Talk:John Edwards

Archives

1 2 3

Stephen Colbert and IntegrityJustice.com

This page is going to be, and is already (check the history), a target for vandalism because of Stephen Colbert and The Colbert Report. He has a continuing joke about Senator Edwards having a sexual encounter with a terrorist. He raised this joke by mentioning a website where people could post fake news stories, and that website was "IntegrityJustice.com". This website isn't real yet. However, editors here might want to consider protecting this article due to the vandalism from the fans of Colbert. dposse 04:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope no Edwards fans vandalize the site with the false information mentioned by Colbert in an attempt to cast Edwards as the "new John F. Kennedy" (since JFK slept with a Nazi spy during WWII but Joe Sr. got him sent to the Pacific Theater instead of court-martialed).  : ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AuH2ORepublican (talk • contribs) 15:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone have a spare grain of salt? /Blaxthos 22:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm the first to admit that you should take that JFK story with several grains of salt, since it's one of those urban legends about JFK that may never be confirmed or disproven (which is why I added the : ) on my obviously tongue-in-cheek comment). I Googled JFK and "Nazi spy" and this is the first hit I got, which is not exactly Encyclopaedia Brittannica but succintly retells the legend: http://www.sharkhunters.com/tapeh40.htm Sorry if my jesting comment caused any confusion, and I further apologize for forgetting to put the four tildes after my comment (I'm still getting the hang of this---I even forget to sign in half the time). Anyhow, I won't forget to sign this one. AuH2ORepublican 18:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm a huge fan of humor (was even a standup comic back in the day)... but I'd caution against slinging those kinds of accusations (tongue in cheek or not) on politicians' talkpages, especially with tensions running high and an election in the not-too-distant future. I can see the humor now, but having "republican" in your username and the declaration that JFK slept with a Nazi spy and avoided going to prison because of political connections probably isn't going to have any sort of positive impact and certainly doesn't make me think you're working from a neutral point of view. Hope this doesn't offend. /Blaxthos 19:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If I edit a main article, I stick to the facts and keep a NPOV (unfortunately, that does not appear to be the norm in political articles). However, if I'm cracking wise, I'm bound to take some liberties, which is why I included the : ). My joke was similar to, say, joking that "we'll need to keep an eye out for supporters of Giuliani who, to make him look "Reaganesque," may vandalize his article to claim that Rudy made a deal with Muslim terrorists (as an homage to Reagan sending VP nominee Bush to Paris to stave off an "October Surprise")," and I would hope that irrespective of my monicker I could make tongue-in-cheek comments (in the Discussion page, of course, never in the main article, although again I wish that everyone took the same position on that; a lot of my edits have beenm to erase "jokes" from other editors) about Republicans or Democrats alike. Anyways, thanks for the explanation. AuH2ORepublican 15:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

What a laugh. The article is currently using a source to assert something that is flatly untrue on its own premises. The article refers to a Krauthammer article which correctly quotes Edwards in criticizing him in order that it may misdirect the valid criticism of Edwards towards The Drudge Report and its misquote as if the effect was entirely different for those that responded negatively. This not only denies that legitimate criticism but as well uses sources for purposes that are undermined simply by reading what they say.

Here's Edwards's actual quote:

If we can do the work that we can do in this country – the work we will do when John Kerry is president – people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.

Here's the misquote from The Drudge Report:

"When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."

Here's how the Krauthammer article that is linked to quotes Edwards:

If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again. [1] [The very source used in the article]

Does that sound as if he is simply "[r]eacting to the misquote", as the article is now stating as fact? Is that an accurate representation of Edwards's speech and the controversy, that he was misquoted and everyone was fine with the substance of his remarks when they were clarified? Apparently some editors are content not bothering to examine this. Any others are prevented from editing it. 129.71.73.248 06:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Register a user name and in a few days, you will be able to edit this article. No one is stopping you from doing that. Frankly, I was involved in removing that quote a while ago but gave up when several edits kept putting it back and now it looks like two completely different takes on it have been fused together so that it seems that they are talking about each other when they are not. Gdo01 07:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been out of the loop. Has Wikipedia policy changed and anonymous use is now officially disallowed and discouraged? I could register a name yes but do not see the point in that. In fact, the only point I see here is that one version must be protected and in the course of this a very valid content dispute is treated as "vandalism". My, the vanity. 129.71.73.248 07:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if vandalism is uncontrollable, it is better to keep a bad version than to allow harmful changes that could make it worse. Apparently, anonymous users have been the problem. Temporarily blocking their edits is a way to protect the current integrity of the page. As you can see from the history [2], this page was hit several times by anonymous vandalism. Unfortunately, good editors are caught up in the collateral damage. Other than that, I suggest you not try to be cynical. There is no conspiracy to keep you from editing, Wikipedia is not against you, and protecting a page from further damage is not vanity. Gdo01 07:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me a bit. There are plenty of bad apples (anonymous and not), but the protection happened mightily fast after complaints were made about my edits. I did not see anything on the Rfp page about John Edwards so the evidence only shows an informal wish by one party was granted. This does not necessitate site-wide conspiracy, but involves at least quite a bit of bad faith and/or laziness. 129.71.73.248 07:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I was not involved in the protection of the page so I didn't know you were the party who was deemed responsible for the protection. I thought you were just an anonymous user who was not involved. Well I really have no more to say, I don't know any of the details on the protection or what edits caused it. Gdo01 07:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I finally found a request which was purged quickly (perhaps there is a much bigger load now). Given the time that it was made and its mention of "heavy IP vandalism" I don't see how it could be targeted at anything else. 129.71.73.248 07:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I just figured that one of the versions was arbitrarily quoting Krauthammer, while the last (sprotected) version was not correctly quoting him. I put up a version without any Krauthammer words (actual or alleged by us) because the whole text is there for anyone who likes his rants and/or depth of opinion. Can we agree on that? Kncyu38 10:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you "arbitrarily" quote someone when the issue is what the reaction and controversy was (and it was rather significant)? MediaMatters was previously allowed to determine the argument and now is the only one speaking its mind. Here's what I seem to understand happened: the MM article was inserted, attempting to insinuate carelessness on the part of all Edwards critics; Krauthammer was in that piece given as literally responding to the misquote but a further link was added to a completely separate article of Krauthammer's. In that piece, he quotes him accurately and obviously does not feel that it changes the intention or effect of Edwards's claims (and personally I don't see how any intellectually honest person would think so). So no I don't agree to the current edit. It seems to either wish to sidestep the substance of the issue in favor of reporting the misquote or to simply disfavor the critics and disallow their own words in favor of MM. And I would love to change it "at will" if you and perhaps the editor on Rfp did not decide to term it "vandalism". 129.71.73.248 18:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down, it was only an attempt, I will leave to other editors now. Kncyu38 09:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the section about the misquotation of Edwards on Christopher Reeve: at this point in time it had undue weight in the article, way too prominent for what was even at that time a fairly minor item. And it does not seem to have had staying power. Tvoz | talk 22:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Home Purchase

I recently contributed a report that Edwards had purchased the largest and most expensive home in Orange County, North Carolina. I feel that since his campaign in based on poverty, and the "two different" Americas for the rich and the poor, that it is important to note this potential hypocrisy in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kishap5 (talk • contribs).

The home information is already in the article under the "early life, education, and family" subsection. Additionally, the wording you inserted did not adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

He did very well as a lawyer so what? He can't buy a house now? Where is the hipocrisy that you speak of? Ecostaz 21:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not feel that the current language in the "early life, education, and family" meets the standard of "unbiased". In particular, the long list of rooms in the house is out of keeping with the biographical nature of that section, and is clearly intended to make a political point about the size or purported extravagance of the house. Asa Hopkins, 23:55, 20 February 2007 (PST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.50.156.70 (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Would you rather he hoard all his money rather than pay the largest property tax bill in Orange County that will go to funding public schools? Has John Edwards ever said he does not believe people should be able to be wealthy? He's always stated that he wants people to have the same opportunities that he had. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Terando (talk • contribs) 20:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Anti-War activist

I deleted the Iraq war activist category. See discussion there. If all people that somehow criticize the execution of the war, although they initially supported and considered it a "cake walk" the category tends to become close to meaningless.

The category's definition drew my attention since people wanted to add Yaron Brook to it, which is pretty absurd.

Both Brook and Edwards would fit a category like: Iraq-war execution critics. A category that will contain a high percentage of US politicians, mirroring the polls anti-Iraq war sentiments. Helpful in the Iraq-war execution critics would be a subcategory like pro or contra an "ideological clash of cultures" or the "decisive ideological struggle against radical Islam. A narrative that feels a bit like a self-fulfilling prophecy, or a tool to raise the defense budget.LeaNder 16:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Marcotte and McEwan

Regarding the two bloggers on Edwards' staff who have recently come under fire, the article states that on Feb. 7th, Salon.com reported that they had been fired. But, today (Feb. 8th) I read a New York Times article that stated that Edwards had decided to keep them on his staff. Can someone verify this and elaborate as to the controversy? --Delong71487 03:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Charges of Bigotry Fly in John Edwards Blogger Flap

WASHINGTON — In response to John Edwards' refusal to fire two staffers for "intolerant" Web postings, the president of the nation's largest Catholic civil rights group said he will launch a campaign next week to point out "the double-standard that [Edwards] is the kingmaker of." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251009,00.html Crocoite 21:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that if we're going to take these charges of "bigotry" seriously, we need to note exactly where they're coming from, since Bill Donohue appears to be the main source of this thing. Bill Donohue, who has said "And then they wonder why so many people don't trust the Muslims when it comes to liberty, because they will abuse it" and "If you asked them [hollywood] to sodomize their own mother in a movie, they would do so", among other tidbits that are noted in his Wikipedia article, is crying foul over "bigotry". All this to say: why, exactly, is anyone taking what this guy has to say seriously? Methinks he's not a reliable source of anything. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's muckraking... political hay, with tainted and obviously POV source. /Blaxthos 19:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If conservative William Donohue was the only Catholic who thought that Edwards's bloggers had posted bigoted anti-Catholic comments, there would be no problem with calling this "muckraking" and ignpring the issue. However, when the leader of National Democratic Ethnic Leadership Council, Brian O'Dwyer, makes similar comments, it is clear that the issue is not merely one of right-wingers wanting to attack liberal bloggers (and Edwards by proxy). This article sums up the reaction to the story among many in the "Christian left": (removed copyrighted text) [3] AuH2ORepublican 17:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you may want to remove the pasted text from here; we can all click on a link, and it reeks slightly of copyright violation. In any case, I added the resolution of the story, noted that Salon was wrong when they reported that McEwan and Marcotte had been fired, and linked to the campaign's statements. grendel|khan 22:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. AuH2ORepublican 23:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This portion of the article needs to be more neutral. Right now it's basically alleging the Catholic League is making a big deal about nothing, yet the author of the blog reffered to the Virgin Mary taking an abortion pill, and reffering to "sticky white Holy Spirit." Are you kidding me? Make the article less biased, and stop taking the efforts to make it more neutral out. Johnnybgood1234 (talk 23:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You have a different definition of "neutrality" than Wikipedia does. Labeling someone as "anti-Catholic" or "anti-Christian" without a citation to a reliable source is not neutral. Bill Donohue is not a reliable source for this information. Actually, labeling someone as anti-Christian who is/was working for the political campaign of a Methodist is just illogical. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Given your unsupportable use of "anti-Christian" on the page, and your unsupportable use of "abortion pill" here (see emergency contraception), you should realize that you're bringing your own bias to the article. Marcotte is explicitly not anti-Catholic. The Catholic League is not an official organ of the Catholic Church; there are other Catholic groups (e.g., Catholics for a Free Choice) who have made their opinions clear on this, and come out in support of Marcotte. The result that we can draw is that Marcotte is popular with lefty Catholics and unpopular with righty Catholics, which we already knew (replace the word "Catholics" with "bloggers", "Jews", "baseball players" or whatever you want); if Marcotte were truly anti-Christian or anti-Catholic, she would likely not have garnered such support from Catholics. grendel|khan 14:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If someone mocks and attacks the tenents of someone's faith, then they are anti- whatever religion and/or political belief that details. As far as the "lefty Catholics" who agree with her, there are also Jews that deny the Holocaust. Just because you have the support of a radical, uninformed sect of the offended group, doesn't make the statements any less hate-filled or bigoted. Johnnybgood1234 talk 15:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

But you're still left with Bill Donohue being the instigator of the claim and the main person attempting to perpetuate the "outrage". Sorry, he's just not a reliable source to make the leap from what Marcotte wrote on a blog to being able to objectively label her "anti-Christian". Another problem is the claim that she's "notably" anti-Catholic". Hmm, when I think of someone who is "notably" anti-catholic, people like this come to mind. I disagree that someone can be "notably anti-Catholic/Christian" because of a blog post or two from months ago. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that citing the Catholic League as your source is exactly what I've been talking about in regard to Bill Donohue--it's not a reliable source for the claim that someone is "notably anti-Catholic" or "notably made anti-Catholic claims". · j e r s y k o talk · 16:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur. It's a reliable source for a claim that Bill Donohue and the Catholic League called Marcotte anti-Catholic, but nothing else. grendel|khan 16:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a fair compromise. The article previously noted that Donohue alleged that they made anti-Catholic statements on their blogs in the past, but it had since been removed. We cannot label them anti-Catholic/Christian objectively, nor should we call their alleged anti-Catholicism "notable". But the article should note what Donohue's general charge is, as it once did. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Allegedly" sounds over-weaselly; I changed it to specifically refer to Donohue's interpretation. I'm considering mentioning the letter from Catholics for a Free Choice with a "some Catholics disagreed" note on it, as well as the effort to initiate legal action against the Catholic League for getting into politics--there are rules about doing that if you're a charity--but I'm unsure whether we need to go into quite so much detail. grendel|khan 16:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I edited it to say "Donohue among other Catholics". I believe it's a fair play of words because it's stating that there are other Catholics who are pissed as well; however, not the entire demographic, as you pointed out. Johnnybgood1234|johnnybgood1234 19:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just cleaned it up a bit - it was really choppy. The Salon mishap was before any ref to anyone asking that they be fired so I tried to make it flow better. Bundas 01:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: The non-neutral POV tag currently on this section. I'm a Democrat, and a Catholic, and after reading this section several times carefully, examining the linked pages, and knowledge of the incident, I really can't see why this is tagged as non neutral. It's not flattering towards some parties, but I see nothing non-factual. The bloggers had made some remarks, they claim they were satire, Donohue claims they were not. None of those facts are in dispute. Further, Salon mistakenly claimed they were fired, they later resigned. Also facts not in dispute. The entire passage is footnoted as well. I think people sometimes confuse the presentation of unflattering facts as bias. I see no reason this should be cited as non-neutral. Grey Hodge 18:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter remark

Ann Coulter has recently alleged that John Edwards is a closeted homosexual. [[4]] I am unsure if this was said tongue in cheek, but the youtube tape seems to indicate she actually believes this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.232.222.5 (talk • contribs).

No way that's going in this article unless a big fuss is made, as Ann Coulter is perhaps one of the most unreliable sources imaginable. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• It was used more as a slur than as a charge. Anything to get a few headlines. Coulter is just a media whore. --DavidShankBone 19:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't an allegation, it was Ann Coulter being an ass to increase her noteriety and sell more books. However it is a notable campaign event in that John Edwards responded by displaying the video itself on his donation web form and is soliciting for "Coulter Cash". More information: https://johnedwards.com/action/contribute/coulter - AbstractClass 04:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The recently added section about Coulter is screaming "undue weight" at me. This isn't really about Edwards; it's about Coulter. I would be alright with not mentioning Coulter in this article at all, but the incident certainly shouldn't be discussed nearly as much as it is now (even having a subsection devoted to it is too much imo). · j e r s y k o talk · 00:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

She later said that it was a joke and she does not beleive that Edwards is not straight. She said that she used to word to mean "wuss" or pussy, not meaning homosexual. The remark definitely has no place in the Edwards bio. Ecostaz 00:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally disagree, particular as http://johnedwards.com/ has so prominently featured the video of her remarks. (→Netscott) 00:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Per my comment in the below subsection, do you agree or disagree that the incident is at least being given inappropriate weight in this article? · j e r s y k o talk · 00:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In the grand scheme of the article the section is likely too large due to WP:Recentism but again given the prominence and way that Edwards has himself responded to her remarks makes such a section completely qulalified to be in this article about him. (→Netscott) 00:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed undue weight and recentism might also be an issue. I will not push for total removal as per Netscott's comments, but Ann Coulter at most meant it as a bad joke and not a serious allegation of homosexuality. This is still a bio of a possible future president and such remarks should not be featured so prominently especially as they were not made seriously. Ecostaz 00:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think her alleged intent is of no relevance here -- it's the controversy that makes it significant, not how she justified her behavior. FWIW I agree with the undue weight argument below -- this should be two sentences. /Blaxthos 01:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight

I added a POV tag in lieu of edit warring because I believe recent edits (this series and this series) have caused this article to violate the neutral point of view policy by giving undue weight to the Coulter remarks (as I already mentioned in the above subsection) and the blogger stuff. I'm also concerned about recentism, which often accompanies undue weight concerns. My view is that the blogger edits be reverted entirely and that the Coulter remarks, if they are to be included at all, should be incorporated in a couple sentences in the Presidential campaign subsection. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree - remove section, add a few sentences in presidential campaign section; one about the remark, second about the reaction of the campaign. --DavidShankBone 05:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Also agree. Italiavivi 00:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to reduce the Ann Coulter paragraph and moved it to the 2008 presidential campaign section. Ecostaz 15:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I support the change. I removed the POV tag I added to the article, as I believe the undue weight concerns have now been addressed. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the actual language used by the bloggers should be included, especially since the article labels them "allegedly anti-Catholic" statements. It's like calling Mel Gibson's famous slurs allegedly anti-Semitic. Including the actual language is hardly undue weight. Indeed, the section is somewhat misleading without it. I would agree to a compromise: omit the offensive statements if the word "allegedly" is removed. Otherwise, leave the statements in and let the reader judge. Mamalujo 22:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, none of the text you've added gives the reader any more context by which to judge whether the comments are truly anti-Catholic than the text of the article without the additions does (the third example, "Bush's Christofascist base", doesn't even appear to be directed at Catholics on its face). Finally, using the word "retroactively" in regard to Marcotte's initial comment on the issue is pure POV, as it implies that Marcotte wasn't being truthful. Wikipedia should not judge whether the comments were truly anti-Catholic, as leaving out the word "allegedly" accomplishes. Wikipedia should merely report (1) that Bill Donohue thinks Marcotte made anti-Catholic comments and (2) that Marcotte says they were satirical. The additions to the article distort both. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Political views page?

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have their political views page. As the third-most popular Democratic candidate, shouldn't Edwards have his own page similar to these? If so, I'll put in a request. JeffreyAtW 18:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, he should have one. Edwards has perhaps been the most forthcoming on his views thus far of the big three Democratic contenders (though Clinton has a somewhat more extensive record to work with, I suppose), so I imagine the article would have a substantial amount of material to work with. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

All right, it's been created. JeffreyAtW 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I put in the health care edits that were taken down. I agree they may have been too much since their on the political views page. But I think what's there now is definately not enough since this is a, if not the defining issue of his campaign. Considering he's the only one with a detailed plan out right now and that most people will be looking here for his views rather than the political views page (is there even a prominent link for the political views page on this page?) I think there needs to be some happy medium between what is on the political views page and what is on this page. --Terando 03:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Bloggers section longer than Coulter mention?

Anyone else think this weighting seems odd? Italiavivi 01:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Coulter story wasn't really about Edwards. Sure he was the target of the term, but Edwards's involvement in the story ended with his response condemning Coulter's comment. The blogger incident, on the other hand, involved Edwards for an extended period of time and involved multiple actions by him and his campaign staff. So no, it's not oddly weighted.--Bobblehead 01:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Current Event

I'm putting a Current Event tag here. His campaign said they would hold a news conference in their hometown Thursday to discuss her health. Rumor is she has cancer again.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070322/ap_on_el_pr/edwards2008

Oh yEs itS caRly 04:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That made sense earlier, when it wasn't known what that announcement would be, but I removed the current event tag this evening, as the announcement was definitive that at this time although Mrs. Edwards has a health problem, the campaign is going on, at full stem. So it seems that at this time there is no more current event. Tvoz | talk 22:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Medical plan

There is a paragraph with 2 sentences in it. The 2 sentences contradict each other. One cites Edwards as saying everyone will pay. The other says only the high tax bracket people will pay (implying that it's free for everyone else??). I did not write the sentences. It has been there for a long, long time. It is possible that Edwards said both things.

The reference cited is a dead link. Therefore, a citation needed has been added. Another sentence has been clarified, i.e. single payor term is not defined so I made a slight change for clarity but left the wording largely intact. The word was to say that Medicare is the single payor.HumanThing 00:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Mrs. Edwards's cancer

Are we kidding ourselves?? The article puts a lot of stock into her cancer being completely treatable. The sad fact is that this is BAD, very bad news for her. Is it just a lawyer talking? I mean that phrase that all things are completely treatable. A gunshot to the head is completely treatable but often not curable. Do we even need to mention that quote since it's a bit misleading to the seriousness of the condition? Why not just cut it out (the part about the disease being completely treatable)? Of course we should leave in the part that it is stage UV metastatic breast cancer and that the campaign is going on. DelloJello 23:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

We need to report what can be verified in reliable sources on it. Going further, whether ultimately correct or not, steps into unpermitted original research. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - we are reporting what Edwards said at the press conference, not what our opinion is. Tvoz | talk 23:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Dereks1x's edit regarding "stress[ing] the positive about the cancer without misleading reader of seriousness"[5] is based on the original research that the cancer is "terminal". The link provided to cancer.gov does not discuss Edwards, thus the original research to invoke it here. The reader can click on the links to Wikipedia articles on the cancer to find out about it; there is no reason to emphasize that point here. Doing so, regardless of good intentions (e.g. to raise awareness of breast cancer) or bad intentions (e.g. attempting to make Edwards look bad by implying he cares more about his campaign than his wife's deadly disease), is POV. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

72% of women with stage IV beast cancer are dead within 5 years. That's a fact. I think a large % is 2 years or less. deletion of text can be vandalism. If you can find better data, put it in the article, not delete!

What bad intentions? His wife agrees with campaigning.Dereks1x 01:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did you focus on the bad intention? My point was that regardless of intent, it's POV and OR. My edits were not vandalism and I resent the charge that they were (please see WP:AGF); I've explained myself clearly here with reference to Wikipedia policy. Please demonstrate how the text does not violate the polices I've cited here instead of edit warring. The original research is the insertion of the survivability (or possible lack thereof, though possibilities weren't given, merely the word "terminal" was used) that is unspecific to Edwards but related to a cancer that Mrs. Edwards just so happens to have. That's an improper synthesis under the original research policy. It should go. I'm flagging the subsection as containing original research in lieu of continued edit warring. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

To sum my above comment up, the information you're adding belongs in the metastatic breast cancer article (or something similar), not here, as you're improperly synthesizing information about the cancer with the Edwards' situation without a source that already does so. I.e., no one has said how long Mrs. Edwards lifespan is likely to be in the sources cited. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The current version is NPOV. It even mentions Mrs. Edwards' public statements even though they are EXTREMELY optimistic by saying she might be a little tired. I've seen breast cancer in my family. If I heard grandma say "I'm just going to be a little tired", I would be very concerned that she doesn't realize the seriousness (or is just trying to put on a calm face). However, I've compromised and deleted the word "terminal", OK?Dereks1x 02:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You've missed my point about synthesis / original research entirely. I tagged the subsection for original research, not POV. Please do not remove the tag again. I'll let you know if these concerns are addressed by any subsequent edits, and will be happy to remove the tag myself if they are. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• I respectfully submit that this is not original research.
• 1. I did not do the metastatic cancer reserach or make up the statistics. They are already published.,
• 2. There is NPOV, nobody is saying Mr. or Mrs. Edwards is bad,
• 3. We are only stating the facts, i.e. she has stage IV metastatic breast cancer, a disease with a very low survival rate. However, we present the Edwards' positive characterization of it, even if it is, frankly, overly positive.
• NPOV is important. Otherwise, with Watergate, we'd only report what Nixon said, "I am not a crook, did nothing wrong and any wikipedia text about details of the break-in should be edited out." Ok, Nixon just said the first phrase about not being a crook.Dereks1x 03:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

To address the most salient point: yes, you did not make up the cancer stats, but you did improperly synthesize the cancer stats with Elizabeth Edwards when the sources cited did not do so. Improper synthesis = original research. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• There is no synthesis, merely stating the facts. The facts do not put the Edwards in a negative way. In fact, one newspaper article says "Attacks on Edwards -- either overt or covert -- will be more difficult for his rivals to launch. There is no more sympathetic figure than a husband taking care of his ill wife, so it would be highly risky for any of Edwards's opponents to say anything but glowing things about him and about Elizabeth's strength under difficult circumstances.
• I also found this though I don't think it needs to be added. "The average survival rate has been 2 1/2 to five years, CBS News medical correspondent Dr. Jon LaPook reports"
• Elizabeth Edwards's oncologist, speaking to reporters after the couple left, said the breast cancer has advanced to Stage IV and has spread to her bones and possibly a lung and other organs. Lisa A. Carey, the oncologist, said the disease has worsened beyond the point of being cured -- it is so serious that no surgery can treat it.
• She declined to address the question of life expectancy, saying that in some cases the prognosis is not good, whereas other patients live "a number of years." (those 7-20% of people who live 5 years).
• In short, this is REALLY bad. The current wording as of now is very positive, contains only the most relevant stuff. In fact, I'm surprised that people aren't editing it more frankly unlike the polite and very postive spin that I've written.Dereks1x 03:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Until a doctor has said "Mrs. Edwards has x to y amount of time to live", the information is synthesis / original research. The question of whether this is a "positive" or "negative" light for Edwards is another matter entirely, and one that I'm not addressing right now (please keep the original research / NPOV distinction in mind). · j e r s y k o talk · 04:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Believe me! The wording is very neutral and truthful. If you need them to admit it, then Nixon did not do anything wrong until a) he says "I am a crook", or b) he is impeached. The fact is "she has stage IV metastatic breast cancer, a disease that has poor survival rates". Orginal research would be "she has cancer and is likely die before the year 20--" which is NOT what is being said.

Furthermore, consider this from the Edwards wikipedia article "Before the 2004 Senate election, Edwards announced his retirement from the Senate and supported Erskine Bowles, former White House Chief of Staff". Why doesn't someone say that is original research, i.e., the former White House Chief of Staff part is further description of Mr. Bowles? All we are doing is defining the term, i.e. she has metastatic cancer, which (we don't use the word "bad survival" in order to be NPOV) 80-93% do not survive past 5 years". If we don't have this, it really is POV because then we are covering up and making it sound rosy. Cancer is bad. That's reality. That's like saying we are winning in Iraq. That's bad to be overly rosy. Dereks1x 05:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I strenuously object to the way this paragraph is now worded. This is not an article about metastatic cancer, it is an article about John Edwards, and by extension, about his wife. All that is relevant is what has been publicly, and verifiably, said about the Edwards' specific situation. What we said in the article correctly reflected what the Edwards are saying. Not anyone else's assumptions, research, analysis or synthesis of the facts, which is what these additions are doing. I think the text should be reverted to what we had previously. Tvoz | talk 05:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Dereks1x, you continue to have a poor understanding of Wikipedia's policies. The point of this article is not to cover anything up or to fully record every aspect of the events, that's why there are links to breast cancer and metastasis in the article. If the person is interested in finding out more information about those things, then they can go to the article about them, they don't need to read it here. It may very well be true that there is a 75% mortality rate for metastasized breast cancer, but that does not mean Mrs. Edwards has a 75% chance of dying. The original research aspect is that you're applying those numbers to Mrs. Edwards. All that is known at this point is that she has metastasized breast cancer and that it isn't curable, but it is treatable. You seem to be under the misunderstanding that The Truth overrides everything else. I could include in an article that someone is a complete and utter wanker and it could be absolutely true, but unless I could properly attribute that statement, it doesn't belong in the article. You seriously need to spend more time reading up on Wikipedia's policies. --Bobblehead 05:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! When I saw this talk page, I thought I was really going to see some horrible stuff. Yet, looking at the article, it seems fine. There's no spin, nobody saying the Edwards family is not telling the truth. It merely states that she has metastatic breast cancer but that she is upbeat. Where's this "original research" stuff? It's all well cited and written in a matter of fact tone. Peace, man!HumanThing 05:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)