Talk:EJ Wells and Samantha Brady/Archive 1

Name
EJ Wells is a name, not initials. The original article entry was correct. Please reference http://www.nbc.com/Days_of_our_Lives/features/dimera/ej.shtml and http://iw.rtm.com/daytimefeud/videos.htm as evidence of the spelling of EJ. Please redirect the page back to the correct spelling of EJ, not E. J. Thank you75.181.107.214 17:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Already taken care of. — M o e   ε  17:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Statement" vs. Quote
Days has not made a concrete statement about the rape. There was a reference in an article about another couple but there has been no stand alone NBC/Days statement to the effect that it was rape. The more neutral title Soap Opera Digest article about Santo & Colleen addresses EJ & Sami controversy, the actual title of the article, would seem more appropriate than pulling one paragraph, editing out content not favorable like "people change" and slanting the quote changes the quote to opion. It was, in fact, a quote, not a statement.65.13.237.254 13:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of actual SOD article
The editor insisting on putting in copyright information violates Copyrights. For this reason it should be removed as the editor including it does not have permission to retype and put the article in this article. Neither the piece under Luke and Laura or the piece that includes Wyman's remarks.75.181.107.214 13:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A quote from Wyman or any person can be included, as long as it provides a sourced reference validating that that person said the quote.

But including the entire article printed by another magazine, website, or any source, should be avoided, unless permission by that magazine, website, or source is given to that editor/person re-producing the article. Flyer22 04:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Screencaps of "The Incident"
Hello, Flyer. I just read your reply on your discussion board. Thank you for the clarification, it affirms what my beliefs were. That the wiki article is used primarily for education purposes and to provide a clear account of the events that have occured/are occuring between the two characters, regardless of whether it highlights why some view them as a viable couple or not. Please let me know if I'm mistaken in that assessment. But, you did not make mention to the image I added that was deleted. At 16:34, 31 July, I contributed a single image that consisted of a series of four screencaps depicting "the incident" and it was repeatedly removed. The first time, no reason was given. The second time the editor claimed them as campaign material and that they were "taken out of context". The last time "copyright" reasons were cited for its removal. First of all, they are legitimate, unedited screencaps from the show. Whether they have or have not been used in fan campaigns is irrelevant. Secondly, all screencaps are "taken out of context". As I noted on your board, the screencap identified as "one of several times in which EJ has saved Sami's life" is taken out of context in that the screencap itself does not recognize that it was EJ's actions that have placed Sami in danger. Lastly, you've already settled the copyright issue.

I placed the image in the "controversy" section because it is directly relevant to that section and is relevant to the EJ & Sami article as whole, more so than the screencap of EJ and Sami sitting and talking in his office (though I never removed/replaced that screencap, I simply added my image). I would like the image to remain as a contribution. If there is an issue regarding the number of screencaps, I will minimize it to one and contribute that. Esse123 01:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Esse, the fact that it was EJ who put Sami in danger doesn't need to be addressed within the image description because it is simply noting that it's one of the several times that EJ has saved Sami's life. The fact that he caused it doesn't negate him saving her life, of course. Not unless he intended to kill her then.

I only saw one of the screenshots you added. If your screenshot is relevant to the section it's being added to within this article, then, yes, you can add it. But as things are now, I dont feel that any screenshots of EJ and Sami in the incident that is highly debated as rape or not rape should be added to this article due to some editors of this article who feel that this article may be leaning too far to the negative side instead of remaining neutral. Flyer22 03:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Flyer22, the addition of the screen caps create an inflammatory and negative feeling and in the four shot form are both taken out of context, they do not include Sami unzipping her own sweater in order to "oblige" EJ, and serve to further the agenda of a pro-LUMI fan site campaign. The EJami relationship is not free of lows, but neither is that of Lucas and Sami.  There are not shots of Sami on death row, Lucas hitting Sami, or Lucas verbally abusing Sami on the Lucas Roberts and Sami Brady page as that would bring a negative slant to that page just as the screen shots provided by Esse123 do if allowed.  While I'm sure we could "war" by countering by putting such shots of the various wrongs on the Lucas and Sami page, to avoid warring it makes sense to omit highly negative images from both pages.CelticGreen 14:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I realize the fact that EJ put her in danger probably doesn't need to be addressed within the image. I was simply using it as an example that all screenshots are taken "out of context" and that this argument used to support the removal of the screenshots I posted was not valid. And I stated earlier that if it is an issue of the number of screenshots in a single image, I would be willing to change the image so that it is one screenshot only. I will have to think about whether I will add the image or not. Esse123 15:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't feel that that image is necessarily taken out of context, but I do pay attention to your (and all the other editors') concerns here, Esse. Flyer22 21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just an additional note, the incident depicted in the screenshot included showing EJ saving Sami's life was not one where EJ was in any way responsible for her being in the life and death situation so that point is not valid.Radiantbutterfly 16:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * EJ's actions in raping Sami brought into question the paternity of her children. It has been repeatedly acknowledged that the paternity of her children is at the root of why she has become such a significant target.  It has also been acknowledged that Sami's continued involvement in trying to end the "vendetta" (which has contributed to her becoing a significant target) is directly related to her belief that the children she carries had EJ's DNA, which never would have been believed had he not raped her.  It has also been suggested that EJ's persistant interest in Sami has factored into her becoming such a significant target. Esse123 20:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sami's involvement in the vendetta runs far deeper than just her children. She was kidnapped by Stefano when she was an infant.  She looks like Colleen, Stefano's father's greatest love.  Her father has been stabbed by Andre.  Her family has been the target of the vendetta so regardless of her pregnancy or not, she would be involved in the vendetta.  As to EJ's interest, EJ and Stefano believe EJ is in love with Sami.  While some viewers do not believe this, others do.  The incident asside, Sami would be involved in the vendetta.IrishLass0128 20:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Esse123, what you are saying is your own opinion of something on the show. You are once again putting forward the point of view that what EJ did was rape which is not something everyone agrees with. Many people believe that Sami put herself in the situation she is in now by agreeing to a deal to sleep with EJ. Many people believe Sami was not afraid of EJ in the car and that she could have gotten help elsewhere. That is also an opinion though. Neither point of view should be encouraged as being right or wrong in this article. My point was simply that in the context of the show, the picture showing EJ saving Sami was from a kidnapping and attempted murder on Sami that EJ had nothing to do with. It is not a disputed fact that he did save her life - the character of Sami even acknowledges that fact so I don't see any problem with the image remaining. I would prefer, however, a better quality image if there is one - the one that is there is kind of dark. Radiantbutterfly 21:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality
I just wanted to say that I agree with Flyer22's assessment that this article should be neutral in nature and she knows that I have worked very hard to ensure its neutrality from the beginning. I have included events which are notable for this couple including the coerced sex/rape event which we have a completely separate section for.

The screen shots included currently were only intended as pictures to show the subject couple together and not in any attempt to depict a particular point of view other than that the subject couple has interacted on screen. I would prefer to keep the controversy section as is without pictures designed to sway a reader in a particular direction. It should be noted that there are no pictures of EJ and Sami kissing or making out on a couch or any such thing and I don't believe there should be pictures of EJ treating Sami horribly either. Both of these types of events are discussed in the text of the article but do not need to be embellished with pictures because this contributes to bias in the article.

As I mentioned on Flyer22's talk page, I have removed what I felt may have been embellishments by other editors in the moments section and tried to present the events as they happened on screen. The intent of this section and not the article itself was to show some notable events related to EJ and Sami being considered a romantic couple. I believe this provides a neutral account of those events and does not offer any opinion on them. Some adjectives have been used and can be removed if it is felt they are inappropriate. As I mentioned previously, if there are sections that are deemed to be "positive", please highlight those areas and we can work together to re-word them. This is better than adding negative events and text attempting to emphasize a particular opinion. The bolding of the word "rape" is one such instance that was simply a technique to try and imply that this point of view was more important than that of those people who do not believe it was rape. Both points of view *are* represented in the article and neither point of view is or should be emphasized.

The negative events that were added were provided with assumptions of intent and did not depict a neutral view of what I would consider insignificant events for this couple. Many assumptions have been made about EJ's motivation and intent but most of these assumptions have never been validated so they represent opinions and as such, should not be included.

Once again, if you feel that something is "too positive" in the article, please do not counter with something that is negative. Indicate what you feel is not neutral and we can work from there.

Flyer22, it's nice to see you again as well. I did get busy with some other things (vacation, day job :) ) but your thoughts on what I would think of the recent edits were probably correct. As you know, we have edited the wording in this article quite a bit to remove what I admit were biased references when I started this article just because I didn't fully understand Wiki policy but I think we managed to get the article to a state where it may not have been perfect but overall, it presented both sides of the controversy so that anyone reading it would know that there were definitely 2 heated viewpoints regarding this couple and neither viewpoint was presented as the "right" one anywhere in the article. The recent edits do not come across as neutral and that is my issue with them. Radiantbutterfly 02:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I have to say that I truly appreciate your openness to discussion. I agree that it would be better for two editors who have differing views on contributions to talk the issue out, but you must understand that given the editors I have encountered since I've been here, I did not see that as a viable option (except with Flyer), though I have attempted discussion. I'd also like to say that while I often note what is already in the article to justify my contributions, it is not my sole motivation to 'counter' each positive thing with something negative. For example, I did legitimately feel that the quote from Wyman should be added not simply because questions were raised within the EJ & Sami article as to the standing of Days executives but because it is the only quote that exists (to my knowledge) from anyone at Days Of Our Lives regarding what happened the night of Dec. 29th. This is true of several of my contributions.

You raise a legitimate argument about the screencaps I contributed given there are no images of Ej & Sami in a romantic setting. And I do see below that you support the removal of the screencap depicting EJ as "saving" Sami. I appreciate that. My only other issue with regard to images is the issue I stated before with the initial picture at the top. The website cited as the source of the picture is not there and I am personally not aware of any picture officially released by NBC/Days, etc. that places EJ and Sami together in that way. Again, I believe it to be two publicity photos edited together in an unofficial way. If the original picture can be produced, unedited and as it was officially released and/or displayed by NBC or Days Of Our Lives, then the issue is moot. however, my concerns about that picture is that by stating it as a "publicity photo", on some level it implies support of the character pairing in some way by Days Of Our Lives, NBC, or some other official representative of either or both. The fact is, as far as I know Days Of Our Lives has never released an official photo of EJ and Sami together. I think it should be removed/replaced.

Again, I appreciate your openness to debate and given your posts, I do believe it is more than possible for us to discuss our concerns about contributions to this article in a fair and respectful manner. Radiantbutterfly, it is refreshing to have you here. Esse123 03:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Screencaps
I would suggest removing the "EJ saves Sami" screencap and moving the one of the two of them sitting and talking up into the spot where the "EJ saves Sami" screencap is currently. It doesn't make sense to include that screen shot in the controversy section, in my opinion. Radiantbutterfly 02:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems like you had fun on your vacation day job, Radiantbutterfly.

I will remove the screenshot of EJ and Sami sitting while they talk in an office, but the screenshot of EJ saving Sami's life is relevant to the section its added to. Flyer22 03:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Esse123 I'm not really sure I understand your concern over the opening screenshot used because it simply shows James Scott and Alison Sweeney in their roles as EJ and Sami and it was taken from a publicity photo on a website created by NBC (the website was referenced here but the reference needs to be removed because NBC removed the page for some reason). There are plenty of screenshots of them very much together that could be used and quite a few recent publicity photos released by NBC on their website and in several non-soap publications that arguably depict EJ and Sami as "together" as well. There is one publicity photo depicting EJ and Sami and Santo and Colleen with the title "Love Letters" that indeed does show EJ and Sami looking more together than in the photo used in this article and would not require any editing whatsoever but I didn't realize anyone would object to the photo that we used so I never even considered changing the photo. People magazine and Star magazine have been running publicity photos for the Brady/DiMera feud storyline for months and EJ and Sami are positioned in such a way as to appear together in those as well and until recently, her current husband was not even featured in the photos but even the recent publicity photo that includes Sami's current husband shows EJ and Sami next to each other and her husband completely on his own. Come to think of it, these promo photos from People and Star might actually be something to include in the context of the article - what do you think Flyer22? If I have time later, I will try and upload the photos here for you to see. Radiantbutterfly 12:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Days of Our Lives and NBC release "publicity photos" of characters/actors in a given context in order to gain "publicity" for the subjects of the photo in that given context (i.e. a wedding, a romantic triangle, a romantic coupling, a rivalry, etc). To imply that they have released "publicity photos" of EJ and Sami together, implies that Days of Our Lives and/or NBC are trying to gain "publicity" for EJ and Sami together.  To my knowledge, this has never been the case.  I have no objection to the use of Colleen/Santo promotional material being used, so long as it is acknowledged that the photo of EJ and Sami comes from promotional material about the Colleen/Santo storyline and nothing else.  Anything else would be misleading. Esse123 16:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No one is stating that the main image was one in which NBC was promoting EJ and Sami. It is simply a photo depicting both EJ and Sami where the images are taken from a publicity photo. No implication is made of anything in that photo. In fact, the photo doesn't even show them as a couple. NBC *has* promoted them together in quite a few promo shots and I have added one of them to the article where they look much more "together" than in the original photo that I used.Radiantbutterfly 16:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Radiantbutterfly, sure I'd take a look at any EJ and Sami photograph or photographs that you may upload. Although, be sure to know that you are going to include an image or images within an article you have in mind before uploading an image...because otherwise...the image will be orphaned. An image being orphaned on Wikipedia isn't that big of a deal, but eventually it'll be added to your user page by a bot before being deleted if it's not added to an article, and that can be annoying, especially depending on how many orphaned images are added to your user page within the same or close to the same time span.

As for the main image of this article, I feel that we need a bigger image of EJ and Sami together than the one, at this moment, provided as the main image. Flyer22 21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Flyer22, I added a promo shot to the article. The website NBC had up for Brady/DiMera feud storyline is no longer being maintained for some reason so I removed the reference and added a promo pic they released last month. I will see if I can find a better/bigger picture of EJ and Sami together for the main image. I know where I can find lots, it will just be a matter of finding one that is relatively neutral and shows both actors/characters clearly. Radiantbutterfly 12:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, the main photo on the page is incorrectly credited. I see that it has been changed from a "publicity shot" to a "promotional still" but this is still inaccurate.  It is NOT a "promotional still".  It appears to be an unofficial edit of two promotional stills.  This image, to my knowledge, was never released as an official image by Days or NBC even in part.  Unless the original, unedited image can be produced and proven to be an official release of Days, NBC or some other official entity it is a misrepresentation. Esse123 20:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Esse123, I have updated the fair-use statement which is what I now see was your concern. Please note that the fair-use text applies to the image only and not the EJ and Sami article. When you raise concerns, please be clear what it is you have a problem with and raise those concerns in the appropriate place - in this case, your concerns should have been addressed against the image itself not the EJ and Sami article. Nowhere in the EJ and Sami article is the photo even listed as a publicity shot or promotional still. Those terms are/were used in order to prove validity of the copyright. It is not incorrect that the images were taken from promotional stills but to avoid any further argument over semantics, the wording for the fair-use statement now indicates that the photo was created from promotional stills. All that said, I will probably be changing the main image soon anyway so none of this will even matter. Radiantbutterfly 20:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Formatting of Wyman quote
So, some concerns have been raised about the formatting of the Wyman quote - the acknowledgement that he references rape four times and the bolding of the word. I wanted to open this up to discussion and quickly outline why I support the formatting as it is.

Namely, it's because it speaks to what is already being noted in the article. It is noted in the Controversy section that one point of discussion in the "debate" is that multiple words have been used to describe what happend - "rape", "deal", and "obliged" are specifically referenced. This, imo makes the fact that Wyman uses the word rape and only the word rape significant to that section. The number of times is significant because at any point he may have used another word but does not. Though the quote is not deemed an "official statement", it is the only quote that exists (to my knowledge) from an executive of the show regarding the events between Ej & Sami. This, imo, places increased significance on the quote, especially when it is questioned "Whether the original intent of the the scene between EJ and Sami on December 29, 2006 is ever confirmed by Days of our Lives executives or writers,..." under the "Luke and Laura topic" section. Esse123 03:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The quote itself is there in its entirety. Anyone reading it sees that he says "rape" and that he says it 4 times. There is no need to emphasize that point. If the quote was not there, I could understand your reasoning but it is, so the emphasis is based on your own opinion of the importance of it. Readers of the article should be left to form their own views of its importance. Radiantbutterfly 12:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. The emphasis placed on the word is not done for anything other than to be inflammatory, IMO.  People can read the statement of "four times" and then read the comment in its entirety.  By bolding the word rape, people only see that word, take the statement out of context, and do not read the actual comment which includes a statement that "people change." The same passage could be used and only the words "people change" using a different lead in and all people would see is Wyman is stating people change.  The emphasis takes away from the comments full text which, therefore, takes away the neutrality of the comment.75.181.107.214 14:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I am trying to compromise here. I have agreed not to bold the words rape in the actual quote, however noting the fact that Wyman uses the word rape and ONLY the word rape not only helps illustrate the quote's relevance to the "Controversy" section, but speaks to debate topics that have already been raised - the fact that multiple words have been used to describe the incident. Even Flyer, who I am told is the most neutral of editors, seemed to agree that noting the number of times Wyman used the word rape is appropriate and even seemed to agree that the bolding of the word was appropriate. I am going to once again include the word "only" as again, it speaks to topics already raised in the "Controversy" section and hope that it remains. Otherwise, I'm hoping that you will intervene in this disagreement, Flyer, as it is clear we are unable to come to a consensus. Esse123 20:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I'm not certain about the word "only" being used within that line either. I'll let you all work that out. Flyer22 21:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If the word "only" is unacceptable, I will return it to "four times", which is what you seemed to approve of in the past. Esse123 21:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I was not involved in the prior discussion and I do not agree that it is necessary to add redundant text to the article. This is poor form and again, as I indicate below, adds unnecessary emphasis. The quote is there, only the word "rape" is used and the word is used 4 times. All of this is quite clear and not glossed over in any way. Radiantbutterfly 21:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with this emphasis that you continue to insist on placing on the word rape. The quote's relevance to the controversy section is quite clear without reiterating that he only refers to it as rape. The only reason to include such a word is if somewhere in the article it is implied that Mr. Wyman at some time was ambiguous in his reference but that is not the case. The word only is redundant and should be left out. Nowhere in the article does it suggest that any Days executive refers to the incident in more than one way.

I would like to think that we are all neutral editors here but Flyer22 does bring an outside perspective given that she does not watch the soap opera for which this article was created (at least, not to my knowledge). In this particular case, if Flyer22 agreed that it should be bolded, I disagree with her conclusions and I have explained why. The point of view does not require nor should it have emphasis - its existence in the article and in the controversy section is emphasis enough. Emphasis belongs in a debate not in descriptive text.

The readers should not be subjected to the emphasis on the rape point of view any more than on the coerced sex point of view which is actually addressed much less in this article than the rape point of view at the moment. Mr. Wyman's comments are notable and that is why they are included but they do not make the rape point of view any more valid than the opposing point of view and an attempt to add emphasis to his words would suggest that that was the case. His position with the show is clearly stated and that alone will add weight to the statement for a casual reader. Radiantbutterfly 21:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have outlined my position and will leave it up to Flyer to decide. Esse123 22:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggested, as a way of compromise, that Esse mentioning that Wyman referred to the incident as rape four times may not be entirely unreasonable to include within this article. However, I did not agree with either side on this subject. As this issue stands now, Esse, it appears that most editors here, whether you feel that it's just because they are fans of the EJ and Sami romance, disagree with you. Radiantbutterfly has pointed out convincing reasoning as to why that style of referring to Wyman's quote should not be included, and I believe that Radiantbutterfly has stated this as more so than for selfish reasons, such as being a fan of the EJ and Sami romance. And while you have made your points on this matter as well and can be said that you want to include that style for reasons that are not selfish either, it appears that it is best that the style of referring to Wyman's quote that you suggest, Esse, not be used within this article. Flyer22 02:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Flyer22. As you know, I have included the controversy in this article from the beginning so I certainly never had any intention of excluding or glossing over the fact that there are differing views with respect to this couple. My only objective is to ensure that neither point of view is highlighted in such a way as to indicate that one is "more right" than the other. Radiantbutterfly 16:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Esse, I just wanted to respond to one point you made earlier that may perhaps be the source of your concern - it is stated in the article "Whether the original intent of the scene between EJ and Sami on December 29, 2006 is ever confirmed by Days of our Lives executives or writers,...". This statement pertains to what the writers original intent was with the scene in question and not how they assess it now. My personal belief is that it was intended to be controversial and ambiguous because the character Sami used both the words blackmail and rape to describe what happened, because they had her agree to go through with it and because they never actually showed the crime being committed. Often, in scenes intended to depict a rape, more is shown to clearly indicate the intent of the scene. Using Days of our Lives as a specific example - more footage was shown of the actual act with Jack's rape of Kayla and Alan's rape of Sami. The victims in those cases clearly said "no" and there was no dispute or controversy over what happened. The incident between EJ and Sami was written and directed much differently and I, for one, would be very interested in hearing the head writer comment on what his original intention was rather than what is being addressed now by the characters on the show. I think they probably wanted the controversy because it got people talking (8 months later and people are still debating it! :) ). Radiantbutterfly 16:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"This is something that none of Sami's prior suitors had ever said to her the way EJ did."
There seems to be some disagreement over this sentence in the "Romantic Moments" section. It follows this sentence: "In numerous scenes, EJ makes comments to Sami about how he loves the good and bad in her and how she deserves to be loved completely and absolutely."

I have been watching this show since before Ali came on and I have personally witnessed Franco, Brandon and Lucas all offer the same sentiment to Sami on numerous occasions. Attempting to single EJ out as the only man to have stated this is inaccurate. None of these men are unique to her in this way. Granted, if you want to get technical you can post the exact quote that EJ made and state that no man has said these exact words to her in this exact order with this exact inflection. If you want to get technical. But even then it must be acknowledge that pretty much all her suitors have expressed the same sentiment to her on numerous occasions.

If need be, I can hunt down quotes from at least one of these men as proof but I would hope others who have been watching would acknowledge that several men have expressed these thoughts to Sami, EJ is not the only one. Esse123 16:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And I've been watching for far longer than just before when Sami came on. Franco nor Brandon ever said to Sami "you deserve someone who loves you completely and absolutely, and that man is not Austin."  He said what he said in a truly unique way and a way no one has ever said it to her.  It was from his heart and in a certain way that's why the line is worded the way it was worded.  It was done in a way that was unique.  It was memorable and romantic and that is, after all, what we are talking about.  A couple's romantic moments.CelticGreen 19:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have also watched the show since Ali came on and I don't remember Franco or Brandon telling Sami they loved the bad and good in her. Franco never said much of anything memorable in my opinion, Brandon did not like the "bad" in her and turned on her because of her misdeeds and Lucas has always judged her for being "bad" and I could find plenty of recent quotes where Lucas makes it clear that he loves her now because she has changed. Lucas did parrot EJ's bad/good comments in an episode several months after EJ made them but from what I can recall, EJ was the first suitor to ever tell her that. I don't even think anyone else had told her she deserved to be loved completely and absolutely in any way but if you do have quotes to support that others said something in any way similar to that, I will remove the completely and absolutely text. The point here is that EJ didn't expect her to change - even when she betrayed him, he still pursued her. This is something that I believe is unique to this particular pairing. Radiantbutterfly 16:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussing EJ's "expectations" is speculation. And Sami has betrayed both Lucas and Austin but both men pursued romantic relationships with her afterwards.  Ej and Sami are not unique in that way.  Brandon did like the "bad" in her, it was the entire root of his flirtation with her when he first arrived, the fact that he liked that she wasn't 'all good'.  Whether he eventualy "turned on her" or not, the sentiment was still expressed.  And Lucas has expressed this sentiment to her a few times before EJ even arrived onscreen, so claiming he was "parroting" EJ is also inaccurate.  And again, several of her suitors have also expressed that she deserves to be loved completely for who she is, Austin included.  And it is not the "completely and absolutely" text that I believe needs to be removed, it is the suggestion that none of her suitors have expressed this to her in the past.  Imo, this sentence - "This is something that none of Sami's prior suitors had ever said to her the way EJ did." - should be removed. Esse123 16:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not overly attached to that part of the statement so I'm not really interested in arguing too hard about keeping it but I do disagree with you about others saying they loved the good and bad in her but if you have examples, I'd be happy to consider them. To this point in the story, EJ is the only character who has not turned on her because of something she has done. That is more the intent of what I would like to get across in that statement - when other suitors saw "how" bad she could be, they walked away but EJ has not done that and Sami has set him up for the police, lied to him and set him up to kill him and he still pursues her. I do believe this is something quite unique in the relationship (whether it is romantic or not) between EJ and Sami. Also, the expectations I mentioned were verbalized by EJ so it is not speculation. Radiantbutterfly 17:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ej has "turned on her" a number of times. He did so when she chose to spend time with her son and his father instead of continue her romantic evening with him.  She pleaded with him to understand but he walked out.  He also became physically agressive and intimidating to her when he discovered she had worked with her uncle against him and would not respond to her pleas to stop.  And while some of her previous suitors have "walked away" from her, most of them have returned, including Lucas otherwise theye would not be married right now.  Ej is not the only one to continue pursuing her after her betrayal.

Fact is, regardless of what EJ verbalizes, of all her suitors he is the only one that has not been in a continuous, long-term relationship with her so it is impossible to speculate on what his actual reactions would be should she betray him after proclaiming her commitment to being honest with him in a romantic relationship. Again, given his behavior the night of the interrupted date, and after discovering she had distracted him while someone searched his apartment, it is impossible to predict his reactions if he had been in the same positions as Brandon, Austin or Lucas, no matter what EJ proclaims. Assuming he will stay true to his word is not only speculative but ignores his previous behavior that already goes against what he verbalized.

Bottom line is, the second sentence in that entry is not accurate. Esse123 17:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I would like some clarification on this. It seems there is acknowledgement that some of Sami's other suitors have expressed the same sentiment to Sami that she be loved "completely and absolutely" but I would like some explanation as to how EJ's expression is any different than anyone else's. Unless this can be proven, the statement: "After her wedding to Austin is called off, EJ tells Sami that she deserves someone who loves her "completely and absolutely" in a way that none of Sami's prior suitors had ever said to her." is still inaccurate. If it cannot be proven, then I do plan on editing this entry. Esse123 20:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The statement now refers to a specific incident and the WAY EJ spoke to Sami and it is fact that no one ever told her that she deserves to be loved "completely and absolutely" in the WAY EJ told her. That is undeniable fact.  The scene is a very memorable romanitic moment and has been repeatedly referenced by fans as a romantic moment.  Fact is that while Esse may believe others have said something similar, the fact is it has never been said in the WAY that it was said by EJ.  The manner in which it was delivered is what made it special and romantic.  There was an edit made to reference a specific incident and in the specific incident, it was unlike any other time.  The original context was an over all happening, it is now referencing a specific incident.CelticGreen 22:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The addition of that statement itself, is an opinion and an ambiguous embellishment. It is still not clear in what way it is supposed to be different.  I have edited the entry to illustrate that not all viewers feel that it is any different. Esse123 22:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So you can prove that Brandon and Lucas and Franco stood in front of Sami, pointed at her, and with a British accent told her the exact statement: "you deserve to be loved completely and absolutly"? Unless you can prove THAT, you do not have a case for your additions or deletions.  It is not opinion, it is a fact that the WAY, how it was done, was never done before.CelticGreen 22:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Flyer, some help please. Not all viewers believe the way in which EJ made this proclomation is any different than any of Sami's previous suitors. To make such an absolute statement is inaccurate unless it can be proven/clarified. Esse123 22:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * it is not inaccurate as no other suitor of Sami's has stood and pointed at her and made such a statement. It is not a belief, it is a fact.  No one has stood in front of her, pointed at her, made the statement as EJ did, and did it with a British accent.  If you can prove otherwise, then it will happily be removed but at this point the burdon of proof falls on you to prove it was done exactly the same way at some other time.  The comment is about a SPECIFIC incident, not a generalized time.  The fact that is about a specific lends to the ability to state for fact no other person has said such a thing.CelticGreen 22:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If THESE are the ways in which the incident is unique then that needs to be noted, otherwise it is a misrepresentation. Esse123 22:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not edit until Flyer22 has time to review. There is no need for your embellishment.  It adds nothing to the article.  The way it was was fine. It was a specific Romantic moment and there is no need to destroy the memory for those looking to be reminded of the romance, which is why the section was changed.


 * This article is not for the remembrances of the supporters of this pairing, this has been clarified by Flyer. It is for informational purposes only.  Unless you add clarification of how EJ's expression of this sentiment is any different than prior suitors (as I attempted to do based on YOUR clarifications) then the statement stands as an unsubstantiated embellishment.  Not all viewers see his professions as any different than the professions of previous suitors. Esse123 00:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's apparent that this dispute has been settled. Flyer22 03:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it appears it is not. Esse123 has a problem again with the word many and believes "some" is more appropriate.  I contend that some implies a very few where as "many" is more accurate in that more than a couple people saw it as romantic.  A search of just youtube for the clip of the scene will find a channel with over 46,000 views.  That is more than "some." and, therefore, many is accurate.65.13.237.254 17:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Unsure of what the problem is but I think it would be downplay to say some verses many. The EJ and Sami fan site has over 1600 members, all of which found the scene very romantic; 1600 is many people. As already noted in the article, EJ and Sami often win "most wanted couple" at vote the soaps a site neutral to pairings and merely lets you vote on your favorite couple with a "bump" procedure.  Additionally, polls across various message boards show equal if not more support for EJ and Sami as a couple than their rival couple. At Fallin, another pairing neutral site, they are regularly in possession of over 100 votes on days EJ and Sami are eligible in a voting contest held daily where not even a Y&R couple has posted more than 200 votes. Y&R being the highest rated soap on television at this point.  The use of some is inappropriate as there are more than "some" viewers.  Many does not imply majority, it implies there are a lot.IrishLass0128 19:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, just as the word "some" doesn't necessarily mean a few. It often means there are half and half, of course. As to this case discussed above this statement of mine, I grasp why the word "many" is preferred on this issue. Flyer22 13:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Character Redemption
In at least 2 of the cases cited, the male character has apologized, acknowledged his crime and made efforts to earn forgiveness. I understand that some viewers do not agree that apologies/remorse is enough or they feel that it is not sincere and that is understandable but I don't think it can be disputed that the writers have redeemed the characters whether some people accept it or not. Even the fans of EJ and Sami's rival couple felt so strongly that the character was being redeemed that they launched an attack fan campaign called "Rape is not Romance" to try and persuade the show to stop trying to redeem him. I think if both sides of the heated debate agree that he is being redeemed, that is pretty strong support for stating the redemption as a fact for the EJ character. We can't project or speculate whether or not a redemption is sincere based on what might happen. In the case of Luke and Laura, I think it has been accepted that it was sincere. In the case of the GL couple, I'm not sure so if someone watches that soap and can state that it is widely accepted that no attempt was made to redeem the character on GL then I will re-word the sentence.Radiantbutterfly 16:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It certainly can be disputed and it has been in many forums. I've edited to acknowledge that the show MAY be ATTEMPTING to redeem the character but that many viewers do not believe the character to be redeemed or on his way to redemption.  This is much more accurate. Esse123 20:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In Wyman's quote, he acknowledged that EJ is being redeemed. It's your quote that assures the viewers that EJ is being redeemed.  "People change" is synonimous with redemption.IrishLass0128 20:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To claim that EJ "is being redeemed" is not accurate. It is more accurate to state that the show is ATTEMPTING to redeem him.  For MANY viewers, he has not been redeemed and is not in the process of being redeemed, regardless of what the show is TRYING to portray. Esse123 01:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are lacking in an objective opinion of both EJ's redemption and the neutrality of the page. It states that all three have either gone through a redemption or are going through one. Wyman himself has said "people change" indicating that they are redeeming EJ.  The fact that just today he took the gun from Sami and told her to get out is an indication that he is no longer "bad" but has hurdles to go through.  That is redemption and, as indicated by Wyman, part of people changing.  You are also disregarding the context of the passage.  It does not address just the EJ redemption but the other characters.  YOu need to allow the statement to stand as it reflects statements that you admit you "don't know about" as stated in your edit.CelticGreen 02:05, 3August 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again, I think we are dealing in semantics here. As you state Esse123, the show is attempting to redeem the character by having him show remorse, apologize, do the right thing etc. It isn't about whether some people accept the redemption or like how it is being done. Saying "the show is attempting to redeem" or "the character is being redeemed" is the same thing in my opinion. The acceptance of the redemption is a personal matter of opinion but the intent of the show is based on how they are writing the character. I am assuming that you are objecting to the statement that EJ is being redeemed and not to the statement that the GH or GL characters were redeemed but I would be curious as to how exactly the character would have to be written for you to accept the statement that he is being redeemed. I honestly didn't think there was any dispute over whether or not they were redeeming the character just over whether or not the redemption was sincere or sufficient enough that the pairing of Sami with EJ could work. That's where I thought the controversy was but I'm willing to consider your argument if you can clarify your position for me. Radiantbutterfly 16:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Photo in romantic moments section
Currently, the photo in this section is one from the photoshoot, I think a better image might be a screen shot of them dancing the Tango but I'm also aware that there are quite a few pictures in the article now and I'm not sure if Wikipedia limits the total numbers of pictures in an article. I'll see what I can find out. The EJ saves Sami picture is much clearer now, thank you CelticGreen. Radiantbutterfly 00:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It was not to go in the "romance" section per say, it was to be part of the article displaying EJ and Sami/James and Ali as a couple as has been previously disputed. If you feel it would be better served in a differnt location, I am not against moving it but I do think it is a good picture for the article as they look wonderful in the shot. You are welcome for the edit on the saving photo.  My pleasure as always.CelticGreen 02:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to provide a fair-use rationale when uploading screenshots or promotional images, you all. I had to provide a fair-use rationale to two recent image additions to this article. To add a fair-use rationale, just sample the ones I've applied to images, of course. Flyer22 13:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that Flyer22, I mistakenly thought the licensing part was all that was needed but I understand what is required now. For screenshots, should the source be the station that aired the show (e.g. Soapnet, Global, NTN?) or should it be NBC because NBC distributes it or should it be Sony Pictures that owns the rights to the show? Radiantbutterfly 16:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The source should be where you acquired the image. Just as with the first image of this article, you provided the source of where you acquired the image.

I only put NBC for the source of a fair-use rationale for one of those newest two screenshots that I mentioned above because I don't know where that image came from. If you know where that image came from, then provide the correct source. Oh, and, yes, there is a limit of fair-use images within articles here at Wikipedia. Try to keep it to five or six images. I've stepped over six (as in with eight) with one article I created, but I may be called out on that -- to remove one or two. Anyway, talk to you later. Flyer22 21:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe I violated the fair use information and I'm sorry. Uploading photos is new to me and I was only trying to help but I'm still so very confused on how to do it.  I know you know I didn't intentionally do anything wrong and I thank you so much for all your help with the article.  RadiantButterfly, maybe you can email me so I can get the hang of it.  I cleaned up the rescue photo at RB's request and got the photoshoot picture from a friend.  What should I do?CelticGreen 02:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ejsami.PNG
So positive images (him saving her life) from their relationship are ok, but negative ones aren't? Either we get rid of the other images, or we keep this one; it's a screenshot that is relevant to the section that discusses that scene.

"EJ and Sami on December 29, 2006" was an important incident in their relationship (notice I didn't say he raped her in the caption, since that's something people still disagree on). --Silvestris 14:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Additionally I disagree on the "importance" comment. The scene is not of the level of importance some believe. The scene still being ambiguous in nature and the only comment coming from a former exec and not someone still with the show makes the scene first and formost, still questionable. I stand in disagreement with the cap being added.CelticGreen 00:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Any image that promotes one point of view over another is not neutral and does not belong. The "positive" images you refer to have nothing to do with the controversy and are not promoting anything other than fact - EJ did save Sami and the screenshot shows that and nothing more. You will notice that there aren't even any pictures of EJ and Sami kissing or making out. If someone posted an image from December 29th showing Sami hitting EJ, for example (clearly showing, in my opinion, that she was not afraid of him), I would remove that as well because that would be promoting my own personal point of view. A facial expression does not depict anything and does not add anything to the article. I have seen that same facial expression on Sami when she has been with Lucas. If the show had actually shown EJ forcing himself on Sami and there was a screenshot of that, perhaps that would be appropriate but if a screenshot like that actually existed, there would likely be no debate over what had happened. The debate exists and neither point of view should be presented as more "right" than the other in this article. Radiantbutterfly 15:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It shows the scene from the episode that the section discusses. Again, the caption doesn't make any judgements on whether or not he raped her; it just says "EJ and Sami on December 29, 2006".--Silvestris 15:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the image does not show the scene - it shows a shot of Sami's face. It adds nothing to the article and is only an attempt to try and bias the article. It was debated and AGREED weeks ago that we would not include any images in the Cultural Impact section so please stop adding this image back into the article. Radiantbutterfly 15:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the previous image four different screenshots of the incident put together?
 * And are you opposed to the screenshot being used in that section, or being used altogether? --Silvestris 15:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We decided not to use any images whatsoever in the controversy section because it was felt that any image had the potential to bias the article so we do not want any "positive" or "negative" images in that section. Other sections of the article are not talking about anything controversial just info about EJ and Sami as a couple and some recent non-negative interaction between them (I would not go so far as to say it was "positive" interaction but I guess that's a matter of opinion. Radiantbutterfly 15:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the image is from an important part of their relationship, can it be included elsewhere in the article?
 * To avoid 3RR, if it gets reverted again I'll leave it alone until it's agreed upon. --Silvestris 15:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is about EJ and Sami as a couple. The controversy section was added because the controversial scene is being used as a reason not to pair EJ and Sami romantically - it is a barrier to them becoming a couple again. The screenshot in question has nothing to do with EJ and Sami "the couple" since they were not involved romantically when that scene took place so no, I would not support its use elsewhere in the article. Radiantbutterfly 15:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I came back to an interesting debate. I'd like to weigh in.  The picture in question does instigate problems and contribute negative influence to the article.  Just as adding Sami on death row or Lucas slapping Sami adds a negative spin to the LUMI article, it is inappropriate to add that image to this article.  Had the picture not been used in an anti-EJami campaign open consideration might be welcome but as it is, it is a promotional prop for a rival couple, just as the afore mentioned 4 shot photo.  Photos used by a rival fan base to eliminate another couple are bias and inappropriate to add to an article of any kind.

If you want to add the negative images to the Lumi article, go ahead. With all due respect, if you deliberately omit the negative sides of their relationship to avoid making EJ look bad, that is whitewashing. I can't help it if the rival fanbase uses it. The scene still being ambiguous in nature and the only comment coming from a former exec and not someone still with the show makes the scene first and formost, still questionable. We know what happened. He threatened to let Lucas die if she didn't have sex with him, and she was crying while he did it. --Silvestris 12:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In YOUR OPINION you "know" what happened. The incident is addressed in the article, an image is not necessary and does not add to the article.  You don't have a right to tell others what they "know."  The scene is still ambiguous in that Sami undressed herself, in a court of law that would not be rape.  There have been many an aquital received under the same circumstances. A woman requests her attacker put on a condom, he walks free because she "allowed" it by adding this request.  A good deal of people still see the incident as "request obliged" and even the NBC website states she "obliged."  Wyman said it was rape but Wyman is no longer with the show and it's unclear when the interview was in relation to him knowing he was leaving.  As to "he threatened" no, he did not.  He said he would not help if she didn't have sex with him.  There's a difference.  He was not required to help her.  She offered ANYTHING in order to obtain his help. Everyday prostitutes sell their bodies for what they want.  All this is to say you don't KNOW what happened any more than anyone else.  They never showed the full scene and until they do, no one knows anything other than what has been said and changed and changed again.  The incident is addressed in the body of the article.  The image is unnecessary negativity.CelticGreen 13:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As to your comment about adding negative images to the LUMI article, I am not going to participate in an edit war and I don't believe anyone should encourage such a thing. CelticGreen 13:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you ever considered that I'm not a Lumi supporter? That I just don't like all this "he didn't rape her" stuff?
 * For chrissake, James Scott said it was rape! The fact that you're comparing her to a prostitue, and defending him, is disgusting.
 * If the article acknowledged he raped her, but stated how he does love her and was remorseful, and is trying to redeem himself now, that'd be one thing and I wouldn't have a problem. But all this "maybe he didn't" and "it's ambiguous" whitewashing stuff is horrible. --Silvestris 18:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Silvestris 22:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What I find horrible is your use of profanity and your inability to recognize a point of view that is not your own. James Scott is an actor on the show but when he speaks, he is entitled to share his opinion of the scene. As I said before, I don't care what couple you support but I do care about your attempt to take this article from one that is open-minded and neutral to all points of view into one where *your* point of view is depicted as the right one. The comparison to a prostitute is actually quite accurate given that Sami sold her body to secure help for another character. Nobody is defending EJ - just because people don't think it is rape doesn't mean they think it was a wonderful thing that he did. This article in no way suggests that the scene was romantic or otherwise positive. What we are trying to get you to see is that not everyone agrees that it was rape and no amount of profanity is going to convince people who don't see it that way to change their minds. This article will never acknowledge that he raped her unless the show re-shoots the scene to show Sami saying no and EJ forcing himself on her. Unless that happens, there will always be a split on the interpretation of the scene and BOTH points of view will be presented in this article. The article acknowledges that some people see it as rape and that some people don't. Neither point of view is glossed over or discounted. Radiantbutterfly 18:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, the language violates Wikipedia policy and is not necessary to make you point. Your feelings are just that, feelings.  There is yet no verifiable proof of what happened that night.  I agree with Radiantbutterfly in that fans do not think it was romantic but regardless do not think it was rape.  And while I did compare what happened to prostitution I did not make her a prostitute.  What James Scott says is often based on his character and what is happening at the moment.  EJ is remorseful for what he did but what he did has still not been established to all viewers as rape and is, in fact, still ambiguoous in nature.  Rape is rape, this was not rape in many peoples' minds.  Until the show acknowledges what happened, and I mean the show not a fired executive, the article remains neutral based on what is actually seen.CelticGreen 19:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "For Christ's sake" is not profanity.
 * Not all rape involves one person forcing themself on the other; for example, ever hear of statutory rape?
 * And if you don't think it was rape, what's so wrong about showing a screenshot from the incident? --Silvestris 19:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Myself and a lot of others would disagree that that statement is profanity. I do believe certain individuals believe any taking of their Lord's name in vain is profanity.  Your argument is weakening in that you are not showing reasons other than your opinion which is not based on what was seen on the show.  Not believing it was rape the shot becomes an out of context indicator.  If it was verified that she was raped, the shot could be included without argument.  CelticGreen 20:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you don't want a screenshot from the scene from when he raped her, because that would hurt your argument that he didn't. --Silvestris 20:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the whole reason it does not belong - the article does not take a stand on the issue because to do so would not respect Wikipedia's neutrality policy. The only reason you *want* to include it is because you know it would bias the article to your point of view. Can you not see why this completely contradicts the intent of the article which is to present information not arguments? Radiantbutterfly 21:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is not neutral. If it gave as much attention to the negative side as it would the positive, it'd be neutral. Including photos of the positive side, and no photos of their negative side (ie, the screenshot). And I do think it's important; it's why the relationship is so controversal to a lot of people. If EJ was just another guy vying for Sami's affections, I could care less, and I'm sure a lot of other fans out there feel the same way. Again; I'm not some Lumi fan trying to make the opposition look bad.
 * For what's it worth, I'm sorry for losing my temper, though this was only after the prostitution-comparison was made (also, the fact that I consider prostitution exploitative and degrading doesn't help the argument that Sami and EJ having sex was more comparable to her prostituting herself than him raping her). --Silvestris 21:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your continual statement over and over again that the incident was rape shows you're not neutral. You've used foul language and have treated other editors badly.  You are not neutral, you are coming from a stance that it is rape.  Period, end of discussion and that is not fact.  You want the image included to prove it was rape because you believe it was rape.  The argument presented to not include the scene is first and foremost because it has not been 100% established what happened.  It is obvious you can't step back and see the other options if you admit your anger is because of the prostitution comment.  You've demonstrated that you are not neutral in your beliefs.  Therefore, your argument becomes a moot point.  You want the picture because you believe it was rape and for no other reason.  That and that alone shows you are not neutral.CelticGreen 22:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * One: I remained polite until you compared Sami to a prostitute, to which I said the horrible "for chrissake."
 * Two: I can easily assume you are an Ejami supporter, which means you are not neutral either. --
 * One ~ There is nothing wrong with comparing Sami to a prostitute. She gave her body to get what she wanted.  Prostitute has many meanings.  Only the sainted haven't prostituted themselves one time or another. Prostitute (noun) 2 : a person  who deliberately debases his or her talents.  You need to go beyond the narrow definition and see the broader picture.  Two ~ you again, assume, that all EJamis believe what happened wasn't rape.  For that assumption you would be so, so wrong.  There are EJami fans that do think it was rape however there are no LUMI fans that I've encountered that think it wasn't.  The fact is the picture has been used in an anti-EJami campaign which makes it prejudicial in nature.  The fact that you believe 100% that it was rape makes your insistance to include it prejudical.  My belief that it's still undetermined and ambiguous at best means I'm open to what the writers have coming.  That's the difference.  I have not seen what actually happened.  You are assuming what happened.  You've made up your mind.  I'm still waiting for a flashback for proof.  CelticGreen 23:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is profanity in my opinion and is extremely offensive to me. I would ask you to please show a little bit more respect in your discussion points. This discussion page is not for debating whether it was or wasn't rape. That's not the issue. Some people believe it was rape and others do not. That is a fact and no amount of debate in here between you, me, Celtic Green and anyone else is going to change that fact. What EJ did was not statutory rape and I'm not aware of any other definition of rape that has to do with a woman consenting to sex but it still being considered rape. My personal opinion (which is not relevant to the article in any way) is that if you spoke with a police officer or a lawyer and described what happened, they would agree that it was not the crime of rape. But, that is neither here nor there. I'm entitled to my opinion, you are entitled to yours. What is wrong with any images in that section is that any image that is shown is going to encourage a bias one way or another. If it wasn't, you wouldn't be fighting so hard to include it. Just as you can put a picture of Sami's disgusted face, I could add a picture of Sami hitting EJ in the same scene showing clearly that she was not afraid of him or I could add under an image, the actual transcript where Sami consents to sex. None of these things should be included because they serve only to highlight one point of view over another. Please respect the neutrality of the article. Radiantbutterfly 20:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is actually quite neutral right now, in wording

 * The statement by Silvestris, that "This article is not neutral. If it gave as much attention to the negative side as it would the positive"...I must state is an off observation. What this article mostly addresses at this moment is this couple's negative history, and it does that in a way that is indeed neutral.

When it comes to the screenshots of this article, as in not having a negative screenshot of this couple, given the controversy surrounding their most negative night, then, yes, I can see how that is not seen as neutral by some editors similar in thought to Silvestris on that matter. Although, the decision not to add any negative (or positive) images to the Cultural impact section of this article is a well-pondered act. Flyer22 23:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Flyer22 you got pulled into a crazy article and you've done so much to help. I've looked at what you've done in the past and I know this isn't your first forey into the controversial.  I can't thank you enough for all your help. I agree this article is neutral.  Both editors who believe it was and wasn't rape and those that can't decide have contributed.  The image is not necessary.  It should be omitted.CelticGreen 00:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I like being of good (or great, hee) assistance at Wikipedia. Thank you all for your hard work at Wikipedia as well. Flyer22 02:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Revert by CelticGreen
Another editor just reverted the article to a form that contains huge amounts of fan speculation and unsourced statements. I'd like that editor to explain why phrases like "some believe," "many viewers (not all) saw it as" and "many viewers" are preferable to a sourced document that cites third party references. 24.6.65.83 18:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Try reading through this page and the consensus for deletion. The phrases you questioned were added for neutrality.  If you look above this "question" you will see a determination by a different editor that the article is neutral as it stands.  Your gross amount of removal equates to vandalism.  There is a lot of history available for you to see where the determinations for the article come from.  You need to read through it before making changes based on your opinion.  Because a soap is a "can't please all of the people all of the time" entity, certain phrases were added to end editing wars.  All aspects of this article have been carefully and dilligently decided on and not by just one person but by a group of many.  Bulk removal of information for no reason is vandalism according to what I have been instructed.  Please do not continue.CelticGreen 19:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You need to review how Wikipedia defines vandalism; my edits are meant to improve the article and do not fit the definition. You should retract your accusations.
 * My edits are based on Wikipedia policies about Verifiability (Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source) and Original Research (Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis) and the guidelines on Avoiding Weasel Words (Avoid phrases such as "some people say" without sources.) While I'm pleased that NPOV is being respected, Neutrality does not overrule the other policies. 24.6.65.83 19:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've asked Flyer22 to step in on this. Until then I will not get into an editing war with you. CelticGreen 19:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And I've posted a request at 3rd opinions, so that we can get input from a totally uninvolved party. 24.6.65.83 19:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Flyer is a neutral third party that has been involved from the start. There have been many, many incidences of vandalism and she has been the neutral third party to weigh in and keep this article factual and neutral.  CelticGreen 19:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * as you can see from the deletion discussion Flyer22 is directly involved in the supercouple pages and approved their addition as "potential" supercouple which was your reason for deleting content. That issue has been previously resolved. CelticGreen 20:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad that Flyer22 has earned your respect for neutrality, but why don't we just wait until others have commented? 24.6.65.83 20:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Because I'm giving them additional information in regards to what has already taken place. Several decisions have already been made regarding this article.  I am providing them information so a neutral decision can be made to keep the article in tact as some editors have worked very, very hard Radiantbutterfly for one to keep the article accurate and neutral.  I appreciate their work and do not want to see it destroyed by someone with no reason for their edits.  As stated the statements of "some" and "not all" have been included based on consensus decisions in order to appease the rival fan base.  Without these statements severe edit wars took place.  A reason was given, if you read through the entire talk page, you will see that decisions have already been made reguarding what you think is necessary changes.  As this is your first edit regarding this page a review of past decisions should be a factor in your changes but it clearly isn't.  I'm making sure other editors can see the amount of discussion already put into this article and the consesuses already made that you seem to completely disregard.CelticGreen 21:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * DON'T misrepresent my edits, make assumptions about my decision-making process or the research I've done. I have provided reasons for my edits, backed by Wikipedia policies. Most of what I see on this talk page is fans exchanging opinions (usually about the "rape") and crafting the article to incorporate those opinions, whether or not they meet Wikipedia guidelines. 24.6.65.83 21:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * DON'T capital bold? Are you trying to talk to me like I'm a child?  Since you have not provided "policy" links to your reasons and you have obvious disregard for what has happened in the talk pages, what has been discussed previously, and refuse to sign in so your contributions can be tracked, assumption is all there is available in regards to any movites you might have.  You stated you removed their link to Supercouple even though the project leader for that page approved them.  Disregard.  You disregarded any past edits and decisions made when removing what you deam as questionable content.  Hours upon hours of work by Radiantbutterfly and Flyer22 and others have gone into this page making sure it is factual and neutral and yet you provide nothing to back your edits.  By nature a soap is never a 100% agreed upon subject. For 20 years Tony was Tony and in one fell swoop he was Andre.  You will find that not everyone agrees with that.  Flyer herself has spent hours cleaning up the grammar in the article and making sure it was accurate.  All of which take time and work.  Your edits were not clear and were not warranted.  The article is accurate and neutral with passages added to appease two warring factions.CelticGreen 21:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I must state that 24.6.65.83's edits to this article were not vandalism in its true form, but were rather a way to improve this article.


 * 1) In fact, 24.6.65.83's edits of this article were a little similar to my early edits of this article, as seen with these two links: . And a broader look of early edits to this article from other editors can be seen with this link: . Those edits were before I gave this article a bigger overhaul and then discussed some of Wikipedia's policies with editors who were more so unfamiliar then on what was required to improve this article, of course. The words "many" and "some" can be used when providing real-word context on how they are true. But also, the words "many or "some" need to be used in some cases, though a reliable citation may not be provided along with those words. It's more so when using the words "many" and "some" several times within an article on Wikipedia without a reliable citation provided for using those words that it becomes truly original research.
 * 2) The mention of there being a very heated debate among viewers of Days of our Lives over whether what EJ did to Sami can be considered rape or not seems to be valid in being mentioned when taken into account Wyman's quote on this controversy, though Wyman calls it rape and a direct reliable source stating that this is a highly debated issue among viewers would be preferable on that matter.
 * 3) I definitely see where 24.6.65.83 is coming from on a few edits, but I also see where other editors who have worked hard on this article are coming from as well, such as mentioning the words "many"..."some"...or "not all". I suggest a compromise here on this matter. One compromise could be removing the wording of potential supercouple. All that needs to be stated in the introduction (lead) part of this article as to EJ and Sami's popularity as a couple is that EJ and Sami are a popular couple on this show... The fact that they are a popular couple on this show is referenced below in their Cultural impact section. Stating that they are a potential supercouple is unreferenced speculation that needs a reference from a reliable source...if we state that in the lead of this article. If this couple later has any sort of other notable impact that can be referenced with a reliable source, then that can go into the lead as well, though too much detail and references ideally shouldn't go in a lead of an article on Wikipedia by Wikipeda's standards.

4. Anyway, those are main thoughts on this matter. Flyer22 22:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As the neutral party, would you be willing to make that change?CelticGreen 22:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will make that change. Flyer22 22:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the input, Flyer22, and the repudiation of allegations of vandalism.


 * Based on your comments, I'm going to restore the version that I edited, with the additional citation provided by CelticGreen. Any instances of "some believe" and "many viewers" can be discussed here and suitable citations found. I'm not looking for exact wording (and never was), just citations that support the statement.


 * Oh, and CelticGreen, I apologize for assuming that you would be able to find the major policy pages on Wikipedia without somebody to guide you. You appear to be rather ignorant about Wikipedia in general (my contributions are easily found, for instance, and nobody, not even "Project leaders"(?), can dictate the contents of a page) and I'll try to remember you want everything linked. For future reference, you can check Category:Wikipedia official policy and Category:Wikipedia guidelines. 24.6.65.83 22:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Flyer did not agree with you in regards to removing "some believe" and other statements. I reverted the article to Flyer22's edits as they are correct and have been discussed ad nauseum.  But thank you for the insult. I request links for not just myself but for everyone.  Editors are not to insult one another they are also not to ruin the formatting of pages and make entries based on assumptions.  I would suggest you read flyers talk page for additional decisions on why "some" and "many" were added to avoid editing wars.  And about your redirect to policy, where's the one for weasle words because that's not in either link you provided and not coming up as policy on a search.CelticGreen 00:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Flyer22 wrote, "It's more so when using the words 'many' and 'some' several times within an article on Wikipedia without a reliable citation provided for using those words that it becomes truly original research." I just checked and right now there are eight instances of "some viewers" or "some believe" or variations thereof that are without any kind of source, plus another couple "many viewers." Does ten count as several? I'm sorry you feel insulted, but I just checked and you only registered your account on Aug 1. That's not much time for a learning curve and it explains why you are having difficulties with the policies and guidelines. Try searching for "Avoid weasel words." That's w e a s e l, not w e a s l e. You can usually throw Wikipedia: in front anything and find it. 24.6.65.83 03:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out a flipped set of letters. I type fast and often do that.  I know how to spell the but quite often type teh.  Regardless, it is of common courtesy not to call people ignorant, point out their spelling errors, and put links when using policy in your argument.CelticGreen 13:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct that I shouldn't have commented on your ignorance of Wikipedia and I apologize for it. I attach no stigma to ignorance, BTW - it's simply the state of being uninformed. I don't usually correct spelling outside of articles and only pointed out the above because it was causing you problems. If you hadn't asked for direction, it would have never been mentioned. 24.6.65.83 20:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Rival couple
It can be verified by a trip to any message board that EJami and LUMI are rival couples. Many an edit war have been fought here over edits and the page was put up for deletion because of the rivalry. It is undisputed that EJami and Lumi are rival couples. Even the show has acknowledged such as is already referenced in the article.CelticGreen 00:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Lucas and Sami are indeed a rival couple to EJ and Sami. Any time you have a center who is a part of two popular pairings in which the fans of either pairing feud against each other, that is a rival couple.

Also, as I mentioned in one of my edit summaries, the Supercouple internal link can stay in this article's See also section. All articles about soap opera couples have a Supercouple internal link within their See also section, not because all of these couples are necessarily supercouples, but rather because all of these couples are notable couples and the Supercouple article gives analysis as to clarify these couples. A broader conclusion as to what level a particular couple may be on can be drawn from the Supercouple article. Plus, all of these couples are mentioned within the Supercouple article. Flyer22 01:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And the Supercouple article will be further fixed up by me over this weekend. And, of course, further improved after that by me (or anyone with good or great edits to it) as well. Flyer22 01:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with Supercouple in the See also. Never did. 24.6.65.83 02:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and CelticGreen, "a trip to any message board" does not meet the threshold of a Reliable Source for Wikipedia. 24.6.65.83 03:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As you've made it clear 24.6.65.83, you believe me to be ignorant, so you can stop addressing me all together. Flyer22 thanks you!CelticGreen 14:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You speak for Flyer22 now? Interesting... 24.6.65.83


 * Never. I thanked her for her help.CelticGreen 13:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait, I see it now, you're putting down my grammar again because I accidently added an S to the end of thanks. It was just going to say thanks, then I changed my mind to thank you.  Isn't there a common courtesy rule that that action violates?  Just asking since you know, I'm ignorant.CelticGreen 15:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The entire meaning changes because of that 's'. How was I to know it was a typo, since nothing is misspelled? 24.6.65.83 17:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * All I see is someone being discourteous to another editor and someone making assumptions verses giving another person the benefit of the doubt. You're "looking for zebras just to yell run."  Your need to be unpleasant is baffling. CelticGreen 01:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking through the edits to the article and the talk page, it's looks like the discourtesy started with the mass revert and the accusations of vandalism. 74.1.90.194 03:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You removed mass quantities of the article and ruined the formatting, assuming vandalism as we've had so many incidents was natural. You have not moved on and have chose to nit pick and be discourteous and accusatory.  The mass revert as you call it was because you removed mass quantities of the article without reason simply because you wanted to with complete disregard to pages of talk and discussion that went into this article. If you cannot take someone reverting mass unfounded edits, maybe you shouldn't be an editor.  Regardless, you certainly shouldn't be so rude to another editor.CelticGreen 10:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Redemption

 * Recently, viewers have been shown scenes depicting EJ and Sami scheming together. Also, the character of EJ is going through what some believe is a classic soap redemption and Sami is being shown to trust him a little bit more than she did before. She has not yet forgiven him for what he did, but the story is leaving it open for that to happen as indicated by former Co-Executive Producer Wyman. 


 * Recently, viewers have been shown scenes depicting EJ and Sami scheming together. The Suds Report: May 28, 2007 wonders if NBC is redeeming EJ. Sami is being shown to trust him a little bit more than she did before although she has not yet forgiven him for what he did. The story is leaving it open for that to happen as indicated by former Co-Executive Producer Wyman. 

I contend the second is the better of the two because it provides a firm reference for the "redemption" rather than a vague "some believe," doesn't rely on the phrase "classic soap opera redemption," and doesn't start two consecutive sentences with a single word/comma combo that is stilted and awkward. 24.6.65.83 03:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Santo/Colleen comparison

 * Their story is being told in a way some believe paralell EJ and Sami's story of last summer.


 * nothing

Here again we have a "some believe" claim without any sources to back it up, thus crossing over into Original Research. The fact that the characters are being portrayed by the same actors (mentioned in the previous sentence) is sufficient information for the reader to draw their own conclusions. "Last summer" is a relative term that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, the preferred form being "summer of XXXX." 24.6.65.83 03:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Lab Tech

 * Lab Tech
 * lab tech

A simple capitalization error, but it's been reverted so I bring it here. 24.6.65.83 03:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The person who reverted to the capitalized version has just reverted back to the correct one. This has been resolved. 24.6.65.83 20:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Notable speech

 * This was a notable speech in this pairing's history because many viewers (not all) saw it as the first time a suitor of Sami's had expressed this level of acceptance of her true character and because it was the first time EJ revealed to Sami that he had feelings for her that extended further than just physical attraction.
 * nothing

Where to begin? No citations to back up the claim it's notable, I guess. Then we get to the weasel words that are so weaselly they even have a parenthetical qualifier. Contentious does not equal notable. It's dependent on Original research because it requires an editors judgment of what exactly is "this level of acceptance." 24.6.65.83 03:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you go back through there is several discussions about this. Yes, it is notable to some viewers and the part you took out was added to AGAIN avoid edit wars.  It was put one way and reversed several times.  Until the "notable" and beyond were added it was repeatedly edited by the other fan base.  It is your opinion it is not and it is important to note that it was EJ's first reveal of his feelings since that is the "Romantic moments" section.  I have to wonder if you even watch the show.CelticGreen 14:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but "Notable to some viewers" is not a criteria for inclusion. If the article is going to claim that it is notable, there needs to be a third party citation showing that. 24.6.65.83 19:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

 * Even with this seeming attempt to clarify the issue, an elaboration of the scene itself through flashbacks is likely the only thing that will convince many viewers to change their minds one way or another about what happened.
 * nothing

More weasel words and original research. It draws conclusions about 1) the motivations of the show's creative team, and 2) what will "likely" change viewers minds. 24.6.65.83 03:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A portrayer's thoughts

 * Actor James Scott, portrayer of EJ, was interviewed by Sympatico/MSN/TV Guide as to the subject of the highly debated EJ and Sami storyline, even referring to it as rape himself, though also commenting on how he truly believes that EJ is in love with Sami:
 * Actor James Scott, portrayer of EJ, was interviewed by Sympatico/MSN/TV Guide about the highly debated EJ and Sami storyline. He referred to it as rape, though also commenting on how he truly believes that EJ is in love with Sami:

The first is a run-on sentence. "As to the subject of" is awkward phrasing and overly verbose when "about" will do. "Even referring to it" implies that this is an extreme statement, while "he referred to it" is more neutral wording. 24.6.65.83 03:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't wait for Radiantbutterfly to see that. RB is not an American and uses better grammar than we do.  Her wording is lovely and flows.  About is your preference, not everyones.  The wording is fine as is, you are nit picking for sake of nit picking.  And again, details were added due to previous editing wars.CelticGreen 13:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You assume bad faith in my edits. "Lovely and flowing" is in the eye of the beholder, and we obviously disagree. I'm not so concerned about the first phrasing as the second, which is POV. Adding POV phrasing "due to previous editing wars" is not the way to create an encyclopedia-level article. 24.6.65.83 19:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Days former Co-Executive Producer

 * Days former Co-Executive Producer addresses EJ and Sami controversy
 * Days former Co-Executive Producer

Simple Manual of Style edit. Basically, there is no need to repeat the name of the article or the superheader in a subheader. The entire article is about EJ and Sami, the entire section is about the controversy, so the MOS says to leave them out. 24.6.65.83 03:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We tried it that way and it got changed to several nasty things including "proves it was rape" and "talks about the rape" and other variations. The wording was settled on to avoid editing wars.  Flyer22, I'm sure, remembers all the hassle we had getting that to appease two sides of a highly volital group.CelticGreen 13:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keeping it simple and in line with the MOS would discourage the sort of additions you mention. Neither side should be offering their POV in headers. (Not saying the above does, just that it's not according to the MOS.) 24.6.65.83 19:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Luke and Laura comparison

 * Some viewers who do believe that EJ raped Sami, and magazines, such as Soap Opera Weekly (editorial in magazine week of June 11, 2007), are comparing EJ and Sami to Luke and Laura from General Hospital (see section below, Soap Opera Weekly opinion column related to the controversy). Luke and Laura became a supercouple in part due to a reworking of the storyline as a "seduction", even though it is currently an undisputed fact that Luke raped Laura. Whether the original intent of the the scene between EJ and Sami on December 29 2006 is ever confirmed by Days of our Lives executives or writers, to be compared to such a supercouple as Luke and Laura arguably shows the potential for EJ and Sami to become a Days of our Lives supercouple, in spite of the controversy surrounding the pairing.
 * nothing

The entire section looks to be an argument that EJ and Sami have the potential to become a supercouple. A comparison in Soap Opera Weekly is being used as evidence to support the theory, not as a source for the theory. I personally don't care one way or the other if they are, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox to present evidence for an unpublished theory. As WP:OR says, "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." In this case, the source does not say that EJ and Sami are a potential supercouple. That appears to be a conclusion of the Wikipedia editors. 24.6.65.83 04:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Soap Opera Weekly opinion column related to the controversy

 * Soap Opera Weekly opinion column related to the controversy
 * Soap Opera Weekly opinion column

Again, another WP:MOS edit. The entire section is about the controversy, so repeating it in the subheader is not necessary. 24.6.65.83 04:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

SOW column agreement

 * Some viewers agree with the opinion presented by the author of the referenced Soap Opera Weekly column, but others do not agree that the controversial scenes are being glossed over by the soap operas in question. As yet, no publication has addressed this opposing point of view or the issue that in all 3 cases quoted in the column, the male character is going through or has gone through a character redemption. This is of no consequence to some, but is a key point for others.
 * nothing

I think the second sentence sums up my objections to this when it says "no publication has addressed this." This is the very definition of WP:OR; "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." 24.6.65.83 04:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Details on popularity

 * Despite the heated debate circling the EJ and Sami pairing, the relationship between the two has been recognized as a top couple in viewing multiple times by Sympatico/MSN/TV Guide. And with the couple's growing popularity, the two have proved formidable to rival couple, Lucas and Sami.
 * EJ and Sami have been recognized as a "top couple to watch by the Suds Report. 

(Note: I've shortened the ref in the first sample) "Despite the heated debate" is a mitigating factor introduced by Wiki editors; it implies that this can or should detract from their popularity. Although there are claims of "multiple" recognitions, only one ref is provided. The second sentence in the first paragraph is another attempt to promote an EJ/Sami pairing, claiming some "formidable" aspect that is not supported by citaions. Again, I don't care one way or the other about the rivalry; I'm after an article that conforms to guidelines. The second sample is clear, straitforward and makes no claims that can't be verified. Any additional citations can, of course, be added as they are found. 24.6.65.83 05:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Until Radiantbutterfly can get back to address why these are in, I don't believe the article should be changed. As one editor told me,  if it's important, it can wait.  CelticGreen 14:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)