Talk:John Edward/Archive 4

Welcome![edit]

Hello everybody. Welcome to the John Edward talk page. A few things you should be aware of before editing the actual article...

This is an extremely contentious article. The issue of psychic powers is hotly debated in this article and in others. However, our role as a neutral encyclopedia is merely to report the facts, as presented by respectable primary and secondary sources. With that in mind, please try to keep edits to the article as non-contentious as possible. Adding text that can be perceived as POV is likely to cause drama.
The opening paragraph of this article, aka the lead/lede, has been to mediation twice and is an extremely hotly debated topic here. However, the last mediation finally resulted in a 6/0 consensus. As such, the lead should not be modified further. If you would like to make changes to the lead, please post your comments on the talk page first and wait for the input of your fellow editors.

And that's pretty much it. Happy editing everybody! – Lantoka (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the lead came from discussion on the talk page, not mediation (and I never did see the second mediation, where is it?). And it certainly can be modified further. Editors just need to know that there have been long discussions about it, and that edits to the intro will be heavily scrutinized and probably edited or reverted if people don't agree - a change just needs editors to agree on it. In other words, it's like many other articles here on wikipedia. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source for pseudoscience[edit]

If you would like to put this article in the pseudoscience category, please give a WP:V source for doing so. I know of no source which says John Edward is a pseudoscience. Nor do I know of a source which says that JE is connected to science at all, pseudo or otherwise. I do know of a connection to science, Gary Schwartz- he has done several studies with Edward. However, it is not necessary to put Edward in the science Cat. Some people, however, seem to want him in pseudoscience- that's fine, if they can cite a source saying JE is pseudoscience. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of psychics is generally considered to be pseudoscientific, particularly since pseudoscientific explanations are given to explain the "ability". See that article. --Minderbinder 12:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK- please give your sources for saying so. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think having any link to the sciences in a BLP is incorrect unless there is a clear and obvious link to it. Hence I recommend that both "science" and "psuedoscience" are removed. The others listed are more appropriate. Shot info 22:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, wholeheartedly. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I agree with Minderbinder's statement above about psychics and the pseudoscientific nature of the field. However "John Edwards" is not a "pseudoscience". Hence I am thinking of WP and our policies with respect to the categorisation. Thanks Shot info 23:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a bio- it isn't a field. I guess you mean parapsychology, and I know you don't think it is a science. In politics, they call it being to the right of Atilla the Hun, in parapsychology, to the right of the Amazing Randi -this is only a joke- -grin- Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shot info's concerns about categorization are well-founded, and I had been considering them as well. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Categorization, but I'm not sure if it helps to resolve our specific discussion. I think it's worth mentioning that there is a precedent for including individuals in Category:Pseudoscience; many biographies are in that category, including those of intelligent design advocates William Dembski and Michael Behe (see discussions here and here). Category:Intelligent design and Category:Paranormal (which contains Category:Parapsychology) are both listed in Category:Pseudoscience. — Elembis (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that might be a problem with those pages, rather than Shot info's reasoning? Does it jibe with the guidelines for biographies? I think not, see this. We'd have to make a case in the article that Edward puts his views over as science, and have sources saying it is pseudoscience (as with Creationism) for it to be in the pseudoscience Cat. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like this is mostly a question of semantics. Should we just create (or rename) categories Category:Pseudoscientific and Category:People working on pseudoscientific topics? I notice that the objection is about this one category while there seems to be no concern about individual people being listed under Category:Parapsychology. If they're not "pseudosciences", they're not "parapsychologies" either, are they? --Minderbinder 12:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise extreme caution when making any statements that can be considered derogatory in a biography of a living person. Dreadlocke ☥ 15:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that pseudoscience is derogatory, while, your opinion not withstanding (:, parapsychology is not. You would also have to defend a Cat pseudoscientific more strongly than Cat pseudoscience, because in the first case, you have to source a connection to pseudoscience, while in the second you have to source that the subject itelf is pseudoscientific. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do have to agree with Martin (and others) on this one that per WP:BLP we must err on the side of caution. Edwards isn't a advocate of the scientific status of psychics IIRC. Hence his "categorisation" as "pseudoscience" is probably inappropriate for WP:CAT anyway. And WP:BLP is the overriding policy here as CAT is a guideline. Since it doesn't detract from the article, my strong belief is that it should be deleted. However "pseudoscience" is appropriate over at psychics. Just my 2c worth. Shot info 23:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it should be deleted. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK let me sum up a bit. Milo says it is considered pseudoscientific, and therefore should be in the Cat. Elembis says that there is precedent for including it- in the bios of Creationists. Shot info, Dreadlocke, and myself agree it should be deleted.

I think what we need to consider now is that the article must specifically cover JE as a pseudoscientist before it can include the Cat, per this. Further comments? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, isn't that what I have pointed out a couple of times now :-) Shot info 06:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'm talking to the ones who don't want the Cat deleted. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I thought you were pointing it out to me :-) BTW, I've removed the cat per BLP. Shot info 07:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professed/self described[edit]

Dreadlocke, do you really need to revert war over things like this instead of discussing on the talk page? Why is it so crucial that "self described" be changed to "professed"? --Minderbinder 17:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a revert war. I was replying in the edit summary. If further discussion is necessary (as it seems to be), it would have been done here. It's a better word, simpler and more encyclopedic than "self-described" do you disagree? Dreadlocke ☥ 17:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, several editors yourself included had agreed on this non contentious wording, and now you are reverting.Belbo Casaubon 19:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We agreed on the intro, not these small changes to different areas of the article than that intro. Are you wanting to discuss or edit war? Professed is fine, it means the same thing as "self-described". Here, look it up: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/professed]. I don't see the problem. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it means the same then why are you determined to change it??Belbo Casaubon 20:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because it is a better, more concise, encyclopedic word than "self-described". It reads much better. As a matter of fact we're discussing changing the name of a category to "Professed Mediums" and "Professed Psychics", because it's a good word that even Milo agrees with (just a little joke there Milo, although you did agree...;) Dreadlocke ☥ 20:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so you do want to edit war over this. Well, count me out for that type of editing. Learned my lesson there. Do we have to mediate over this too? Ridiculous. What does everyone else think? Dreadlocke ☥ 20:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who has been repeatedly editing this without discussing it on the talk page. Get a consensus or leave it. --Minderbinder 20:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have discussed it on the talk page, and Belbo is just a guilty of revert warring as anyone - as a matter of fact he's at 3RR right now. Anyway, enough of these useless accusations, so what exactly is the problem with "Professed"? Dreadlocke ☥ 20:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have reverted your undiscussed changes 3 times, I have not broken 3RR I would have to revert them again, if you want to complain then go to an administrator.Belbo Casaubon 21:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professed[edit]

Here is the definition of professed, which I propose to be the replacement for "self-described". My reasoning is that "professed" has the same meaning and is better, more concise, encyclopedic word than the phrase "self-described".

Straw poll:

Agree to the change for the reasons given above. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with 'professed' is that is has a number of synonyms, which makes its usage here vague. It can mean 'self-described', but it can also mean 'pretend'. — BillC^talk 20:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And self-described doesn't also say "pretend" just as vaguely or strongly? Dreadlocke ☥ 20:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No — BillC^talk 20:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it does. Part of the implication of "self-described" is that it may not be true because it's not provable and no one else "describes" it for them. Which technically makes "self-described" incorrect, because many others do describe him as a psychic medium. "Self-described" implies a lot of things, some of them are the same as "pretend", so I think professed is a far better word. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree As it is more encyclopedic. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Self described" is less ambiguous, and attributes the claim more specifically. I'd favor self described for the disambig and the info box. --Minderbinder 21:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose It is an ambiguous phrase (my pet hate), and as such is vague.Belbo Casaubon 21:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Only as he is professed, not only by himself but by others. Professed as a verb means pretty much the same as self-described. Don't forget WP:BLP we have to be more neutral, even if erring on the side of over caution with BLPs. Shot info 05:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they mean pretty much the same, how is one "more neutral"? --Minderbinder 13:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of WP:BLP. Shot info 02:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-described is true, but professed covers both self-description and description by others- or either, which gives it flexibility as a word to use generally in these cases. I does have one meaning which is not nice, that is "to declare in words or appearances only : PRETEND, CLAIM", but self-described has the connotation of egotism. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guess we'll have to take this to mediation as well. Dreadlocke ☥ 00:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited[edit]

I reverted this edit:

"A common theory is that Edward has microphones planted under the seats of the audience, and as they naturally talk to the person they are sitting next to about who they are hoping to speak to, Edward has some knowledge of names, dates etc that he can exploit."

It needs attributing if it is to stick. — BillC ^talk 08:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biography assessment rating comment[edit]

WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 21:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Since the beginning of June, there have been at least six instances of vandalism on this page. I think it should be locked so that new Wikipedians cannot edit it. --Sittingonfence 15:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of that sort of frequency (a few times a week) is common for subjects in the public eye. You could try making a request for semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but such a request is likely to be turned down. Just keep reverting the vandalism. — BillC ^talk 20:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sittingonfence 21:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]