Talk:John Edward

Scam/Fraud Charges

Was pretty sure before he became a psychic, Edwards was involved in some sort of financial scam that lead to fraud charges and perhaps even a conviction. Was this whitewashed out the article by fans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.214.103 (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Category change

Categories have been changed in accordance with the recent Arbitration on the paranormal, specifically 6a) Adequate framing, and Cultural artefacts. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Format change for Cross Country

So as not to introduce unsourced info - has any in-print discussion been made about the drastic format change of Cross Country in the second season? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The 9-11 Controversy

Edward is doing a bit on his Cross Country show of 'contacting' a firefighter who died on 9-11. Lots42 (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

But seriously

Isn't it a bit much to call him an entertainer or psychic medium? I mean, is exploitation an approved form of entertainment? And giving him credit as an actual psychic medium - seriously? --Riluve (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place to debate the right/wrong of Edward's work. He is by definition a television performer/entertainer, whose show revolves around his being a medium, a title he readily professes for himself. I think the current wording is fine. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That's like letting an article on Hitler entitle himself a "Social Engineer" because that is how he thought of himself. 50.224.24.38 (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Well quite obviously he isn't a "psychic medium". But he is an entertainer. He performs his show for ratings, his shows standing is based on ratings, he could have a boring show on late night public television but he chose to be an entertainer.

Thats not really up for discussion, that hes an entertainer. Thats...well, what he does. That he may also believe his own lies or have a certain reason for what he does would not remove the fact hes an entertainer. Even shock jockeys are entertainers. To each his own I guess, even if theirs is remarkably ignorant. 58.170.134.254 (talk) 12:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Harlequin

As "psychic mediums" do not really exist, and are on the face of it frauds, I do not have any problem with the way it is worded. Clearly, any rational individual who reads "psychic medium" knows that that is a fake thing anyway. He clearly entertains mindless drones who want to feel better....so he is an entertainer. I believe a prudent and rational person can read the things that he is, and take from that what each means.

Protected

I've protected this for 3 days to stop a looming edit war. Work out issues on the talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It really needs to say "supposed" psychic medium. This page's existence diminishes everything Wikipedia stands for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burr Pie (talk • contribs) 04:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Medium or tv personality

Somebody keeps changing 'medium' to 'television personality'. Now i know that most people don't believe that he has genuine abilities but either way he styles himself as a medium and ommitting this is very obviously point of view. And even if you believe that all mediums are fake, then where is the harm in calling him one? Phallicmonkey (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the article has to state the facts. Edward is undoubtedly a television personality; whether or not he is a genuine medium is going to be nigh-impossible to determine factually, and thus I think that the current wording of the intro is more correct. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 20:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree: it's certainly possible to determine factually if he is a genuine medium, and the ball is in his court. If he wins $1,000,000 from James Randi, then he's a real medium. If he's afraid to submit to a scientific test, then he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. If he were to dress up as Elvis during his performances, you'd be correct to call him an Elvis IMPERSONATOR, not Elvis, even if he claims he's Elvis in his act. So call him a Medium Impersonator. He certainly does a good impersonation of a Douchbag, and that's not original research -- I can provide references. Xardox (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but why not add medium as well? There is no reason as to why there only needs to be one or the other, he is both a medium and television personality. Phallicmonkey (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The entire second sentence of the lead’s first paragraph is devoted to that exact thing, his performing as a psychic medium. It would be redundant to add it again in the first sentence and it isn’t necessary. The most agreed on notability of Edwards is the fact that he’s a successful author and television personality. The second sentence gives detail on what his shows and books are about.

Secondly, the Shiavo incident is not at all “biased” per WP:NPOV, it is sourced and neutrally worded. It was indeed a well-publicized controversy and needs to be mentioned in the article.[1][2][3] If you can come up with more neutral wording for that, which gains consensus, then we can change it. But you cannot just delete sourced, relevant and neutral content like that. Dreadstar † 19:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Then why not rewrite the introduction including medium in the opening? 'Television Personality' serves no real purpose except to perhaps please skeptics who don't like to see him labelled a medium. And i will take you up on the offer, although there is hardly a neutral way of putting such a thing. and it may be sourced, but what value does this really have if the information is still biased? Phallicmonkey (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Willbyr above (and his recent edit). Since we can't factually verify that the guy actually is a medium, that is, that he can actually communicate with the dead, the sourced and verifiable fact we can include is that he describes himself as a medium (or whatever similar wording is most agreeable). I don't see any consensus for saying flat out that he is a medium, so please find some agreement instead of just revert warring over it. --Minderbinder (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the recent edit is finally an acceptable middle ground. As long as the 'medium' isn't left out, it is not too biased (at least not AS biased as it was before). But the new edit will suffice, and i think that it is the closest to a consensus that we will come to. And as you may have noticed, i did attempt to discuss this on this very page, but it is only when the above comment was made that any discussion had taken place. Thanks Phallicmonkey (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I see comments from Willbyr and Dreadstar about it above. --Minderbinder (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Since people seem to think it's ok to call him a medium even though it is not verified simply because he claims that and because you can't prove him wrong, then I suggest they also edit David Koresh's article. I mean, you'd have to list "messiah" or "incarnation of Jesus" into the lead, wouldn't you since you can't PROVE he ISN'T and he did claim it, right? Someone explain to me the difference.

Or, since Kim Jong Il claims to be a god, we should put "Kim Jong Il is the Korean leader and a god" in the lead, right?

Moral: Just because someone claims to be something that you can't disprove, doesn't mean wikipedia should have to list him as such; I'm changing it if there's no response to this entry.SuperAtheist (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Here We Go Again

This happens about every 6 months... a John Edward fan finds his Wikipedia article, and starts kicking up a stink about this or that. Now someone has tagged the entire article citing non-POV and factual accuracy, without any word of explanation or justification. If no explanation is forthcoming in 3 days I'm removing the tag. JQ (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is POV because of the blatant hints at him being a fake, and any attempts to reduce the bias of the article are an uphill battle, and met with hostility. The article needs a rewrite. Phallicmonkey (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about presenting facts, not opinions or professions of faith as facts. As I think was mentioned earlier, Edward's ability to talk to the dead is inherently untestable so cannot be presented as fact. And funnily enough, not everyone subscribes to Edward's explanation that his ability is genuine. Presenting an untestable, subjective, ad-doc psychic faculty as fact is about as biased as you can get. JQ (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually now I think about it, I agree the article's opening statement should describe Edward as a "psychic". Along with all the connotations attached to that word. JQ (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You say it is not about presenting opinions, yet your previous comment shows that this is exactly what you are going to do. Yes, not everybody agrees with his claims, but that is still what he professes to be and his 'act'is presented as psychic. And the connotations associated with 'psychic' are again a matter of opinion. This is precisely why i have flagged the article as POV, just read the article and it very clearly puts across a viewpoint. Phallicmonkey (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Edward should not be described as a "psychic"...I disagree with Phallicmonkey's claims about the article's neutrality, but describing him in that manner implies a belief in the opposite, which is definitely POV. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 14:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

He styles himself as a psychic, so it is not up to us to make assumptions regarding this, the facts should be presented. And the facts are 1) He describes himself as psychic and 2) This should be adhered to regardless of personal bias, otherwise the article is fairly useless as a source of fact, but is rather used as an oppurtunity for skeptics to get their viewpoint across. Phallicmonkey (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, Willbyr. IMHO since the term "psychic" can only be self-styled anyway, and does not infer any kind of professionalism like a doctor or engineer, I can't see the harm in having it in the opening paragraph. On the other hand many readers are very gullible. As far as POV is concerned, yes this article if very POV -- in favour of Edward. JQ (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Monkey, if you want to tag the entire article, you should put your specific criticisms on the talk page so individual parts can be discussed. "it's all bad" without going into detail makes the tag pretty useless. --Minderbinder (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that Edward's claim to be able to talk to the dead is inherrently untestable, but like most people in his industry, he doesn't show a lot of interest in falsifying his claimed powers so it amounts to the same thing. I just said that his claims aren't supported by scientific consensus. I don't think anyone can really argue with that point and that's really all you can say about people in Edward's line of work. Gregory j (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What I do not get is: why not call him a television personality that claims to have psychic power thats absolutely factbased. He is a television personality and he does claim to have psychic power. If he really is a psychich than is up to the reader to decide. --Gag101 (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

"Claim," in this instance, is a loaded term per WP:CLAIM. This issue was so contentious that it went to ArbCom; Adequate framing. Dreadstar ☥ 13:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Show format

{{editsemiprotected}}

Originally: Readings in Crossing Over involve Edward questioning audience members with what is presented as information being communicated by their deceased friends and relatives. Edward says he receives images and clues from "the other side" which the audience must assist him in interpreting. Aside from questionnaires filled out prior to taping, the audience is not supposed to supply Edward with any prior information about themselves, their family or whom they are trying to connect with "on the other side".[8] Audience members respond to Edward's statements and questions, adding any details they feel are appropriate.

Change to: Readings in Crossing Over involve Edward presenting audience members with information being communicated by their deceased friends and relatives and asking them for "yes" or "no" confirmation and validation of that information, but sometimes receives more information than requested, which he often clarifies as information given to him by the audience member and claims he can no longer use that piece of information as validation. Edward receives and interprets information through clairsentience (clear feeling), clairaudience (clear hearing) and clairvoyance (clear seeing) in which he feels, hears or sees images in his mind's eye from the other side which the audience must validate as pertaining to them. Edward has no prior information about audience members, their family or those in spirit with whom they are trying to connect.

--I've seen John Edward live and there are no "questionnaires" that people fill out. John Edward does not "question" audience members, he presents them with information and then asks them to confirm the information. I've also added the three "clairs" which Edward uses to receive his information. -- bigcaat - Aug. 21, '09 (sorry if I haven't done this exactly right. I've not done this 'talk' thing before.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigcaat (talk • contribs) 06:33, 22 August 2009

Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this article. One of the key principle in Wikipedia is presenting information with a neutral point of view. In this case, that means neither accepting nor rejecting the claims made on the show, but presenting them as being the claims made on the show. Rewording it as you suggest would accept and promote what is widely held as being false. Also, we do not allow original research, like your having seen the show live, and prefer verifiable reliable secondary sources. The current sources for much of this article are interviews and the shows themself, which are primary sources, but can at least be verified and used in a limitted way. Please read the linked articles to learn more about these policies. Celestra (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

QVC

Should his appearance(s) on QVC (peddling ostensibly blessed jewelry and such) be included? George Lee 07:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GSpastic (talk • contribs) Could the 'verifiable secondary sources' be sited in this article? As I too have been to see the live shows (I am actually a rational, logical sceptic)and there was definately no questionaires or similar prior to the show. I just want to know how he does it, read up on cold reading but it just doesn't add up. So regardless of personal belief this is a very, very interesting subject. People should keep an open mind, this life holds infinate possibilties!

Point of the Terri Schiavo controversy?

"So whether it's in a physical vehicle or not, there is still the ability to connect [...] But she's clear on what's going – and I can tell you that she's definitely clear on what's happening now around her."[27] Edward was criticized for this statement because Schiavo did not have proper brain function at the time.[28]"

Does it matter that the complaint is that she did not have proper brain function at the time? This is a man who claims he can talk to dead people who don't have a brain in the first place, let alone brain function. I'm not saying I believe Edward has psychic powers, but it just seems like a silly criticism. You might as well criticize the fact that he thinks he can talk to dead people. ScienceApe (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

---He didn't say he could talk to her, he said she was "clear on what's happening around her," while all medical science would lead us to believe she could not. Or, at least that's the criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.177.238 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 12 November 2009 UTC

Appearances in the media

John Edward appeared in an episode of South Park series (6x15) being nominated for the Biggest Douche In The Universe award.

References

The controversy over calling him a psychic professional psychic medium

I've edited the lede to say that Edward is a "self-described psychic medium". This should be acceptable to both sides of the controversy, no? 209.105.199.39 (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah you'd think so; but, predictably, some Edwardphile has changed it back to "professional psychic medium". And another piece of me dies inside. JQ (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think "professional psychic medium" sums it up perfectly, or is there another reason he's a psychic medium? Mighty Antar (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I periodically edit-out the change to calling this Edward character a professional and will continue to do so as it is a slap in the face to every true professional out there. Even a call girl can prove what she does is based in fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.28.103.214 (talk) 02:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Bravo! Xardox (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion here with english usage. If the article stated John Edwards is a professional, that would imply he is someone particularly highly skilled at something, but when "professional" is used in conjunction with a trade e.g. "professional psychic medium", it simply means that the person is paid to do the job rather than doing it as an amateur or unpaid. "Psychic medium" may be a valid epistemological subject, the fact that such effortless and magical gifts are rarely demonstrated or offered free-of-charge by those who are purported to be the most gifted should not escape unremarked.Mighty Antar (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the removal of "professional" once again. The removal is based on what people think (or don't think) a psychic medium actually does. What Edward does as a psychic medium is obviously very important and pertinent to this article, but it's a whole different thing as to whether or not he gets paid for doing it. I've amended the title of this section accordingly. Mighty Antar (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

So obviously this conversation hasn't continued on the Talk page, but once again the lead describes Edward as a "professional self-proclaimed psychic medium," presumably by the same argument that Antar and others are making above, that he "makes a living" as a psychic-medium. But I do not remotely agree that it's factual that he makes his living as a psychic. As was also stated in a previous discussion on this matter, if Edward's job is to maintain ratings and/or seat count for his shows, to entertain enough people to keep the crowds coming, then he's making his living as a stage performer and TV personality, NOT as a psychic-medium. Plus the use of the words "professionally" and "professional" in the same sentence is entirely redundant. Also, Edward hasn't had a regularly running TV show in several years, and now seems to be focusing on stage tours. So unless someone has a source that confirms that Edward makes more than half his income from private readings - which would suggest he "makes his living" as a psychic - shouldn't the lead read something more like this, "known professionally as John Edward, is an American television personality, stage performer and self-proclaimed psychic medium." CleverTitania (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Granite State newspaper article

Dreadstar I have readded the reference without the blog citation. Sgerbic (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why, the group and their 'spokesperson' don't seem at all notable. What expertise and notability do they have to rise above the threshold set by WP:BLP? I'm not seeing it. Dreadstar ☥ 18:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Activism against Edward is noteworthy, even if it had been Anonymous activism. The newspaper that reported it is newsworthy.Sgerbic (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like OR to me. And I'm talking about "Activism against Edward is noteworthy, even if it had been Anonymous activism." I think it's clear we're now deep into WP:BATTLE. The group, the spokesman and the opinion are non-notable and violate WP:BLP. Dreadstar ☥ 00:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No battle from me Dreadstar. I'll play nice. I still totally support my edit, but will back down unless I feel I can better support my position. I still feel that a activism section against Edward is noteworthy even if the activism comes from many un-noteworthy sources. Sgerbic (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

File:JohnEdward.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:JohnEdward.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove my citation?

Dreadstar what do you mean by a "bridge too far"? I have no idea what you are talking about. Is this one of those inclusive WP editor terms that shuts out newer users? Your "talk" page says you are not editing WP and on a break so I am asking for clarification here. Sgerbic (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"Bridge too far" was in reference to my own earlier edit which accidentally re-added material when making another change. Your content had several problems, primary one being that Edward was not mentioned at all in two of the sources and was only mentioned by name once in the third source. The third source made no commentary on on Edward besides the mere mention of his name. The content was a clear violation of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Dreadstar ☥ 02:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Edward. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_1_26/ai_80924575

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Edward. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061222194125/http://www.johnedward.net/about_John_Edward.htm to http://johnedward.net/about_John_Edward.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607014609/http://dir.salon.com/story/people/feature/2002/06/13/probability/index.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/people/feature/2002/06/13/probability/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John Edward. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130104233353/http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0%2C8599%2C100555%2C00.html to http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,100555,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100412161943/http://infinitequest.com/ to http://www.infinitequest.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100412161943/http://infinitequest.com/ to http://www.infinitequest.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

See also section

I removed a lot from the see also section. Most of it was not relevant to John Edward beyond his being a medium. Per MOS:SEEALSO, I think more of a connection is needed, as the section was too long and most of the entries would not be part of a comprehensive article on the biographical subject here. I kept two entries that were about TV shows, as the first description in the lead is "television personality". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: You are going way overboard on the medium articles you are removing material from - mostly in See also. The MOS states: "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article." I maintain that the bios of other mediums and articles covering the general topic are tangentially related and I am going to restore the material as is appropriate. RobP (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Some of those links have no relevance other than to implicitly disparage the article subject, which would be a violation of the WP:BLP policy against unsourced content. Why are you restoring those? Also, I don't see how the remaining links to other mediums are relevant enough to include. WP:SEEALSO says that "The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." How does a list of other mediums apply to that? Under your interpretation, any biography could have dozens of "see also" entries based purely on their profession. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You keep repeating the same part of the MOS that you like - how about the part I quoted: "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics..."

You're not even quoting the whole sentence, which goes on to say "One purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article" and then provides three conditions for what is considered relevant. Can you please explain how your interpretation would make sense if any biography could have dozens of "see also" entries based purely on their profession? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)