother's response is unnecessary. Dock^Hi 02:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think it adds substantially to the section. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 02:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand how one can fail to understand WP:COATRACK, unless one has not actually read it.  ;-) This is a textbook case of inserting unrelated information into a biographical article, especially when said information is included to cast some sort of speculation. There can be no other possible intent of including this information except to fan speculation that Edwards might be the father. With regards to the tabloid comment, please understand that I'm saying that this sort of speculation is tabloid gossipy journalism; don't misrepresent it as a claim that the sources are tabloid. This situation is clearly outlined in WP:COATRACK, though we can go through another RFC if necessary. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont think it is unrelated information (It is very much related to John Edwards). We are also not gossiping some unreported gaffe, we are just writing what was written in a reliable source. Dock^Hi 03:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Docku - it's directly related to the article subject, is notable, and the connection is made by the reliable sources, not by us. Kelly ^hi! 03:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

To Blaxthos: Having read it, I don't see it. Could you point to which "Typical coatracks" is similar to this situation? Isn't your complaint with the source? We aren't fact picking but using a directly related article from a reliable source. I certainly understand your opinion that this is tabloid-like but the source found this to be significant. *We* aren't making any speculations but instead attributing an opinion to a reliable source. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 03:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

IP vandalism

WHOIS search says both IPs originate from this address: Verizon Internet Services Inc.,1880 Campus, Reston , VA, USA. It could be the same person. Dock^Hi 00:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"Subsequently avoided" needs a cite

I believe that the sentence --

"He has subsequently avoided press contact."

-- needs a citation, and that you will find one in the Charlotte Observer, or elsewhere.

Also, as a long-time editor here, i strongly caution against the construction of indefinite time-frames like "He has subsequently avoided" bcause they must be rewritten continually lest they grow like moss on forgotten pages, looking dumb. I spend a lot of my time cleaning up other peoples' indefinite time frames and placing them in the definite past, and it is a thankless task that could easily be avoided by never using such formulations. A simple "He subsequently avoided ..." (with a cite) is sufficient. Cordially, cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Generally, the scope of a footnote is supposed to encompass all text since the previous note. In this case, the McClatchy and Richmond footnotes support this information. But because of the criticality of this section, I'll go ahead and replicate the notes so that there is no confusion.

I'm not as concerned about rewriting continuously given the attention this section will receive. The use of the particular tense is in lieu of the more cumbersome use of as of construction, more useful in cases when there isn't an expectation story development. The second this resolves (i.e., he makes a statement), this sentence will be changed. If this story dies, then I would agree with your recommendation. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 22:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that in this case there will be a lot of poring over the story and foks will be actively updating it for the next few news cycles. My comment was meant in a generally helpful way, not as a critique of what is on the Edwards page right now. To recap: i have found plenty of once "hot" story pages mired in two-year-old or older indefinite tense quagmires which no grammar fanatic had ever cleaned up until i wandered by, so avoiding indefinite time-frames is just an idea i try to promote all over WIkipedia. Once you've cleaned up a few too many of these "since [date] he has not done such-and-so" pieces, you start to want to pre-empt the problem. Yes, as you noted, it is more cumbrous to write "as of [date] he had not done such-and-so" but that was not what i had in mind either, because, again, it sticks one in a fast-eroding time-frame. I prefer a definite date and a conclusive, non-negative past tense. "On [date] he did such-and-so." It can always been rewritten, but it will never become untrue. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. In this particular usage, it isn't an indefinite time-frame since it is the present tense (present perfect to be precise) which reflects the current state of the article. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 23:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Current event tag

I reverted the addition of the current event tag. From Template:Current, it's use is for:

• This template was created for those occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, as an advisory to editors.
• It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template.

There are not a hundred or more editors. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 00:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

OK Sorry,Bonobonobo (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem -- it was a good faith edits just like your others. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 00:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment: Undue weight

Template:RFCpol After reaching a consensus on including the National Enquirer accusations, many editors have incrementally added information extraneous to the subject of this biographical article. Direct information about John Edwards, especially reliably sourced information regarding the impact of the incident on his political career, is certainly appropriate. However, additional information about the event itself is clearly inappropriate in a biography about John Edwards. Information about other claims to paternity is at best only marginally relevant, but going so far as to note that there is no father listed on the birth certificate is inappropriate. It serves no purpose other than to fan speculation about Edwards, and is clearly an attempt to use the article as a coatrack to either insert off-topic information into the article, or to give authority to biased speculation (or both). In any case, it's not an issue of reliable sourcing, it's an issue of inappropriate information. WP:COATRACK covers the issue succinctly, and while it primarily discusses coatrack articles, the fundamental concept of using an article about a subject as a cover to include information about a different subject is just as valid. Such information should not be included, per WP:COATRACK, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOT. If the incident had its own article, it would be appropriate there, but not in a biography about Edwards. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not getting that the information (presumably you're talking about the birth certificate of the child) is unrelated. The sources directly link this to Edwards.[29] [30] I think you're misinterpreting WP:COATRACK here. Kelly ^hi! 03:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is that McClatchy Newspapers printed an article [31] stating that the birth certificate has no father's name. They stated:

But the space for the name of the father is blank, even though the child was born more than two months after Hunter identified Andrew Young, Edwards' campaign finance director, as the father....

The article uses this summary:

McClatchy Newspapers reported that the child's birth certificate doesn't identify the father even though an Edwards' aide had earlier claimed paternity.

I argue this is a fair, neutrally written summary of the McClatchy article. Blaxthos argues that information about the event itself is inappropriate but the section is titled "National Enquirer allegations" which is what is under discussion here. But this isn't a coatrack -- he explains that this is because the information is about a different subject than John Edwards. The article makes this connection to John Edwards. A coatrack article would use unrelated materials. I am guessing that he strings the other objections (BLP, NPOV, NOT) as corollaries of the coatrack objection. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 03:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that we are giving this alleged affair undue weight. Please see WP:TOPIC I was hesitant to support the inclusion of the NE allegations simply because the main source is the NE and apart from Fox News which I repeat, could not verify the story independently. But it seems now that we're jumping on every single news article from the mainstream press to see if it could somehow be included in this article. I have said above that just because the source quoted is reliable doesn't mean that we should include it unless it's also significant. If this were the standard applied, then Wikipedia would be nothing more than a storing house for online news reports. This is a biographical article of him, not of the affair, and there is no evidence that the child is his, the allegation that he fathered a child outside his marriage cannot be corroborated by the mainstream press. Now we're including the fact that the birth cert doesn't list the father; how is this related to John Edwards' biography unless the main allegations themselves have been corroborated independently by a reliable source? Ethereal (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Despite a journalist's "linking" this to Edwards, the information is not about Edwards, and is not appropriate for a biographical, encyclopedic treatment of a person. It's speculative gossip, and serves only one purpose: to give undue weight to the idea that Edwards is lying. This isn't an issue of sourcing -- We're not a newspaper, we don't gossip or speculate in biographical articles (or anywhere else). There is nothing neutral about inserting information that has no purpose other than to imply that the subject is a lying adulterer. Hope this clears up my position. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's clearer. Your argument certainly is substantial. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 03:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ethereal and Blaxthos. Giving undue weight to speculation designed to push a POV. It read like a prosecuting lawyer's argument. Macduff (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am not denying both Ethereal and Blaxthos make a good point. But my point is that when the article contains information about an alleged report of him having fathered a child, what is wrong in including a report from another source which claims that the same child doesnt have a father in his birth cirtificate. Well, it may be fanning speculation about Edwards, but we are not the ones who are doing it. McClatchy Newspapers will take the heat if they are falsely reporting. Dock^Hi 03:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

By including speculative information designed to imply that someone is lying absolutely makes us the ones fanning speculation. Simply claiming that someone else said it first is not justification. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, multiple mainstream sources have pushed this story - and by doing so we can therefore infer it is relevant and notable. Omitting the fact would be a white-wash. Ronnotel (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Relevance and notability are not the basis for objection, and has nothing to do with the arguments presented above. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

To Macduff: Well, it's not an undue weight issue, per se -- the argument isn't to make it shorter or that this is a fringe theory. Nor is a a POV issue since we are attributing the connection. We aren't speculating, we aren't gossiping, we are attributing. From what I took from Blaxthos' argument is that this is a BLP issue, pure and simple, a "do no harm" problem because the article is clearly making the implication that this is evidence that he may be the father (I don't know if I would use the more hyperbolic characterization of "lying adulterer, but I get the point). And under the DNH doctrine, this would be a problematic addition. I am becoming convinced that that is the correct position. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 04:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You know when omitting it would be considered "whitewashing"? When the mainstream media corroborates the alleged Edwards affair. Until this is done, the fact that the birth certificate of a recently born child doesn't have the father's name bears no relevance to his biography. McClatchy can speculate on this affair as much as they want; they are not bound to follow Wikipdia's standards and guidelines. Ethereal (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

To Ronnotel: This has been picked up, so far, only in the McClathcy chain of newspapers and Fox News. Best not to user the term "white-wash" as that may not strike some as productive and others maybe as uncivil. These are editorial decisions, just as it was an editorial decision to include the details (was that a black-wash?). Arguing for inclusion based on Wikipedia standards is typically the most effective approach. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 04:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor correction - the birth certificate angle is also being reported by Editor & Publisher[32] and United Press International.[33] Kelly ^hi! 04:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Kelly, for noting that there are several MSM sources for the birth certificate story, not just the McClatchy chain of newspapers. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is speculative here and which is already included in the article; If he has fathered a child or the child has no father in the birth certificate? I would be more sure about reading what is written on a birth certificate. Dock^Hi 04:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct: The lack of the father's name is a verifiable fact. But that this should be used as evidence that he is the father is the speculation that does harm. Whether he is the father or not is still to be established. Once that is done, then this would be an important piece of the back story. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 04:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if that is the criteria, we should then remove the speculation from The National Enquirer as well. Dock^Hi 04:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The consensus was that the DNH issue was trumped by others. Here, the issue is the somewhat tenuous inference we are inviting the reader to make -- clearly the one intended by the article but may not rise to the level to trump DNH. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 04:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: how the creation of a Rielle Hunter bio might diffuse these charges of coatracking and undue weight:

I would again like to note that as of today there is no Rielle Hunter bio and to suggest again that if there were, we would have a path out of this coatrack issue and we could also alleviate the undue weight issue on the Edwards bio.

I propose the creation of a short biographical article on Hunter, stating her background aand noting her work for the Edwards campaign. Also included, if citable and sourced, would be mention of the roman a clef in which she appears as a character named Allison Poole, as this adds to her notability. The NE allegations of her affair with Edwards would also be notable and citable, and it would be within the scope of the bio to cite MSM speculations about the meaning of the lack of a father's name on the birth certificate of her child. Her bio would naturally be linked to the Edwards article and, in return, the Edwards article would legitimately be linked to her bio.

Comments welcomed ... cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

As seen at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 31#Rielle Hunter, recreation of an article for Ms. Hunter presents its own set of problems. --Allen3 ^talk 12:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

To 64: I don't believe that Blaxthos has made a convincing argument that this sentence is a coatrack case. None of the coatrack examples in the essay appear to apply here -- if this sentence promotes a bias, then it is a balance problem and not a coatrack which is designed for a specific situation (possibly a Hunter article). I'm unsure how your idea would solve this particular concern -- possibly your proposal would best be suggested as a separate topic? I also remain unconvinced that this is an undue weight problem -- a single, neutrally written sentence properly attributed poses no weight problems unless we define a weight problem as the existence of a single purportedly unbalanced statement which, again, isn't in UNDUE's purview -- that's a different issue entirely. If the sentence is unbalanced, that is easily repaired by adding in balance. How would your proposal decrease the current text? Or possibly you are suggesting this as a preemptive move to handle future possible developments? Nor is this a POV issue -- WP:NPOV allows for attributed viewpoints (it's not no-POV, just neutral-POV). The issue is: do we as editors believe that this assertion violates the WP:HARM doctrine? Does it pass the inclusion test? Well, I didn't think the original NE allegations passed the test (unlike all other editors except for Tvos, including MacDuff and, arguably, by his absence Blaxthos -- I preferred how NPR handled it) so I'm equally unconvinced this does. I do believe it passes the test of whether this is widely known (it's in the reputable McClatchy chain and Fox News, better sources than the U.K. references in fact -- the other two sources (E&P and UPI) are much less significant). I do have a problem inviting the Wikipedia reader to make the inference that the article is inviting because we are governed by WP:BLP whereas the paper is ultimately constrained only by legal concerns. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 12:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Blaxthos. This is a WP:COAT issue. The fundamental aspect of coat (which is not always interpreted correctly) is to remove information only partially related. While the article itself is not a coatrack, by including the statement that the father was not listed on the birth certificate, we are making an arguement that strengthens the belief that Edwards is the father. In a sense it is a form of OR in that by including as much ancilary information as possible the overall impression is that Edwards is the father regardless of what has actually been proven. While I agree that mention of the scandal is worthy of inclusion, unless verifiable proof comes forth, any insinuation that Edwards is the father is in violation of several policies, including WP:COAT (for this source) WP:UNDUE WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH. Arzel (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It does not violate any of the policies mentioned. According to WP:COAT, a coattrack article is an article which starts discussing about a subject and deviates from the subject and dedicates majority of the article in discussion of an unfavourable incidence in the subject's life. In this case, it can be considered in violation of WP:COAT only if the article dedicates 5 sentences about John Edwards and the rest of the article about the incidence about his alleged affair. Therefore, because the contentious section or sentence in this case is just a few words in an article which is made of thousands of words, it is clearly not in violation of WP:COAT. According to WP:UNDUE, we should give equal weightage to different viewpoints published in different reliable sources and the weightage should be in proportion to the prominence of the sources. WP:UNDUE comes into play only when there are more than one reliable source reporting contradictopry opinions. Since, we have only one or two sources reporting only one point of view (absence of father's name in the birth certificate), WP:UNDUE doesnt even come into play. We will need to worry about WP:UNDUE if there is another reliable source which reported that the birth certificate contained a father's name (contradictory to each other). WP:SYNTH deals with synthesis of a new fact by putting together incidences from different sources. I dont even know why this policy issue was raised here, unless to make us waste our time defending it. Since none of the above policies are not violated, it does not violate WP:BLP as well. Dock^Hi 15:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I made a rough calculation. Excluding references, headers, images, See also section and the whole electoral history section, the article contains more than 4000 words. Of these, only about 80 words are dedicated to The National Enquirer allegeations. I cant see how it violates WP:COAT.Dock^Hi 16:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't think the inclusion of this info violates the COATRACK guideline. That's because coatrack refers to inclusion of information for the sole purpose of discussing or including more content only tangentially related to the original content added. But I'm not in favour of including this particular development, for the reasons I outlined above, that because the story of a child not having a father listed on its birth cert has no relation to John Edwards pending a mainstream news report independently corroborating the NE allegations, and it gives undue weight to the viewpoint that Edwards had fathered a child outside his marriage.Ethereal (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

good point. Dock^Hi 16:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it's an WP:NOR or WP:SYNTH -- those both are cases where the editor, independent of a reliable source, contrives an argument. Here we have a reliable source making this connotation; we're not tossing together multiple sources to synthesize a result. It's not WP:COAT (I am capable of interpreting correctly and have seen hundreds of times when it has been applied correctly and several hundreds when it hasn't) for the reasons I indicated earlier. We're acting like prosecutors who toss in a batch of indictments hoping one will stick. ;-) I agree with Ethereal that including the text is a problem, less because of undue weight (you are arguing for zero weight whereas undue weight addresses balance). The article is making the insinuation. The article is a valid reliable source. The sentence attributes said insinuation to the source. This sentence arguably is not about John Edwards (thought the source makes it so, not us) and otherwise violates no other policy/guideline except for WP:BLP which trumps all other policies. Does this sentence pass the inclusion test? It passes the "widely known" test, more so than the original allegations, I would argue, as measured by the quality of the sources. Is its exclusion justified by the "do no harm" doctrine? ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 17:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Do No Harm is the only way that we can exclude it. However, I wonder why we should? Aren't people responsible for their own actions? Dock^Hi 18:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

DNH isn't meant to never do harm, i.e., never to report negative things, by no means. It is meant to be a guide, both legal and ethical, to ask if a particular assertion goes beyond its boundary. We are adding in the clear implication that this is evidence that Edwards is possibly the father. That is the McClatchy take. Does its verifiability trump the DNH in this case? Say DNA evidence proves that he is the father, then clearly DNH is out the window. The birth certificate evidence is not nearly as strong, more an insinuation than direct evidence. This is a value judgment, not a clear cut case of this policy or that. As with the addition of the allegations, the decision to include will rely on consensus. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 18:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, undue weight can also results in zero weight. As it is the whole issue is insinuation and extrapolation of given events. Just because the article doesn't outright say that Edwards is the father because there was no father listed, it is quite clear that this is the intent. Now, editors familiar with me consider me to be a FNC fanboy and appolgist regarding conservatives and republicans, so my objection to this is clearly not a partisan point of view. That said this is in violation of several WP policies. Arzel (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

McClatchy reference unrelated to sentence?

Arzel deleted the McClatchy reference [34] with the edit summary "ref not related to statement". Here is the sentence:

He subsequently avoided contact with the press.

Here is the source's relationship:

On Wednesday, Edwards declined to answer questions about the allegations. About a dozen reporters and photojournalists attended a speech Edwards gave to an AARP Foundation symposium on poverty and aging in Washington. Afterward, he avoided waiting reporters, exiting through a side area used by the kitchen staff at Washington's historic Hotel Monaco. Edwards emerged near the rear of the hotel with two men. When approached by a reporter, Edwards said, "Can't do it now, I'm sorry" and quickly walked past. Asked about the Beverly Hilton, Edwards said "sorry" and got into a waiting car with the other men. Asked twice more to address the Enquirer story, Edwards was silent until the car doors closed.

How, exactly, is this unrelated?

As an aside, it's a quibble, but Arzel deleted the above sentence citing WP:CRYSTAL [35] with the edit summary "Not written in historical perspective WP:CRYSTAL" which confuses me. Could you please explain why the use of the present tense is excluded by CRYSTAL which is about future events? I typically am less moved by policy citation than an explanation of why the policy is applicable in this case. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 18:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the situation is still ongoing, and quite recent, to say that he will continue to avoid the issue. If in the future it is apparent that he continued to avoid the issue then it would be apt to add. As it is the sentence adds little to the overall story, and appears to be used primarily to include the reference which indicates that there was no father listed, and the the article itself is devoted to that aspect. The second reference makes less of an insinuation and provides the same information. The reword of the statement (while better suited for historical perspective) should probably still be removed as it adds little to the story given it is a current event. Lets not talk around the issue. The McClatchy source is being use to try to make a logical link that Edwards is the father. Leave the gossip and innuendo for the Enquirer and other such publications. Arzel (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, the tense is a quibble -- it wasn't saying he would continue to avoid the issue and CRYSTAL has nothing to do with it.

The second reference makes the same insinuations -- please explain otherwise. Should I quote it? The Richmond Telegraph is an inferior source in that it is a low low circulation local paper (according to Craigslist, you can write a story for it for $10) vs. the mainstream and national McClatchy. This isn't about the birth certificate issue. Nor am I attempting to add in "gossip" etc. If I'm getting the gist of your real intent, you want to exclude the McClatchy source and your argument that it was unrelated to the sentence was, what? ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 18:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It is CYRSTAL because it implies future intent for an ongoing issue, and extrapolation of current events. And by your latest admission about the Richmond Telegraph it probably is not even an RS if you can self-publish. It has only been a few days since this event happened, to say write that he has not commented is a bit premature to say the least. Thus I am removing the entire section again. Give the issue some time to resolve itself. Arzel (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Arzel you are completely wrong. Bonobonobo (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)