Talk:John Edward/Archive 1

Talk 1

This article claims that the scientific tests "precluded" cold reading by making sure John Edward did not know the subject before talking to them, but cold reading specifically refers to a trick which is used on subjects about whom you have no information. If the "psychic" has information on the subject, it's called hot reading. Either the tests need to be better described, or this phrase should be removed - as it is, it seems contradictory.

Do we think that Penn and Teller saw into the future and predicted the winner and score of the Super Bowl and projected it into a bottle of pickles? No, it was a trick, one that you and I don't know how they did. We know how John Edward does his trick. Keeping it neutral in the article is fine, but how many psychics will expect the same respectful treatment? Ortolan88

So are you suggesting it the article is too neutral? Should we engage in further John Edward bashing? --dave

No, just remarking that it is a slippery slope between John Edward, who happens to be on TV, and Madame Magda, who has a storefront with a big neon ? in the window. Ortolan88

Right, but you express concern that you'll need to be respectful of psychics whether those with a neon sign or those on television. Heaven forbid we be respectful of people we disagree with! Or perhaps you were just not wanting to respect their career choice?

This page made no attempt to maintain NPOV. Let's try not to fill Wikipedia with articles this biased. Gene Ward Smith 19:30, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Next time don't just remove large sections of text. Modify them. dave 01:01, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Talk 2

As someone has pointed out, "cold reading" is a technical term for precisely those techniques used when one has no prior information about the person. I'm removing the phrase as inaccurate. DanielCristofani 12:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the first few sentences in this article list Edwards as a well-known con artist. That strikes me as a horribly biased way to start a Wikipedia entry. Couldn't we just say he's a well-known TV psychic and the creator of the show, Crossing Over?

That was just vandalism by an anonymous editor --DocJohnny 19:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk 3

someone should probably edit this page to add that gary schwartz has zero credibility among serious scientists - and the only reason he has that much is that it's impossible to have any less.

Someone should probably find some sort of verifiable source to make this claim before they decide to add it to the article.

This is an article on Edward, not Schwartz. Schwartz is a well known researcher into parapsychology - naturally this draws criticism from "serious scientists". Dreadlocke ? 17:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk 4

John Edward is neither original nor particularly good at what he does. I recall once seeing Edward live on Larry King, where they featured some footage from a "Crossing Over" show. The audience was smallish with 40 or so people. Edward gets on stage and announces, "I'm getting... chunks of meat... or something, in a plastic bag..." This fat woman jumps up excitedly and proclaims that she has a bag of cheese cubes in her handbag. I'm thinking, considering half the audience were grossly overweight odds are that someone will have a bag of food on them. And Edward or one of his shills probably saw the woman chowing down before the show. What a load of horse manure. If the footage was provided by Edward's producers as a "good" example of his work, it's little wonder Larry King was not impressed. How anyone with a single functioning brain cell can swallow this rubbish is beyond me. John Edward is nothing but a bloody shyster. So history will remember him, and this article should make no pretence to the contrary. --130.76.64.17 00:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hard to believe. Larry King is impressed by everyone! - Nunh-huh 00:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Talk 5

I think this article needs a serious balance job. I mean come on, I hate JE and his lunatic ramblings as much as the next guy. But if we want Wikipedia to have an air of professionalism then we need to maintain at least a modicum of neutrality. --Jquarry 02:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That way we can let intelligent readers decide for themselves what an arse he is, instead of pushing opinion down their throats. And our readers are intelligent, right?

and if they're not, you can't "educate" them to be as "intelligent" as you are anyway, that's kinda backwards, isn't it?

There is neutrality and there is pseudo neutrality. Some things truly are indefensible, and to pretend otherwise, when the scales must be balanced with air, mocks dispassion. The techniques used by "psychics" are well understood, and there simply is no reasonable doubt that John Edwards, like all of the others plying his trade, is a fraud. The only question is whether or not he is self-deluded. To hem and haw for fear of seeming unbalanced is to care more for seeming than for truth.

Talk 6

John Edward may not be the most credible "psychic medium" there is. "Psychic mediums" as a whole may not be all that credible. However, I think it's sad that some of the edits I've read to this and the Sylvia Brown page act like this spiritual connection they claim to have with the dead is completely impossible. I think that's rediculous. And/or the people writing it have never had such a connection so they feel that anyone who claims to have is stupid and looses most (if not all) credibility with them, and that's sad. They're people too, they're just very different from you.

Whether or not you believe that a person actually does--or even can--have a spiritual connection with the dead and/or the living (or God, for that matter), this alleged connection often means a lot to the people who claim to have it and I think that deserves respect. It is a strong part of who they are and what feels right to them and I don't think anyone has the right to belittle that. Of course, people who are trying to make money at it and seem obviously fake is another story, but the idea in and of itself is not a bad one and if nothing else at least deserves respect.

This is NOT the point of an encyclopedia, to "respect" the people who believe this or that. Encyclopedia's report FACTS, not BELIEFS. If someone is offended because thus far, nothing can be proven scientifically, that's just too bad. We aren't here to "all get along" and make everyone feel included and respected. There are magazines, books, television and radio programs for that. You can't prove he can talk to the dead, but we can prove cold-reading is a technique and we can report accuracy information. SENSITIVITY TO FEELINGS IS NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC.216.39.146.25 15:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk 7

It is impossible, and their is no reason to believe it unless it has been proven. Using a study by Edward's lacky should not be considered evidence. The end section is written as though there is some ongoing scientific debate about Edward's abilities. This is misleading and should be cleaned up to better reflect the fact that Edwards show amounts to entertainment (like pro wrestling) and nothingt else.

"It is impossible, and their is no reason to believe it unless it has been proven." - This sentence is ridiculous. You actually defame your own position by commiting the "Appeal to Consequences of Belief" fallacy, the very position you are attacking. My point is that one cannot say something is "impossible", and then say "unless it has been proven". Your position is either "because it has not been proven, I do not believe in it", or "because it is not been proven, it is still possible, and thus, can be accepted on that basis". I think that your original position is one which may be detrimental to the editing of an encyclopedia, as it is not based in rational thought (ironically enough). Moreover, one cannot just make assertions like " [the] Edwards show amounts to entertainment"; again, this is founded in conjecture. Allthesestars 18:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually we can definitely say that Edward's show amounts to entertainment, given that it has the disclaimer "for entertainment purposes only"--DocJohnny 00:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Reproduced for your enjoyment, the disclaimer from Crossing Over.

"The producer has relied heavily on the contributions of John Edward and other third parties in the creation of this program, which has been produced for entertainment purposes only. Materials and opinions presented in this program by John Edward and other third parties, including statements, predictions, documents, photos, and video footage come solely from the respective third party sources and are not the views, opinions, and the responsibility of the producer and, are not meant or intended to be a form of advice, instruction, suggestion, counsel or factual statement in any way whatsoever."--DocJohnny 00:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't really think this stands as a bedrock of certainty. Surely it is just a way for John Edward and the show to avoid people sueing them over anything he says? The sentiment seems to be that they (the show) want to stress that what John is saying is not what he is thinking (and by that I mean consciously. It's always difficult to describe these areas when discussing psychic medium, and that he isn't trying to imply that anything is (morally) right or wrong. Moreover, I think basing an opposition to the show on this statement is quite a weak one. I'm all for people criticising these sorts of shows if they want, becasue I think most medium on tv are a little too "showy". However, I just don't think this amounts to strong evidence against John Edward, or the show. Allthesestars 10:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Odd statement in entry

The show is accused by its critics of being heavily edited, with a half-hour show taking up to six hours to tape, in which failed attempts are removed; this emphasizes only Edward's "hits" while discounting his misses, critics argue

-From article

Accused? This has actually been proven. This has been confirmed by people who went there. This is a fact. Why does the article not reflect that?

Disclaimer Statement

We need to get a copy verbatim of the disclaimer that appears for 3.3 seconds at the end of his show. If anyone knows it please add it to the article. Thankszors--Gephart 06:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

These dislaimers are not unusual. I believe that the law in the US requires this statement on ALL people who caim to speak with the dead, or have knowledge of the future. Otherwise one is engaging in illegal fortune telling. This cannot be interpreted as Crossing Over admitting to being a lie. Let's try to maintain a NPOV in the article no matter what you personally think. Green hornet 04:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Substantial Edit

I have made quite a substantial edit in an effort to make this article NPOV. Along with making changes to the "flow" of the article, I have:

• seperated the section about John Edward himself from the parts about Crossing Over. There is now a section dedicated to discussing what occurs on the show. Although the whole of this article should be NPOV, this part of the article must be kept clear of POV rants.
• seperated and expanded the Crticisms sections, with each sub-heading (hopefully) expressing the views of both sceptics and believers.
• done the same as above with the "...in the Media" section
• Changed the picture to one which is clearer and one that I think better suits an article on Wikipedia.

I am really wary that this article will becoming a breeding ground for some kind of pseudo-Science vs. Religion debate. I don't care whether you believe in John Edward, and you don't care whether I believe in John Edward or not; neither does the article's reader. Remember that when editing, and everything should be okay.

What's the story behind the end of the TV show?

I rarely watched it, but then suddenly it was gone. I think it went off the air. I checked the official page (linked from this wiki article) and it said nothing. Also the south park episode when it was made, I don't think it aired. I think it was pulled down. I later find it airing two years later. I think John Edward sued and maybe that south park episode hurt his TV career badly. So anyone know? DyslexicEditor 12:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Phonetics Link

The mention of Phonetics and the accompanying link doesnt really add up. The link is to a general page on phonetics and the relevance to a cold -reading technique isnt apparent Prustage 23:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Of course the article should have a NPOV but at the moment it seems to have been so castrated to avoid edit wars (or being sued by JE?) that it is below standard for Wikipedia.

I suggest a section on "Controversy" where all the skeptical claims are aired along with good citations and (if existing) rebuttals. It is perfectly possible to write a section like this (more detailed than the current "Criticisms" section) whilst maintaining NPOV. On the other hand, to provide balance a lot needs to be said about JE's success. What is the audience rating of "Crossing Over"?; how much does he earn?; who has he given private readings to?; what does he charge?; who are his principal supporters and detractors? Prustage 23:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Rebochan 01:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC) Seconded. Seriously, there's a two paragraph section on his show, one tiny paragraph on his life, then a huge list of media references. Here's a copy of one of the older criticism sections - there does need to be a section addressing the considerable controversy surrounding his career with both arguments for and against. It's not hard to find either.

Here's just a suggestion: Wikipedia treats creationism as false. It accurately lays out the claims, but never has the pretense that they could be true. Since psychics are even phonier than creationism, Wikipedia shouldn't tip toe around with fake balance. Psychics are frauds and hucksters. Don't pretend like John Edwards is anything else.

When doing this, I think we should insist on sources, so as to avoid endless back-and-forth arguments. Also,we should avoid general criticisms of psychics and keep it specifically to criticisms of John Edwards himself. Ashmoo 00:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Let's just stop making fun of other psychics in this guy's article. Let's just make fun of him instead. do you even LISTEN to yourself, Ashmoo? P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 17:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What's with the hostility? (WP:CIVIL). Where did I say we should make fun of him? My suggestion of sources is specifically to stop POV editors from inserting their own views of Edward. Ashmoo 23:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Edward's Talent section

This whole section seems like pure opinion. I asked for cites and was told (without anything explanation) by User:PHDrillSergeant that no cites are needed. Here are my problems with the section:

there is no contest to his ability to comfort grieving and/or desperate people by giving inspirational messages to viewers and audience members.

I think there would be many skeptics who would contest this. They may say the comfort is short lived, they may say something else. Either way a blanket statement like this is unsourced opinion.

"Many viewers of the show remarked that they watched not for the psychic readings—but instead for the kind messages its host conveyed about those who have passed on.

'Many viewers' is weasel words. Who said it? What episode? Where are you getting your information from? How can readers verify this?

One fine example of these inspirational messages is from Crossing Over, when a woman who had lost her child was being read. Edward, at the end of the reading, said that the woman's mother (who had also 'crossed over') was taking care of the deceased child. At this, the woman began crying. In the interview afterward, she said that she had felt that 'a great weight' had been released from her, since she knew that her child was 'not alone on the other side'.

Again, which episode? How can we verify this?

I agree that that article needs to conform to NPOV and provide balance, but just writing a section of nice things about him without providing any sources isn't the way to do it. While most of these comments may be reasonable, wikieditor doesn't insist on reasonable, it insists on WP:Verifiability. Ashmoo 01:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but this article isn't objective at all. Simply stating that he and his work are extremely controversial, and possibly giving a few examples would be fine--as opposed to listing all the debunking claims and the different shows and personalities who have jumped on the mudslinging bandwagon. The only thing those references really show is that he's an easy mark. If all of that must make it into the article, a fair and balanced approach would be to mention the large cult following he enjoys, the fact that much of his work is based on spiritual beliefs that are not shared by his toughest critics, and the number of appearances he has personally made on talk shows and radio shows, acclaim he has won by garnering syndication for his own show, and maybe the fact that he has submitted to being studied in a research facility--which was also made into video by a separate production crew. Whether the author of the article believes in him or thinks he's a big phony, doesn't mean the author should compromise his/her professionalism here. Bad job.

Fine. Feel free to insert this information, with sources. Ashmoo 23:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

He's an "easy mark" as you put it, because he's such an obvious fraud.

Your comments make me think one thing: "A mind is like a parachute-It doesn't work when it's closed." If you are going to be a Wikipedian, please try to have an open mind to other people's opinions and/or facts instead of shoving your own facts down people's throats. OPEN MINDS SAVE WIKIPEDIA. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 17:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to add a citation (since you obviously love them) to my previous statement.

Wikipedia:NPOV: The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

In other words, your 'demands' for Opposing POV facts (and the other user's "He's such an obvious fraud" comment) are completely unwanted and unproffesional. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 17:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Are these comments directed at me (i.e. Ashmoo)? If so, I'm a bit confused, P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC by your level of hostility. I agree that the "easy mark" comment is totally unnecessary and violates a number of WP rules. However, I don't understand why you want to accuse me of being closed-minded. All I did was ask for verification of statements. One of the core rules of WP. Ashmoo 23:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

More generally, I asked the questions at the beginning of this section about 2 weeks ago, in order to seek some consensus about the problems as I saw them. When no comments were forthcoming, I made my changes. Could editors respond to my questions specifically so we are all on the same page? Regards, Ashmoo 00:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my hostility. I added the "Edward's talent" section in hopes to add more NPOV, by adding the opinions of those who do not believe that Edward is a fraud (opinions collected from various 'Pro-Edward' forums and sites). I was somewhat perturbed by the fact that most "Edward skeptic" comments are not cited, yet it is only the "Edward believer" parts for which citations are asked. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 19:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks PH. While I don't think internet forums count as Reliable Sources it would still be good to include where you got your information from, even as a temporary measure. Internet sites are a bit more acceptable and you should definitely cite them if available. When dealing with a subject as controversial as this, it is better to quote other people's opinion rather than assert opinions without a 3rd party. This also makes it harder for other POV editors from reverting outright or disputing your edits.

Lastly, If you believe that their are spurious "Edward skeptic" comments, please add a {{Fact}} tag to them to request a cite. Regards, Ashmoo 23:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Inspirational messages section

Above, I posted some problems with the 'Inspirational message' section but didn't get any responses. I'm going to make my changes, but am reposting my thoughts again in case anyone wants to argue:

there is no contest to his ability to comfort grieving and/or desperate people by giving inspirational messages to viewers and audience members.

I think there would be many skeptics who would contest this. They may say the comfort is short lived, they may say something else. Either way a blanket statement like this is unsourced opinion.

"Many viewers of the show remarked that they watched not for the psychic readings—but instead for the kind messages its host conveyed about those who have passed on.

'Many viewers' is weasel words. Who said it? What episode? Where are you getting your information from? How can readers verify this?

One fine example of these inspirational messages is from Crossing Over, when a woman who had lost her child was being read. Edward, at the end of the reading, said that the woman's mother (who had also 'crossed over') was taking care of the deceased child. At this, the woman began crying. In the interview afterward, she said that she had felt that 'a great weight' had been released from her, since she knew that her child was 'not alone on the other side'.

Again, which episode? How can we verify this?

I agree that that article needs to conform to NPOV and provide balance, but just writing a section of nice things about him without providing any sources isn't the way to do it. While most of these comments may be reasonable, wikieditor doesn't insist on reasonable, it insists on WP:Verifiability. Ashmoo 01:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Restoring Schwartz

167.30.48.41 deleted a section, and did not appear to give a reason. This article is pretty silly, but it would be even sillier to ignore attempts to confirm or refute the propostion that Edward is genuine. Of course, I may have a warped perspective because I don't watch television. Anyway, I've restored it. Gene Ward Smith 05:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Restoring Deleted Expletive

I have restored the quoted word 'fucking' from the radio station regarding John Edward's 9/11 Special. Wikipedia is a place for information, not censorship. SynthesiseD 20:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Quoted from where? "It was reported..." doesn't cut it. Section 3.4 - including the section title itself - has typos, POV issues, no citations, and is barely legible. It needs a major overhaul or consider removing it altogether until it's fixed. In its current form it doesn't add anything to the article. Dombart

Uh, yeah it does, dumbass. Haven't you ever edited an article before to make it wordier and harder to understand? Smith Jones 02:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Terry Schiavo

I removed this sentence from the Schiavo section:

After her autopsy the following month, it was concluded that she was not self-aware.

The WP article on Terry Schiavo states in the Autopsy section:

Dr. Stephen J. Nelson, P.A., cautioned that "[n]europathologic examination alone of the decedent’s brain – or any brain for that matter – cannot prove or disprove a diagnosis of persistent vegetative state or minimally conscious state."

Which indicates that it is not possible to determine 'self-awareness' or 'consciousness' from a autopsy. If someone has a appropriate source, please re-include the sentence, with the source. Ashmoo 05:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

James Randi's opinion

Why is James Randi's opinion significant enought to warrant a titled section heading? Strikes me as undue weight. Dreadlocke ? 04:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, James Randi can be found in far too many paranormal articles, implying that his opinion has special significance. If John Edward had been exposed as a fraud by Randi as with Peter Popoff, then Randi would be relevant. The fact that Randi is critical is predictable and applies to all psychics and mediums so has little meaning here. There are more problems with this article than the mention of Randi, it does seem very POV against Edward. I am personally agnostic towards Edward's claims, but I will always support a fair article, which this at present is not. - Solar 10:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with your assessment, Solar. What do you recommend we do to try and make the article less POV? Besides deleting all the Randi stuff, of course... :) Dreadlocke ? 05:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I surrender. The problem with "paranormal" articles is that on one side you have scientific, objective analysis, and on the other you have people like you two, who WANT to believe, regardless of the evidence. You will hear phrases like "I am open minded" or "I believe" or "I am agnostic," they all mean "I want this to be true regardless of any evidence to the contrary." Randi is a credible source. He pops up so much because most other credible people do not bother trying to disprove every charlatain who claims to have mystical powers or religious powers. There's enough elsewhere on the internet exposing this phony, so wiki away with your "maybe it really is true" edits without my further interference. Just be more honest with your comments. If you believe, say so, don't hide behind claims of "I am neutral." Zeke pbuh 17:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Zeke pbuh, your comments are untrue, unwarranted, and constitute a personal attack against other Wikipedia editors: "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia." You should also read WP:AGF. I would be willing to discuss the James Randi opinion further, but not if you continue making personal attacks and ignoring Wikietiquette. Dreadlocke ? 18:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dreadlocke, my appologies for offending. You are quite right that my response was innapropriately phrased. Let me rephrase: Randi is notable, and his methods sound. There are not many notable sources that bother with fake mediums/psychics, so he pops up a lot. Edward claims to have powers, he makes money off these claims, psychic powers/talking to dead/spirit world/etc is based on belief, not science, and objective examination of Edward's performance leads to the conclusion that he is a cold reader (though there have also been accusations that he also gathers information on participants prior to his performance.) I have never previously been accused of vioalting wikipedia policies, and you made it sound as if I was a regular personal attacker, which is not the case. I appologize for my first comment not staying directly on the topic. I will not enter a revert war on the Randi issue, as I have found in general that people who wish to believe in these fake "psychics" will not be easily swayed. It is an honest observation (not directed at you, a generalized observation) that on wikipedia believers in psychic/mystical/paranormal/religious points of view regularly remove opposing views under claims of "POV", no matter how well sourced. Zeke pbuh 18:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology Zeke, I don't believe you are a regular personal attacker, I was pointing out this instance and making sure it was recognized and stopped there – I’ll just totally ignore your continued commentary on “Wikipedia believers”. :) Just because something is an “honest observation” doesn’t mean it can’t also be a personal attack.

As for POV, there is a section in WP:NPOV about undue weight and fairness of tone. Without even mentioning that the current article radiates the implication that Edwards is a fake, undue weight is given to James Randi when his critique of a small part of a single show is given its own section and heading. It's just not significant enough for that kind of mention - especially when it's wrapped up to look "scientific" (eg. calling his method an "experimental control" - in no way was what Randi described an expermental control).

I've added in what I thought was an appropriate reference to Edward's critics of the show [1]. It doesn't need an entire section! Remember, this is an article about John Edward, not Randi or any of the other critics – and there are other critics besides Randi, let’s not play that game - and I will dispute “credibility” and “sound methodology” where Randi is concerned, but that isn’t the main issue here. The issue is the prominence of his opinion in this particular article – it was overdone and needed to be significantly reduced - if not eliminated altogether.

Your latest edit (that was made without discussion) is not ok since it adds even more slanted information - whether it's sourced or not - please read the undue weight sections I noted above, and you’ll also notice that one-hundred percent of the “References” are anti-Edwards references. This is clearly undue weight towards the critic’s view. It needs to be fixed. Dreadlocke ? 23:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Zeke, I asked you to stop the personal attacks, this edit summaryis clearly a comment on the contributor and not the content - another personal attack. Confine your comments to the content! Dreadlocke ? 04:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Another policy you should become familiar with is WP:3RR, if you keep up your edit wars, you will be in violation of that policy as well. Dreadlocke ? 04:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Crossing Over

Crossing Over is a now-defunct show and is no longer being produced, his new show is "John Edward Cross Country." This is why I say he "appeared" in Crossing over, instead of "appears in" Crossing over. Dreadlocke ? 23:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: [2], there is no real evidence that he isn't talking to dead relatives either, but in essence, that's why the hot/cold reading claims by skeptics are included - to cover this criticism and possibility. Further, the very first paragraph in the article says:

"personality and performer who claims that he is a psychic medium who can communicate with the dead."

There is no need to repeat "alleged" or "claimed" over and over at every single point in the article, it not necessary and it provides clear undue weight and a lack of fairness in tone. Dreadlocke ? 04:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It can't be had both ways. If critics have to "claim" he is using cold reading and hot reading techniques, then Edward only "claims" to talk to dead people. Wikipedia is not a platform to push beliefs in the supernatural, and constantly removing and modifying valid doubts is not how an encyclopedia should function. Wikipedia is supposed to be an objective encyclopedia. Check reputable scholorly encyclopedias for reference on the mature, responsible, and educated way to discuss these types of entries. Zeke pbuh 04:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not both ways. Did you read my post above? In the very first paragraph, the article already says that Edward "claims" to talk to the dead - there is no need to repeat it over and over and over again - did you read undue weight? Dreadlocke ? 04:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The article read that Edwards relays "what he asserts is information garnered from their deceased acquaintances." It didn't say "falsely claims" — that would violate WP:NPOV. But it also shouldn't say that he actually is talking to the dead, because that's non-NPOV, too. How does the word "claims" amount to undue weight? — Elembis 05:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to say "falsely claims" to have it violate undue weight or NPOV, it can violate undue weight or fairness in tone when you repeat it again and again. Read the policy on it, it's pretty clear. Dreadlocke ? 05:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've read WP:Undue weight and WP:Undue_weight#Fairness of tone but I still fail to see how the use of "claims" for each controversial claim violates either policy. Do you think you could be more specific? — Elembis 05:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, there's one controversial claim in this article, that Edward can speak to the dead. The article clearly states that he "claims" to do so. Now, for each time that the article says something about him speaking to the dead, it is not necessary to repeat it over and over - it becomes pejorative. I'll be specific about the policy too:

"..for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section."

Each instance of using terms like "claims" or "purported" or "alleged" to refute a statement about Edwards (and it is refuting, make no bones about it!) IMHO violates that sentiment. It should be enough that Edward "said" something without saying that he "claimed" it - over and over. There is a difference in connotation between writing that a person "said" something and describing that person's words as "claims".

The article already violates NPOV because it clearly has a slant towards the critic's claims - this needs to be addressed, and not by adding even more negative slant. That's what Solar and I were discussing before another editor jumped in and started edit warring and making personal attacks. Dreadlocke ? 05:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The article does not have a negative slant. This is not an infomercial for Edward, it is an encyclopedia. Unsubstantiated claims of psychic abilities will be held to the same standards as other claims, and if they are included, the examination of said claims should also be included when notable so that the article does not mislead the reader into believing that Wikipedia is an endorsement of the claims. Please stop accusing me of personal attacks, I feel as though you are threatening to somehow ban me from Wikipedia because you disagree with my contributions. If you insert your personal oppionion into your edits, your personal oppinion will become part of the discussion as to why your edits were incorrect, so it is does not make sense to then turn around and accuse me of personal attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeke pbuh (talk • contribs) 06:26, 29 November 2006 UTC

Read through the policies and guidelines on Wikietiquette, Civility and personal attacks that I've outlined and conveniently linked for you in my posts above - perhaps they will help you understand why your comments on me (and other editors) are not civil. Dreadlocke ? 06:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Where I disagree with you, Dreadlocke, is that I don't think words like "claims" amount to refutations of particular viewpoints. To say "Edward talks to the dead on his show" (as a simple example) would be to take a POV, even if the word "claims" occurs earlier in the article in reference to Edward's activities. WP:NPOV#Fairness of tone says we should "present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone" (emphasis added), which to me means each piece of an article should be fair in itself. Furthermore, it seems to me that to present a claim without a qualifier and make the user infer (from earlier parts of the article) that the claim is controversial is to give the person making that claim undue weight. (E.g., "Joe says he's a nice person. . . . He's handsome. He's smart." gives undue weight to what Joe says — why should his perspective be assumed?)

We could also look at the issue from the perspective of Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires material to be removed if it can't be cited with reliable sources. It's easy to verify a statement like "Edward's audiences believe he communicates with the dead", for example. But I'm pretty sure you can't verify the statement "Edward communicates with the dead".

That said, while we need to make sure controversial claims are presented as such, I think words like "supposedly" and "allegedly" are strong and should be avoided when possible in favor of "says he" or "claims he" — "Edward says he communicates with the dead" is much better than "Edward supposedly communicates with the dead". We can present a claim neutrally and without snide undertones if we avoid attaching negative words like "supposed" and "alleged" to a claim and instead simply present the claim in terms of who makes it. — Elembis 09:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines are very specific about use of the word “claim” as a synonym for the verb “to say” (as in the case of the Edward article). It is a loaded word that creates bias because it carries a very strong connotation of dubiousness: by using it, you suggest that the assertion is suspect.. Take a look at WP:WTA#Words which can advance a point of view from Words to avoid.

According to what the guideline says, the word “claim” should not be used as it is in the Edwards article, it should be replaced with something less pejorative, such as “says” or "states". Same thing goes for alleged and purported.

Besides that, as another editor said, reading an article that uses the word 'claimed' in every line is like reading a legal document more than an encyclopedia article. What really needs to be done is to add more detail, by using more detail, this gives the reader more to base an opinion on and improves the article.

But, in adding detail, you need to be careful not to add undue weight by adding too much negative detail from the critics of the subject of an article – such as adding an entire section on James Randi’s opinion based on a partial viewing of a single show– that was way too much emphasis on that rather insignificant “investigation.” Dreadlocke ? 20:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, from the perspective of WP:Verifiability, the statement "Edward communicates with the dead", can definitely be included in the article, WP:V states:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."

So, whether one believes the statement to be true or not, whether it's been "scientifically proven" or not, it is a verifiable statement that can be included in the Wikipedia article. Dreadlocke ? 21:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding WP:WTA — we'll use "says" and "states" and not "claims".

Regarding undue weight, we're supposed to "present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties", which I think we're close to as-is.

WP:V says "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." Thus, statements like "Edward communicates with the dead" would have to have reliable citations. In the absence of such a citation we would be required to say something like "Edward says he communicates with the dead" instead. Agreed? — Elembis 19:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

References and NPOV

Can you point out where the representation is from those that believe in his abilities? I must be missing it, because to me the entire article reads from the critic's POV. For instance, look at the References section, every single one of those references criticises Edward. The one Reference I put there from "We" for Cross Country, was removed. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the article makes it quite clear that some people believe Edward has paranormal abilities and some don't. I disagree that the article is written from a critical POV, but I'd be glad to consider specific problems you see.

As far as references go, there are seven critical ones in various sections: two from "Paranormal study", two from "Criticism", and three more from "Controversies" (if the Washington Post and Media Matters references are both considered negative). I'll be glad to discuss any of them or to add additional positive references (which I haven't found), but simply counting negative references is only a first step in making constructive criticism.

Thanks for helping. I think the article is better now than it was a few weeks ago. — Elembis 20:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There are now a few other references there because I have just been adding them. I have been trying to make the article fall more in line with NPOV and have been addressing those items I see. We cannot pepper the article with negative references to the point that they completely overshadow the neutral or positive references - it violates WP:NPOV. If we can't find positive ones (which I actually find hard to believe, since he has written several books, has a website and has Schwartz, Radin and others backing his "claims") then we need reduce the negative ones so they don't overshadow the rest of the article. We shouldn't be adding even more critical references until we expand the article signficantly. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Edward himself is somewhat off-limits as a source; in particular, we can't cite "contentious" information from him (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Using the subject as a source). Schwartz's relevant work has already been mentioned, and I wasn't aware that Dean Radin (assuming that's the Radin you're speaking of) had written in Edward's favor. But again, feel free to introduce positive references and point out the specific negative references that you think should be removed or replaced. I haven't tried to litter the article with negative sources; I do, however, think it's necessary to cite examples of criticism of Edward (under WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL) and to mention prominent controversies (and any reputable responses we can find). — Elembis 21:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The specific critics are cited in the references, we don't need to go into great detail in the Wikipedia article itself - we really need to be careful how much negative information we put in, and while it's fine to invite other editors to introuduce "positive" references, that does not make it ok to keep adding negative after negative.

Edward himself is a reliable source for his own article - unless someone can explain to me how it's "contentious" according to the policy. After all, his entire "claim" (as that of every other paranormalist) is considered "contentious" to skeptics and critics, so that isn't what it means.

You're right about Dean Radin, I mistakenly thought he made some references to Edward, but I think I was wrong about that. Nice catch on the footnote formatting as well!

The text was getting too narrow for me to read comfortably here, so I tabbed it out a bit... Dreadlocke ☥ 22:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless you think specific references are problematic, I don't think I have anything else to say about them.

WP:LIVING#Using the subject as a source clearly says we can't cite Edward as a reliable source of contentious material — if something about Edward is controversial, we can't cite him as a reliable source. We could (and should, IMO) cite him as a reference for a non-contentious statement like "Edward says he has paranormal abilities." But we couldn't use him as a reliable source for a statement like "Edward has paranormal abilities." I think you can see why that would be problematic and why it's therefore against policy. — Elembis 00:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly in that policy do you see the word "controversial"? Please point out exactly where it defines "contentious" as you have outlined above. I'm very curious about this, because I've been involved in a detailed and heated discussion about this very same issue on a previous occasion. I agree with you on how it's quoted or used, but the entire source can be used in the subject's own article. Dreadlocke ☥

You're right, "controversial" isn't in the policy — I used it as a synonym for "contentious", which I guess I should have used instead: "if something about Edward is contentious, we can't cite him as a reliable source." I'm not aware of much variance in the definition of "contentious", and I think Webster's definition is just fine. Anyway, I'm curious to know what you mean by "the entire source can be used in the subject's own article", and I'd like to read the heated discussion you had on this subject in the interests of avoiding another one. — Elembis 01:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no worries, you and I aren't headed for a "heated discussion" that was with a disruptive editor who has since left Wikipedia - you and I are fine, we have good disussions.

I still don't see how the policy is interpreted to state "if something about Edward is contentious, we can't cite him as a reliable source."

What I mean is that everything in Edwards books and in his website can be used - unless it shown to violate the policy, but there's nothing in there that is so truly contentious that it cannot be used - he's not saying anything but what's already been said. Is it contentious that he says he's a psychic medium that talks to the dead? Yes, but not to the point that his own books cannot be used. In any case, I'll be adding info from his own sources in the near future - when I have more time - we can dispute it at that point, if you feel it violates the policy. Dreadlocke ☥ 02:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Singling out

I am sorry to appear to single you out, Dreadlocke, but you are consistently making POV edits in favor of Edward's unverified claims, and equally consistently making POV edits to make valid observations of Edward by noted professionals seem less important or relevant. Your referencing of Wikipedia guidelines does not make your arguments or edits more valid. Intentional or not, you are using the claim of Wikipedia guidelines in a very single-sided manor. This is the kind of behaviour that weakend Wikipedia as a research tool. If you want to be a positive contributor to this article, you should first do more research on Edward, and the other sources that examine his claims. After you educate yourself on the subject, then be more careful what you add/change/delete so you are not slanting this article into a fluff-piece. Again, claiming that well-sourced edits that you disagree with are "attacks" or "violations of policy" should be saved for times when that is indeed what is happening. Zeke pbuh 05:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not distort what I have said. The "attacks" are not "edits that I disagree with", they are WP:NPA violations by your commenting on me and other editors here, rather than the contents. I find your last post to be insulting and uncivil. Why don't you familiarize yourself with not only the subject of the article, but Wikipedia policy as well. Dreadlocke ☥ 05:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me repeat this post, in case you missed it Zeke, since you keep reverting edits:

Another policy you should become familiar with is WP:3RR, if you keep up your edit wars, you will be in violation of that policy as well. Dreadlocke ☥ 04:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are insulted. However, you seem to be using Wikipedia guidelines in a very one-sided manner, in a way that appears to me to be bullying. Please re-read my comments carefully, I believe I was fair and accurate. Keep in mind as you read my comments that I am trying to be positive and civil, and point out ways to improve the article, and your contributions. Civility, NPOV, and sourcing is what makes Wikipedia what it is. If you believe I have violated policies, I there are arbitration policies in place. I will continue to contribute to this article in a positive way in accordance with all Wikipedia guidelines. Zeke pbuh 06:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Your actions have not yet been egregious enough for me to report you or escalate dispute resolution, what I have been trying to do is get you to stop commenting on me (and others), and to stop edit warring, so we can have a civil conversation and make some headway on this article. I am not using policy in a one-sided manner, I pointing out policy that I think backs up my view - you've completely ignored that - at least Elembis is reading and discussing the policy - I'll bet he and I make some actual progress in understanding each other's points of view. Dreadlocke ☥ 06:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Your actions have also not been egregious enough for me to report you or escalate dispute resolution. We're fast becoming friends. My edits are NPOV, sourced, and notable, as well as minor corrections, all within Wikipedia guidlines as I understand them. It's not so much an edit war as a little bit of back and forth until a happy medium is reached. I've definitely seen more heated edit exchanges on Wikipedia, but it is dissapointing to see this article occasionally neutered. It should read as niether an endorsement or a discrediting of Edward. To date, his claims are unverified by any respectable third party. Look forward to working with you to present this article in a fair and encyclopedic light. Zeke pbuh 06:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:John Edward/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==27 Sep 2006== Wow, it's really unbelievable able how biased this article is, and actually how biased all articles on psychics by Wikipedia. Who are the people who write these? I mean, it's clearly out to prove some of his own agenda - ie anti-psychic or pro-Christian or whatever. It's also clear they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Im guessing the authors of this article watched a show or two with John Edawrd, didn’t like what they saw, googled for some articles with "proof" debunking what John Edward does and just copied and pasted it on Wikipedia. It's almost pathetic, as a source of information comparing itself to be somewhat "encyclopedic". Perhaps, as to not discredit this article as a complete sham and insult to everyone’s intelligence, both sides could be presented accurately and forthright. Perhaps even testimonials of those who have been read by John Edward. Until then, please remove this joke, or put a disclaimer at the top listing this as an “editorial”. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.163.65.56 (talk • contribs) 15:22, September 27, 2006 (UTC). For reference, the version of the page discussed above is =John_Edward&oldid=78004799 here. — Elembis 18:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC) == B-class as of 22 Dec 2006 == I think =John_Edward&oldid=95847911 the current article satisfies several criteria for good articles. In particular, it's reasonably well-written, well-sourced, and neutral. While it'd be nice to have an image of Edward holding a microphone in one of his shows, the article's main problem is in broadness of coverage — actual biographical details on Edward's family and early life are sparse. — Elembis 07:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)