Talk:John Edwards/Archive 4

Credibility of the Enquirer on this story
I found this interview with the Enquirer's editor-in-chief about the background, investigation, and fact-checking that went into the story. No editorial comment from me (I think it's best if the participants here start with an open mind), but I do invite folks to read it and comment on what it does for the story's purported reliability. Kelly hi! 01:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, if you asked anyone here, about whether the Enquirer story is true anyone having watched that |video of edwards failing to deny would tell you, yes he is guilty as hell. But this does not make the NE a RS. So it can't be referenced directly. The policy is clear thhough, that since the allegations have been reported widely in RSs, note should be made of the notable allegations in the article referencing the RSs which recorded them. Bonobonobo (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to take issue with editors authoritatively stating that the Enquirer isn't a reliable source. This is not official wiki policy. The quality of their reporting on this is much more transparent than their usual unsourced pieces: i.e. they have eyewitness accounts. At the very least, the facts of the hotel encounter can't possibly be challenged by any reasonable person. DiggyG (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Arguments for inclusion
This is in response to User:Bonobonobo's comments from here and others.

First, it will be more productive to avoid sarcasm as "noble objections" as they conflict with our goal of keeping things civil.

I'll address your concerns one at a time broken down by section so we can keep each point threaded:


 * For the record, I was not being sarcacstic. Your motives are indeed noble. Bonobonobo (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Do no harm" is trumped by "Wikipedia doesn't censor"
"DNH is merely an essay." According to WP:BLP:"An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm'." This essay is the backbone of WP:BLP -- the "do no harm" mantra is not to be dismissed so easily. I would take the time to read WP:HARM as it explains what it is and isn't; You may be reading it literally -- it doesn't mean "never do harm". Additionally, WP:NOTCENSORED speaks to inappropriate content. No one has asked to exclude this text because it may offend a reader. So I am unsure how it trumps "do no harm" -- could you please explain?


 * Nope its not the backbone is a "rule of thumb", and it is an essay it is not policy. Policy is passage I quoted which unfortunatly for your arguement gives this very example and answers: include. Bonobonobo (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, then your challenge is to convince editors on this page that "do no harm" is so easily dismissed. I predict you will find this challenge difficult -- any BLP editor, administrator and Jimbo himself will disagree with you. But consensus can change, so, go for it. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 02:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Everything can do harm, butterflies in Japan and all that... just too nebulous. Harm? To Edwards? Water off a ducks back doncha think after all the publicity? Bonobonobo (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I addressed the lack of publicity issue at "Hundreds of media outlets have reported on this". As to harm, I don't think that you have yet moved the page editors, BLP administrators nor Jimbo Wales who created the saying. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 03:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Therefore, are you reading the entire WP:HARM section? This is the second time I'll post this quote from that policy
 * Unconfirmed allegations may only be included in Wikipedia where they have already been widely publicised by the mainstream news media; in these cases, the allegations should not be given undue weight.
 * WP:HARM says include. The only refutation I've seen to this argument was someone saying it's not widely publicised except by 'blogs, supermarket checkout lines, a couple of partisan commentators and in a few U.K. newspapers'.  That seems pretty publicised to me.  We know that the NYT also mentioned it.  The fact that a number of sites are criticizing Wiki for not including it tells me that it's a pretty popular issue.


 * Let me be clear here. I am a democrat, and I favor inclusion.  I do not think Edwards is guilty, I think the NE is complete trash.  I still favor inclusion just because this is such a popular issue.  This is not a partisan issue, this is not about the NE being a reliable source, the only issue here is whether or not this allegation has been publicised enough.  This is the fastest growing talk page I've ever seen, I think that alone says something about the notability of this story. AzureFury (talk) 08:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not been actively involved in this discussion, but let me just say that I agree 100% with AzureFury. As allegations in themselves, they are more notable than a great deal in this encyclopedia.  It is not for us to judge the reliability of the Enquirer story and neither is that even pertinent in this situation.  They have become notable because of much 3rd party coverage in reliable (not blogs, etc) media outlets, and therefore deserve inclusion.  No harm is being done because these allegations are already common knowledge, and in whatever we write in the article we will not be making a judgement as to whether or not they are true.  Joshdboz (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is my position as well. I'm not saying that the article should include a paragraph saying that he's had an affair and fathered a child out of wedlock as if it's fact. I would say that it should say that the tabloid (and I agree that NE is not a reliable source) NE has made allegations against him and that these allegations have been picked up and circulated in news media worldwide. This is undeniable, and I believe that even if the story is found to be false and Edwards turns out to be clean as a whistle, that something along this line needs to be part of his entry because it is part of noteworthy information about him. Now speculation as to whether this affects his political career would be OR and should be removed.Cjbreisch (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

John Edwards career is in tatters
You say, "His career (according to many RS's) is now in tatters b/c of these unmentionable allegations." We are talking about several, not many, that speculated that this would harm his chances (let alone there is no truth that he was the "front runner"). Much more would have to be established to conclude that at this point then speculation. It may come.


 * The point is that this allegetaion is highly highly relevent, which means it must go in. Bonobonobo (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You are arguing for the actual allegations themselves? And your argument is that "it's highly highly relevant" and, hence, must go in. Let's see if the page editors are convinced by your rationale. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 02:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't particulary care if the allegetions are spelled out or not frankly. But that there are allegations must go in. Everybody in the damn USA knows there are allegations and what they are exactly. I can't see what use it tip-toing around them, but if poeple here wont wear it, whatever, its still dumb.

Bonobonobo (talk) 02:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So, your argument for inclusion is that everybody knows this? They don't. In fact, the reliable sources that you want to use contradict this -- they say explicitly that it hasn't been publicized in the U.S. What is your source that "everybody" knows this? 150 Google hits? Lots of blogs? You are plugged into this partisan bit stream but I guarantee you that "everybody" doesn't know this. Regardless, you would need to find a reliable source to make that declaration which will be a problem since the sources you have say the opposite. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 02:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What are you kidding? It was on FoxNews and ABC and in the biggest selling national tabloid. Everyone who gives a rat's ass about politics known this story. But this is besides the point, I dont care if they are not spelled out. But it must be mentioined in some bloody way so the article makes sence in terms of the political reality.Bonobonobo (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, not kidding. Fox News confirmed he was at the hotel. That is all. That is not noteworthy. Please provide the ABC News source. Tabloids are meaningless and its stories are typically not common knowledge unless it hits the MSM -- believe it or not but most folks don't believe in aliens or 95% of the stuff printed in the tabloid. You say that it is required to make "political reality". By which, I presume you mean its impact on his VP chances? I addressed that already at "John Edwards career is in tatters". Because it must be true? &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 03:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hundreds of media outlets have reported on this
You say "circulated through hundreds of reputable media outlets." Hundreds? are you conflating media outlets with online blogs, forums and the like? A Wikipedia reliable source is a published one. Blogs are never allowed on BLP articles. There have been three U.K. sources that, as explained, speculated on the effects of this rumor. There have been a couple of blogs associated with newspapers that have done the same.

You say, "It is not for us to go round questioning reporters integrity and the RR of the worlds major news outlets." How am I doing that?


 * I count 150 in Google News right now. Not all but many are serious publicaions. It is also in Der Spiegel by the way and probably in many other non english sources too. Bonobonobo (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 150 Google News? And how many of these are published mainstream sources with the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? A handful. I think this is part of the confusion: You are so plugged into this that you don't see that this is not yet widely publicized. In fact, the handful of reliable sources you want to use say just that. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 02:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Look at least a dozen, it doesn't really matter. New York Mag LAT and the Times and the Independent and others are enough by themselves. Any one would be enough. Bonobonobo (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It does matter, particularly for something of this magnitude and potential cause of harm. The New York mag was an online blog that did nothing else but repeat the allegations. The LAT was an online opinion blog that counts for nothing. The three U.K. publications simply repeated but not confirmed the allegations. You don't think that is relevant but all other longterm editors have so far disagreed; we want to see this corroborated and not simply echoed. You need to expand on your arguments in order to shift this consensus. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 02:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see any distinction between blogs run by major publications and the dead tree versions. Certainly defamation law does not. But anyway there are many sources, in many languages that I can barely read.Bonobonobo (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good, this helps. Blogs aren't allowed here. We are only interested in mainstream publications. You should make the habit of doing Google News searches -- 150 after an entire week with 98% of them online blogs (mostly from non-major publications) is a pittance. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 03:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly regular blogs don't count i couldn't agree more. Here is Edwards local NBC affiliate reporting the story . Here is one of the Hannity and Comes show report on it . That link alone makes it simply retarded (just plain pointless, water off a ducks back) not to mention the fact that there are allegations. Bonobonobo (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This part of your argument has relative merit. It needs to be balanced against the "do no harm" issue that most editors feel is overriding, even if you don't. Most editors want more than simply people talking about the allegations -- they want MSM corroboration. If this has on-going legs, it will make it in. Everything that is discussed on Hannity and Comes (or Olbermann or Air America) or local affiliates don't necessarily make it into Wikipedia. You believe this is true, Bono, so why not wait until the MSM corroborates it? Can't you be patient so that we don't include a story that is potentially false? At this point, it lacks encyclopedic value. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 03:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So basicly we agree, under the rules a mention should be made, but you say DNH. I say the DNH can't possibly have any meaning in a case that has already been wiely rereported. Wikipedia is simply adding another drop to what is already an ocean of harm. Think of Brian Peppers when you think of DNH, invoking DNH necesitates that you demonstrate that Wikipedia itself do something major and active. Here we are just trying to passive record, and it is not credible to argue otherwise. Bonobonobo (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That is where we disagree: "widely reported". I say not but it has certainly been reported and certainly there are many who believe it is true. Once (if) it is widely reported, then it will be included. All floating allegations (particularly when sourced from a disreputable source) don't have to make it in. I don't know who Brian Peppers is. I would appreciate if you could clarify your comments about DNH as I'm unsure of what you are getting at. DNH here is not being passively used -- it sets a bar for inclusion that requires it be widely known (which I and others disagree with your assessment -- Spitzer was widely known, Bill Clinton, David Vitter, all widely known) and that the information be definitive and factual. It isn't. It may be. We'll see. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 04:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It has been widely reported in Europe and on Fox News. You said if and when it has been widely reported it will be included.  So when will it be included?  72.198.90.208 (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When it has been corroborated and/or a wider spectrum of MSM outlets report on it. The reports from Europe focus primarily on the fact that it hasn't been reported on here. Why do you see the harm in waiting to see if the facts are corroborated when we avoid the risk of including a potentially false story? &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 04:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)I have a problem with DNH being applied here, but maybe I just need to take it to the BLP page. DNH seems to have too much weight to me. It doesn't appear to me that Wikipedia is doing harm by recognizing that allegations have been made and picked up by the media. Wikipedia would be doing harm if OR was put in the page by an NE employee alleging scurrilous details of the alleged affair. Wikipedia would be doing harm if BobsRandomPoliticalBlog alleged the affair and it was noted here. But, while NE may not be reliable, it is noteworthy, and since this has now been picked up on Drudge, Fox, and various European Press sites, the entire story falls into the noteworthy category. I guess I'm saying that noteworthy should trump DNH. I understand the other side and admit this is a grey area. As I said at first, maybe I need to take my thoughts to BLP.Cjbreisch (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, you've claimed that the "majority of editors" support you at least 3 times now. Have you even counted? Less than half the editors are opposed to inclusion. If the consensus remains the same, the story will be included. The burden is on you to change editors' minds.

Let me reiterate, WP:HARM says include:
 * Unconfirmed allegations may only be included in Wikipedia where they have already been widely publicised by the mainstream news media; in these cases, the allegations should not be given undue weight.

The accuracy of this allegations is not the issue. The extent of their publicity is what makes them worth including. AzureFury (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:HARM is only an essay, it doesn't count as official policy guideline one is obliged to follow. Furthermore, the fact that there have been numerous reports (a number of them by notable sources) by the international media on the allegation means that it is news worthy.  We just need to be careful as to how we word it. Ethereal (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN is applicable
You argue that the WP:WELLKNOWN policy is 100% applicable and claim it is self-evident and not trumped by any other policy.

Let's look at the policy:"multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from" We have three U.K. publications that echoed but not confirmed the National Enquirer's unproven allegations relating to this relationship and speculated on its impact. We don't have a multitude yet. "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources," How are these allegations well-documented? Exactly which form of the text did you prefer as there were several iterations. You think it is important to note that he avoided tabloid reporters? Do you think it is important to mention the allegations, either elliptically or explicitly?


 * Yes I do claim that, and I do not dignify DNH as a policy is a mere essay and a "rule of thumb" an idiots guide to BLP, that is of no use to us since we are advanced users and can read the policy all the way to the bottom where our problem is addressed PRECICELY.


 * I think we need only mention what the RS say the Enquirer story said in the most general terms and then mention a comment about his general denials, and perhaps a quote about ho it has affected his chances as VP frontrunner since last week. But I am not fussy, I though the last revert that I made was a pretty good text. It just needs to be mentioned with sources so people can follow the narative of him political career if they want to enquire further can can follow the links to the Times etc. Bonobonobo (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, we have your declarative argument and suggestion. Let's see if it gains consensus. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 02:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would basically agree with Bonobonobo here, with the exception that I think saying his "political career is in tatters" is OR, and even if you could find another RS that said that, might violate DNH. It's speculative and not factual. I also generally like the last revert that essentially just stated the allegation and that the allegation had been picked up and repeated by other RS.Cjbreisch (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

We need to do this now
"We need to work out a compromise text forthwith, since this is making us all look really really dumb." First, a comment such as that is counterproductive and is not an argument for inclusion. Secondly, speed is not a Wikipedia policy. Here is policy for article development in this case: Defend your positions and then reach consensus. General consensus on this page (and at the ANI BLP vio board and the ANI request for review of page protection) is that we wait and see how this develops and do it right, not quickly. Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 02:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Speed is not the issue, we have an OK text that could go back in in 5 seconds. It is making wikipedia look dumb though, it also weakens the BLP policy to use it in this way - it gives it a bad reputaion, this is just my view, not an arguemnet on the point though. Bonobonobo (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed your last header since it was not an arguemnet that I made for inclusion, on the contrary I was making that point to show someone why we could NOT include anything from the NE even if we personally believe the story is 100% true. I do believe this, I think it is blindingly obvious that the NE has done some 1st rate reporting for a change but this is my opinions and I don't suggest we should included this stuff based on my beliefs. Bonobonobo (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, in the spirit of collegialism, I won't object. In the future, it would be better to lodge your request for removal along with your concerns and let the editor self-revert. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 03:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

One admin locking the page does not determine consensus Therefore. Go through and count how many people have advocated waiting and how many people have not before you make such a claim. AzureFury (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

National Enqurier reliability
Hmmm - one thing I've never seen explained is exactly why the Enquirer is considered unreliable. I understand that it is tabloidy in nature, but that's not necessary a disqualification - for example, I saw a discussion on another article regarding the use of TMZ.com. TMZ is tabloidy as hell, probably even worse than the Enquirer, but it was determined, based on a review of the evidence, that they were reliable because they upheld journalistic standards of fact-checking, etc. Now I am old enough to remember when the Enquirer consisted primarily of stories about UFO visitations and claims by women that they had been impregnated by Bigfoot, but that seems to have changed at some point and they now break serious stories - though the tone of the paper still seems lowbrow to some. I guess it would be helpful to the discussion to have an explanation of exactly why they can't be trusted in this case. Kelly hi! 04:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would never consider TMZ.com to be a reliable source. Nor the National Enquirer. I explained why here. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 04:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I did read that - National Enquirer's poor reputation stems form its gossipy, ill-conceived, sensationalistic writing style (did you actually read its story?) and the general tenor and misleading color of many of its articles. I understand that this is your opinion about the publication, but is it any more than your opinion? Is it because they cover celebrity news and gossip? I admit this is distasteful to me, sometimes, as well, but the standard should be in regards to their journalistic practices. Once again, using TMZ.com as an example, there were sources that indicated the site's reliability.  A scan of various stories shows that the Enquirer has also reliably broken other big news stories in the past. I guess I'm just politely asking if it's just your opinion that the Enquirer is unreliable based on a gut instinct, or do have some kind of evidence to back it up. With respect -  Kelly  hi! 04:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good question. I use WP:RS"Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press." Certainly, it is difficult for me to think of the National Enquirer to be included on that list or as high-quality. I've never read it (well, I read the Edwards article and its quality made me cringe) so I have a bias based on the general reputation of all tabloids. Maybe that is an incorrect opinion. As I said at Talk:John Edwards:"It is true that some of the stories the NE prints turn out to be accurate and, in fact, break a story that makes national news. For instance, it broke the Rush Limbaugh prescription drug story. Note on that page that though NE was credited with breaking the story, it is not used as one of the sources. ... If this gets national coverage in mainstream media known for fact checking, then those news outlets will be used as the cited sources if at all -- not NE." If you find anywhere on Wikipedia that the National Enquirer is used as the source, then feel free to delete it because you won't get any complaint. A poor opinioin of its use as a reliable source is doubtlessly uncontroversial. Again, I would not consider TMZ.com a valid source here on Wikipedia -- other organizations may consider it such. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 04:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm curious about the origin of rule that Wikipedia has about the quality of sources. Magazines like NE have broken legitimate stories as well as false ones.  Its history & practices are documented .  I thought the purpose of a cite is so the reader can trace the origin of what they are reading.  That reader can then determine the weight to apply to that source, thus allowing cites to e.g. opinions.  Is it the duty of the publisher to determine allowable sources, or to simply validate their accuracy and allow the reader to evaluate?  Wikipedia's own definition of a cite  don't place a restriction on the quality of the source.  It references faulty or omitted citations as a problem, not that the source material doesn't meet a certain standard.  A report from a questionable source is a record of an event, and one that would probably cause less sensationalism and be more quickly dismissed than all the discussion I see here.  From a curious Wiki user, first time poster, apologies for convention mistakes. 66.17.248.1 (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this left-wing bias?
Although it is commonplace at Wikipedia for a partisan to accuse partisanship when arguing on political pages, the bias against the National Enquirer is one of standards, not a political bias. If the National Enquirer printed a story that (say) Mitt Romney had a similar situation, then, naturally, Huffington Post would be screaming that it was being suppressed and Newsbusters would be silent and partisans on his page would be screaming about right-wing bias, censorship, etc. And I'd (and most other editors) would be making the exact same arguments against its inclusion. This happens all the time, believe it. Go to the left-wing blogs -- they bitch about Wikipedia just as much as do the right-wing ones. The problem is biography of living person policy and not a structural political bias

But what about McCain? First, that was from the New York Times and it was covered in hundreds of mainstream media outlets. Secondly, the McCain articles (his main bio page doesn't mention it) include much material criticizing the Times for the report. At this point, we are taking a wait and see attitude to see if the allegations are corroborated by the mainstream media. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 05:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that censoring of this page for partisan purposes makes Wikipedia look very bad. It proves the left-leaning nature of this website. If something similar had been brought to light about a Republican, Wikipedia would have CERTAINLY left it up and locked the page to prevent people from taking it down. Knol, here I come. Sniper Fox (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good to see that even the most hard-left biased editors here on Wikipedia were unable to keep it off of the article now that he's admitted it. Of course, had this been a Republican the affair section would have been just as large as the Presidents hit piece here.  Things like this are a big part of why colleges ban Wikipedia as a source.  Sniper Fox (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * While Snipefox's comments are unproductive, we need to exercise restraint when editing other people's comments. See WP:RPA, and CIVIL for guidelines. In response to Sniper Fox, I would suggest that the editing of this particular page has actually demonstrated how editors of all political stripes can cooperate to make wikipedia better. DiggyG (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with your last point, Diggy, but this is not a matter just of Sniper Fox's lack of civility. Removal of Sniper Fox's comments is proper because those comments are not helpful to the editing of this article.  This is not a forum, and his/her personal opinions about the motivation of editors here are neither  productive nor relevant.  We're here to talk about how to improve the article, not to talk about someone's pet theories of whether Wikipedia is left-leaning, right-leaning or falling on its face.  Tvoz / talk 22:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Publications Covering the Story
The following is a partial list of American publications that have covered the story about John Edwards and Rielle Hunter originally written by Alan Butterfield and Alexander Hitchens of the Natioal Enquirer. I have included both print journals and a few selected blogs. I have not included the extensive non-English-language coverage from Europe and Japan.

July 22, 2008



July 23, 2008









July 24, 2008





July 25, 2008







July 26, 2008



July 27, 2008








 * "Speaki



July 28, 2008





I believe that those who think that this story must not be included in the John Edwards page because it violates Wikipedia policy regarding the biographies of living people are well-intentioned but essentially misguided. The man is a public figure, hence reportage on his life is part of what makes his career succeed -- or not succeed. The "scandal" -- even more than the verifiability of the allegations -- is itself the story.

64.142.90.33 (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for putting in the work to compile these articles. The notability of the affair is as clear as day. Algabal (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Beautiful summary of sources. TuckerResearch (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent research, but those who are protecting Edwards from bad press continue to do so. It's sad.  As others have pointed out already, conservatives do not receive equal protection here.  CsikosLo (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

List of possible sources
64's list is an excellent list of the sources. Characterizing them will help in determining the level of notoriety and evaluating which ones are useful.


 * Tabloid press (initial story)




 * Published/broadcast news corroborating some part of the story




 * Published/broadcast news echoing story, noting non-MSM coverage










 * One paragraph






 * One paragraph




 * One paragraph








 * Published commentary












 * Online news blogs associated with major media




 * The LA Times, as noted in the press, explicitly thereafter informed their bloggers not to mention this story arguably because of its reputation for accuracy.


 * Published gossip columns






 * Partisan blogs






 * Thank you, "Therefore", for sorting my preliminatry date-sorted list by context. This makes the case for notability even stronger. I have taken the liberty of resorting the same sources within your contextual listing, again by date. This gives us the clearest view of the time-line of the developing scandal (and note again, i am dealing here only with the scandal, not with the verifiability of the allegations). To this list, i have made some additions, as the story continues to develop:
 * I have added a full citenews tag for the National Enquirer article, for the convenience of readers wishing to actually study the sources.
 * I have added a broadcast source in Edwards' home state of North Carolina (WCNC).
 * I have added a political opinion commentary column associated with The Charlotte Observer, Edwards' North Carolina home-state "paper of record."
 * I have added a print/online article from the Belfast (Ireland) Telegraph which i previously overlooked


 * cat yronwode ("64") 64.142.90.33 (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC) -- and updated the same evening 64.142.90.33 (talk) 04:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would argue it decreases it notability. Many would view the unsorted list as if each item is equal, so the sum of its number determines its notability. That is, at best, a crude indicator. Sorting them allows each category be given differing weights. Tabloid: near nil; corroborating MSM: near highest; echoing national MSM: middling; echoing local MSM: less than middling; partisan commentary: below middling; blogs/gossip: zero. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 16:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your argument is based on a fundamental error, that of characterizing "all MSM reports" as "echoes." The July 29, 2008, North Carolina local stories by the NBC-TV affiliate and The Charlotte Observer do NOT fit your paradigm that all MSM stories take as their topic the non-reportage by the MSM. The story itself has evolved greatly and no longer fits your paradigm. Read the North Carolina stories as a jounalist would, and you will see that they express a very important concession, *in Edwards' home state*, that his career has been hurt. When the home-town reporters dump you, you are on the skids. Thus the North Carolina stories represent an extremely significant change in the tide of Edwards' political career. I comment on this fundamental paradigm shift further below. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I do read them as a journalist would -- equal to you. Again, I ask, are you saying that these stories corroborate the allegations or state that it will impact his chances (which isn't a paradigm change)? &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 17:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I reply to this, and your other question, in the next section below. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments and suggestions
There are two issues:


 * 1) The allegations themselves.
 * 2) The notoriety of the allegations.

Has the level of notoriety risen to Wikipedia's threshold? Should details of the rumors be mentioned? I think we can all agree that the bare existence of notoriety isn't enough -- there must be some level, even if subjective and case dependent, to be reached before it meets the level of encyclopedic value. This is where consensus kicks in. I'm not asking for an up or down vote because that is not how consensus works. Instead, I invite you to discuss the relative merits of the sources and discuss why you believe it has reached that threshold. If we do come to consensus on the notoriety of the allegations, do we discuss in detail the allegations -- suggest text. Please be civil, calm, minimize hyperbole and sign your thoughts.


 * Clearly there has been some reports on its notoriety: Fox News covered it along with Hannity and Colmes as did the New York Magazine along with several local outlets, though frequently just a brief mention. Additionally, there have been scattered partisan commentaries and several major international publications discussing this -- but they all note that there has been no U.S. mainstream coverage (Fox the only exception). Here is what doesn't count: Blogs, gossip columns, wide chatter in the bit stream. Several of the sources make mention of these but the chatter itself is irrelevant at Wikipedia. Internet angst is part of its culture (a good thing -- vibrant exchange of thoughts and outlets for skepticism) but Wikipedia isn't a place to memorialize its ebb and flow. I don't characterize this coverage as "widely known", the requirement of the inclusion test:"Is the information already widely known? If it has appeared in numerous mainstream reliable sources over an extended period of time, then it is probably suitable to be included in the article." In fact, all of the sources attest to this fact: it isn't covered in the MSM, the definition of "widely known". So, we have two issues here: should the details of the allegations be detailed? My answer: No. It fails the first inclusion test and certainly fails the second:"Is the information definitive and factual?" Should the article note the notoriety? Well, mentioning the notoriety causes much less harm and hence would accept a lower threshold for both tests and I answer that question: yes. Therefore, I would suggest this text:"In July 2008, several news media outlets speculated that Edwards chances for the vice presidency were hurt by unproven tabloid rumors." Then we use the Fox News Source and most of the sources listed under "Published/broadcast news echoing story, noting non-MSM coverage". This is the appropriate weight given to this matter -- and weight is a critical consideration. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 15:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Where does it say that MSM echoes are not MSM coverage? AzureFury (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are some MSM echoes. All of the MSM echoes note that it isn't widely reported in the MSM though. The echoes don't support inclusion of the details but possibily support mention of its possible impact for the reason I outlined above. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 16:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Therefore," i think you are behind the curve in your contention that "all of the MSM echoes note that it isn't widely reported in the MSM." Speaking as a person with some background in journalism, it is my opinion that the two MSM North Carolina stories that i inserted into the list this morning -- which, for an Edwards story constitute "the local angle" -- have radically changed the texture of the coverage.


 * As of July 29, 2008, the stories out of North Carolina are no longer about how MSM outlets are avoiding the story. Rather, they are themselves MSM reports (one from an NBC TV affiliate and one from an important North Carolina newspaper) -- and they discuss the impact on Edwards' career.


 * I think that these reports signify that the threshold has now irrevocably been crossed between earlier iterations of "MSM fails to report" to the new narrative theme "this story has hurt Edwards' career and may end it."


 * Allowing the North Carolina local NBC affiliate and the state's own "paper of record," The Charlotte Observer, to break the story in this new way will allow for measured consent on the part of other MSM outlets to develop. When the "home town boys" run with a story that shames one of their own, the national media will follow.


 * Respectfully, cat yronwode ("64") 64.142.90.33 (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Couple of questions: Isn't the Charlotte item a news sponsored blog vs. published iN the newspaper? Second: Are you arguing for inclusion of the allegation details? Are you saying that these two new sources make the allegations details "definitive and factual"? Or are you arguing that his VP chances are impacted by the rumors? If the latter, then we aren't in significant disagreement. If the former, then can you explain how these articles corroborate the National Enquirer story because I'm not seeing it. Thanks. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 17:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To your first question: The piece bears the imprimatur of the Charlotte Observer and the writer is a veteran print-journalism staff reporter of the paper, not a mere blogger. You need to read the subtext here. On the URL itself we find the following information: "Jim Morrill covers politics for The Observer, where he's worked since 1981." So this was a masured and planned report, written by a veteran print journalist who has 27 yars of staff history at this newspaper.


 * To your second question: No, i am not arguing at this time for the inclusion of the allegation details. That will come later. I am arguing at this time for a full disclosure of the fact that in the middle of the night of Tuesday, July 22, 2008, John Edwards visited a Beverly Hills hotel where he was not a registered guest and had an encounter with several tabloid reporters, who were registered guests at the hotel, and that when they attempted to question him as to why he was there and who he was visiting in the hotel at that late hour, he fled and hid in a man's bathroom for 15 minutes until he was escorted from the premises by a hotel security guard, after which two of the tabloid reporters filed a criminal complaint or "incident report" with the Beverly Hills Police Department. THAT is the story that has been confirmed to date.


 * Cordially, cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As to the matter of the blog: Yes, I did read it carefully. It wasn't trying to demean the entry but to understand its means of distribution, online vs. traditional publication -- hence why I said "news sponsored blog" as distinguished from personal blogs.


 * You are arguing for the details just without the most lurid aspects. Please write up the suggested text and we'll see if it gains consensus. Please read up on WP:UNDUE and I disagree that because two local (but important) MSMs echo the details that it overrides "do no harm" or the POV problems of undue weight as explained above. Please note the current state of consensus:
 * RfC which mostly argues against mention
 * BLP noticeboard where they deleted a version of the suggested text as being inappropriate even there
 * Admins review of page protection
 * Statement of page protector
 * Comments of other long term editors
 * An edit war commenced when details were added. This is going to be added only if consensus is reached.


 * My above suggestion is compromise text (you see that, right?). It may or may not pass consensus or change the minds of these editors. Your task is to suggest text and see if it receives support. In my opinion, we should go with my suggested text and if this story is corroborated by the MSM, as time goes by, we can expand upon it. At this point, the only thing corroborated is that Edwards was at a hotel, avoiding the hounding of tabloid reporters. But, go ahead and suggest your text. If neither of our texts receive consensus, then the default position, no mention at all, stands. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 18:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "All of the MSM echoes report that it isn't widely reported in the MSM." Do you not see the contradiction here?  Talking about not talking about it is talking about it.


 * "The echoes don't support inclusion of the details..." Says who?  I don't see a policy that specifies secondary sources as unacceptable content for Wikipedia.  The WP:BLP says to include the allegation.  We could probably cut it down to one sentence, but we need more than "unproven tabloid rumor." AzureFury (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can see why there is an apparent contradiction, particularly if you leave out the premise "There are some MSM echoes." So, I'll clarify: Some MSM echoes exist. All of these existing MSM echoes state that the U.S. mainstream media has not widely reported on this matter. Hopefully, that clears up things.


 * I've explained above my reasoning -- please directly rebut the issues I outlined and suggest what text you would like to see and we'll see if it receives consensus. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 17:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking to the point of including any details of the allegation - I think a reader new to the article would immediately wonder "Unproven tabloid rumors? Rumors of what?" and try to "help" by including the nature of the rumor in the article once they found out what they were. Also, the mainstream sources themselves are stating the nature of the allegations. I believe it would be appropriate to include a brief statement of the nature of the report, as well as Edwards' response to them. Something like: "In July 2008, several news media outlets speculated that Edwards' chances for the vice presidency were harmed by allegations published in The National Enquirer that he had fathered a child outside his marriage, and that he had recently visited the child's mother in a Beverly Hills hotel. When questioned, Edwards referred to the allegations as 'tabloid trash'." Perhaps it can be cut down a little further, thoughts? Also, on a somewhat related note, Ms. Hunter also apparently denied the allegation in an interview with Extra (TV series) - snippet here. Kelly  hi! 18:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If the reader goes "what unproven tabloid rumors?", then they can go to the sources which is why they exist. Unproven tabloid rumors, which is what they are right now have no place on Wikipedia. To provide this much acreage to this event would be a point-of-view pushing violation of giving undue weight. We now have two suggested versions of the text. Please read above where I outlined the current state of consensus and my suggestions for moving forward. I continue to recommend mine because it gives appropriate weight without any of the tabloid details. And it has a somewhat reasonable chance of passing consensus. Thanks! &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 18:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, your assumption of consensus is getting tiring, as is your refusal to acknowledge the the policies you are citing explicitly state to include the allegation. I, and other people, have pasted the quotes from these policies specifying why these allegations are worthy of mention, brief as it may be. You advocate civility, and now you are beginning accusations of POV-pushing? No one is saying to include these allegations as fact. As said several times, the allegations are the story, not the affair.

With regards to your comment on the "echoes", you say they do not warrant mention of the allegation based on your completely one-sided interpretation of the WP:BLP policy. This does not mean you can state this as fact as there is a statement in that exact policy that refutes your entire argument. I really don't understand why I have to keep saying the same thing here. The policy you are using says to include the allegation if it is publicised enough. If you want to argue about the extent of publication, then fine. If you want to argue about the due weight, that's ok too. But don't act as if this is a trivial matter of WP:RS. AzureFury (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no comment to make about this. Consensus is the cornerstone of Wikipedia. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 19:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, and consensus is that the allegation will be included. AzureFury (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wording suggestions Redux
I have moved Kelly's suggestion here to this new section, because the previous section is getting a bit long in the tooth. I hope this is okay.


 * (Kelly suggested): "In July 2008, several news media outlets speculated that Edwards' chances for the vice presidency were harmed by allegations published in The National Enquirer that he had fathered a child outside his marriage, and that he had recently visited the child's mother in a Beverly Hills hotel. When questioned, Edwards referred to the allegations as 'tabloid trash'." Perhaps it can be cut down a little further, thoughts? Also, on a somewhat related note, Ms. Hunter also apparently denied the allegation in an interview with Extra (TV series) - snippet here. Kelly  hi! 18:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Kelly, we actually have, as previously noted, THREE stories here. (1) The Hotel Incident. (2) The adulterous affair and out-of-wedlock parentage allegations. (3) The impact that these stories have had on Edwards' political career.


 * Your wording is too vague for my taste. I prefer a direct narrative, along the lines given here in this quote from Jim Morrill of The Charlotte Observer cited above in the "published sources" list. Said Mr. Morrill:


 * "The Enquirer, which months ago alleged an affair by former N.C. senator, this week said its reporters caught him having a rendezvous with the woman, Rielle Hunter, at the Beverly Hilton in Beverly Hills.


 * "The paper said Hunter had two rooms at the hotel Monday night. It said a team of reporters watched Edwards go into the hotel at 9:45 p.m. and then ambushed him on his way out at 2:40 a.m. when, it said, he ducked into a bathroom.


 * "The paper published no photos or no eyewitness accounts beyond those of its reporters. A hotel spokeswoman declined to talk about the alleged incident Thursday, citing a “non-disclosure policy.”


 * "Asked about the allegations in Houston Wednesday, Edwards said, “ “That's tabloid trash. They’re full of lies. I’m here to talk about helping people.”


 * "But the political damage may have been done."


 * That is, in my opinion, good, clean, non-dicey reporting. It gives portions of all three stories, which stretch back far earlier than your weak "In July 2008" opening. It covers almost all of the bases, from the name of the woman and the time and place of the hotel incident to the response by Edwards and its probable effect on his polical career. (It does leave out Rielle's denial, which you kindly cited.) Furthermore, it is citable in itself, coming from a reliable source, as it was written by a 27-year veteran political reporter for the Charlotte Observer. I would like the Wikipedia mention to be as careful and as THOROUGH as the Jim Morrill report, with the addition of Rielle Hunter's denial.


 * I am not sure that Rielle Hunter is notable enough for her own page at this point, but if that is the consensus opinion, i think her page should include mnention of her Edwards campaign "webisodes," their pull-down by the Edwards campaign shortly after the first allegations were made (linking her article to the Edwards article), and her statement about who fathered her child.


 * cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to move down my concerns here. If the reader goes "what unproven tabloid rumors?", then they can go to the sources which is why they exist. Unproven tabloid rumors, which is what they are right now have no place on Wikipedia. To provide this much acreage to this event would be a point-of-view pushing violation of giving undue weight. We now have two suggested versions of the text. Please read above where I outlined the current state of consensus and my suggestions for moving forward. I continue to recommend mine because it gives appropriate weight without any of the tabloid details. And it has a somewhat reasonable chance of passing consensus. Thanks! &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 18:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To 64: Please show us your suggested text and we will open up comment to the community the three versions to date. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 18:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To Therefore: I would like to do so, but i am already three hours overdue to go to work on my regular day's routine, due to my writing here. If no one else makes further suggestions by late tonight, i may do so, but in any case i shall then weigh in with comments. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Therefore: If we keep the language regarding the allegations neutral (like the mainstream sources), I don't think it can be considered POV-pushing. And I don't think half a sentence regarding the nature of the allegation could be considered "undue weight". I do have concerns about the longer version proposed by the anon above - appropriate for a newspaper, I think, but not an encyclopedia. Kelly  hi! 19:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You make a good point that I may be overstating the word count although others, I suspect, will argue that any mention of the unproven tabloid details is of and by itself undue weight. We, then, are required to consider the inclusion test I outlined at Talk:John Edwards. Could you respond how this passes either the "widely known, numerous mainstream sources, extended period of time" or even more critically "Is the information definitive and factual?" (I go into more detail at the above section.) Finally, if you could, do you think your expanded version will pass muster when the previous version didn't given the current state of consensus I outlined above? &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 19:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (were you talking to me?) I guess I'm not understanding your objection at this point - are you saying that the nature of the allegation is not widely known or included in numerous mainstream sources? I think all of the mainstream sources that have been cited above state the nature of the allegations. In regards to the "definitive and factual" - huh? As numerous people have said, we're not presenting the allegations as factual, but simply stating that they have been made, and the allegations have been covered and restated by other press sources. We're proposing on discussing them as allegations, not as factual. I thought that was understood, how did we backslide? Kelly  hi! 19:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that -- which I argue is a runaround the spirit of the text. The "definitive and factual" test isn't mine but from WP:HARM. I argue that it hasn't been widely reported as explained above -- in fact, most of sources confirm just that. What harm is there in waiting for corroboration in case this unproven allegation is false or continues to be unproven? &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 19:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK, I get you. It looks like our difference is whether the allegations have been "widely reported" - I believe they have, whereas you don't. Would you say this is now the fundamental point of disagreement on which consensus has to be achieved? Kelly  hi! 19:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say you are about right. Other editors (listed just below in the consensus summary) have also bring up other "do no harm" issues involved with repeating here the allegations in a tabloid. Generally, we wait for corroboration and not echoing. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 20:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Therefore, we've been trying to tell you all along that that the "allegations" have been reported by reliable sources, not as "facts." As you seem to understand that with your last comment, why on earth did you drag this out so long?--Oakshade (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)I appreciate that you are in a rush. If you think that you can get the new version by the community, then you have gained consensus. I'd recommending reading these -- these are the folks you need to convince: I stand by my version:"In July 2008, several news media outlets speculated that Edwards chances for the vice presidency were hurt by unproven tabloid rumors." which is neutrally written and imparts the salient fact that some have speculated his vp chances are harmed. You want the tabloid details explicitly included (whereas they are available in the included sources). That didn't fly before. My goal here is to come up with compromise language between zero mention and Kelly's. There is no time limit -- we can't edit the page regardless until we come to consensus. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 19:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * RfC which mostly argues against mention
 * BLP noticeboard where they deleted a version of the suggested text as being inappropriate even there
 * Admins review of page protection
 * Statement of page protector
 * Comments of other long term editors
 * An edit war commenced when details were added. This is going to be added only if consensus is reached.
 * Hilarious. So you're stalling edits by bucking the consensus THEN claiming there is "no consensus." A transparent tactic if ever there was one. The Edwards kerfuffle is notable and has been reported by numerous reputable sources, conveniently collated by ip-64. Stop this intransigence; because it is looking more and more like it is politically-motivated and defensive the way you're digging in your heels in the face of copious reporting from secondary news sources. 220.255.7.204 (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If I felt that that was a productive comment or civil or hadn't been said a hundred times before or directly addressed any of the issues we are discussing then I may have responded to it. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 20:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been directly addressed insofar as you haven't explained why numerous secondary sources do not merit inclusion on the Edwards page. Come on now, it's all getting a little ridiculous, and you know it. 220.255.7.203 (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The comments in RfC that are not from the three editors against inclusion (including one long comment from yourself) and from outside this debate, which what RfC is for, does not "mostly argues against mention."  As for the BLP noticeboard, it only takes one administrator to delete a version with a mention of the scandal, not "they."  That is not any gauge of consensus.--Oakshade (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But, after reviewing, you are correct -- the number of outside sources were extremely few and mixed. I would consider the others on my list also. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 20:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't know Oakshade, I think the BLP noticeboard is a gauge though certainly not a determining one. All I'm saying is that you will be facing the same group of editors/admins that you did when the earlier version was inserted. If you feel that you have satisfied their concerns, then you have reached consensus. (Though I don't agree with this version but consensus isn't unanimity). If it doesn't fly, then we are back at square one. I'm suggesting we start with my version and see if that passes. And then if further developments corroborate the story, then we can add. Do you see a problem with waiting for the details? &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 20:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I still think not including some mention of the nature of the allegation would greatly increase the "WTF factor" for anyone coming to the article, though I agree that this description should be kept as short and neutral as possible. Kelly  hi! 20:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec):Um, characterizing as purely "tabloid" rumors ignores the corroborating evidence from Fox News. By now, pretty much everyone knows what's being discussed. And failing to mention the alleged affair and the love child makes WP look silly. Ronnotel (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Abided by your request and changed it. --Oakshade (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Accordingly removed my objection -- thanks! &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 20:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand this point of view -- but it isn't one that holds much weight -- silliness -- we hear it all the time. If you object to the protection of the page, here is where you can go: Admins review of page protection. If you object that we are being careful before including damaging potentially false information in the page, well, you have a lot of people to convince that that is a good idea. If you object that the vast majority of MSM aren't covering this, then you should go to them to complain. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 20:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Thanks, I know how to request unprotection. And the reason I think it's silly to make reference to a scandal that is potentially ruinous to a major politician's career, without actually describing what the scandal relates to, is, well, silly. Just who do you think is being protected? Ronnotel (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Therefore is correct in that there's no real rush here. The pause in editing caused by the protection has prevented edit-warring on the page, and has allowed time for other media sources to pick up the story and provide corraboration. Yes, some of the off-wiki criticism makes me cringe, but it will soon fade away and be forgotten. I actually think we're close to achieving some kind of consensus here. I wish people would offer honest comment on the alternatives, or provide an alternative of their own, rather than sniping. It's not helpful. Kelly  hi! 20:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. WP is becoming the story - something that should never happen. The time for putting something, anything, up is well past. Ronnotel (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * By story you mean internet angst on blogs and forums. Happens all the time. You are advising us to bend to outside partisan pressure. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 20:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Righto. Gawker is "partisan" in a rightwing sorta way. 'Pressure' is the reporting from numerous notable, reputable sources that have been collated by ip-64. Apparently none merit inclusion on the page because... just because. 220.255.7.228 (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "No real rush" meaning "until the storm blows over"? Cynical. And people wonder why this article has attracted outside comment from Gawker (hardly "right wing"). Because of the transparently political nature of the edit lockdown, you think? It's embarrassing. 220.255.7.209 (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that you got that off your chest, and disparaged the page editors, what are you recommending? Which of the above two version are you supporting? If you want to protest the protection, there is a methodology. I'm unsure what you want besides venting which not only improper talk page behavior is of no use. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 20:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a recommendation: unlock the article and implement Kelly's version. Or else edit based on the secondary sources so far collated. What is NOT done is blocking edits indefinitely because of "a lack of consensus" despite the existence of numerous reliable sources to the contrary. It's not rocket science. (This reply was delayed because the usual malfunctioning wiki automatons have intermittently and mistakenly identified my ip as a TOR node. Fix the silly script already.) 220.255.7.242 (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Kelly's version is by far the superior. Ronnotel (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I endorse Kelly's version. Bonobonobo (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I like Kelly's version too. It wouldn't be exactly what I would write, but it's close enough and accomplishes the goal of reporting the fact that allegations have been raised rather than reporting the allegations as facts.Cjbreisch (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I support Kelly's version also. I never thought this deserved more than a few sentences.  Detailing the timeline seemed to be too much weight.  Looks like we have consensus. AzureFury (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for comments on alternatives
In the spirit of moving this process along, I'm going to lay out the three options. Feel free to add to the arguments for and against and we will revise accordingly. Then add your comments/sigs under which version you prefer.

Text
In July 2008, several news media outlets speculated that Edwards' chances for the vice presidency were harmed by allegations published in The National Enquirer that he had fathered a child outside his marriage, and that he had recently visited the child's mother in a Beverly Hills hotel. When questioned, Edwards referred to the allegations as "tabloid trash".

Arguments for
The statement doesn't state that these claims are true but simply reports that the National Enquirer has alleged them, so it doesn't violate "do no harm". There have been reports on this in Fox News, Hannity and Colmes, North Carolina (Edwards's home state) local media, the New York Magazine along with several other local outlets, though frequently just a brief mention. Additionally, there have been scattered partisan commentaries and several major international publications discussing this matter.

Arguments against
Using sources that echo the National Enquirer but do not corroborate the claims does not satisfy the "do no harm" guideline as it repeats unproven tabloid allegations. Most of the sources state that the U.S. mainstream media is not reporting on this which arguably detracts from the standard of being "widely publicized".

Editors who agree

 * 1) As author -  Kelly  hi! 21:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Bonobonobo (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Ronnotel (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oakshade (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) TuckerResearch (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) This looks pretty good -- I might add one more sentence to further inoculate against the possibility of "doing harm" by mentioning the substance of the allegations: "Of these allegations, only the fact that Edwards was present at the hotel has been corroborated by independent media outlets" (citing to the Fox News report). PubliusFL (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Jakk55 (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) I would add the hotel confrontation. But this is a good start. DiggyG (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) It should certainly be mentioned in some capacity, and the shorter version is just cryptic. john k (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Jobius (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Yep. 220.255.7.231 (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Generally good, but I agree that something should be said about the hotel confrontation. Bmcdaniel (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Edwards did not refer to the allegations as "tabloid trash." He referred to the National Enquirer as "tabloid trash." He carefully avoided denying the allegations, from which only one inference can be drawn. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes. The shorter version lacks context; hotel incident requires some mention b/c it is the more substantive and documented episode; agree w/ Mr. Toad for precision.  Also, the diplomatic and orderly nature of this rfc is a breath of fresh air.  Kudos to both sides.  Evensong (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Concur. Of the three options listed, this is the best. Macduff (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Joshdboz (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC) As others have stated, this is the best of the options laid out.  Slightly more context would be useful in establishing the timeframe of the allegations and the media response to them.
 * 4) I can agree on something along these lines, but I would change the last sentence to Edwards has since refused to comment on the allegations, referring to them only as "tabloid trash". Ethereal (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Something along these lines would work, but it should be noted that Edwards has refused to explicitly deny the allegations, and that Fox News has independently confirmed his presence at the hotel. RayAYang (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Edwards said: "I don't talk about these tabloids. They're tabloid trash and just full of lies." So he did NOT say the allegations were tabloid trash. He has NOT denied the allegations. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be amenable to including the full quote above, as opposed to the "tabloid trash" snippet of it. Kelly  hi! 03:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear. We should leave out the fact that he has not denied the allegations because that seems to be a implicit suggestion that they are possibly true because of his non-denial.  A better way to word his reaction would be either to include his quote on this matter or state that he has refused to comment on it, or perhaps both. Ethereal (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How about a combination of suggestions above - Edwards refused to comment on the allegations, stating "I don't talk about these tabloids. They're tabloid trash and just full of lies.". Kelly  hi! 03:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I can agree with that re-wording. Ethereal (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If a public figure is accused of something, and fails to deny it, that is a relevant and significant fact. Readers are entitled to know that Edwards has not denied these allegations. They will of course draw the obvious inference, but that is their business. That wording is OK with me. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For that matter, President George W Bush has not denied that he would divorce his wife after the November elections. Google "Bush Condi Rice affair" to find tabloid articles on this.  Yet clearly, he also hasn't denied a whole host of other tabloid rumors about him and his presidency. It is far more neutral and NPOV to quote his actual response or note that he has refused to comment on it then to say he hasn't denied it.  The latter is implied by the former, in any case.  Let the readers draw their conclusion from their unwillingness to address it. Ethereal (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If Bush was asked if he was having an affair with Rice, and he did not deny it, that would most certainly be significant. He hasn't been asked, presumably because no-one believes it. Edwards has been asked about these allegations, and failed to deny them. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should we be ascribing significance to their actions? It's not our job to highlight the significance of a particular response by a public figure.  That should left to the blogs.  The difference between highlighting the fact that he has failed to denied it and that he refused to comment on it PLUS the the quote of his response rests entirely with how you choose to interpret his response.  It has nothing to do with the factual reporting of his response.  We are concerned only with the facts and not subjective interpretations of those Ethereal (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, is your position that the quote should be included, but without any statement as to its implications one way or the other? Pusher robot (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, with reservations. Pusher robot (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I support this weakly because (1) it does not describe the hotel confrontation or its corroboration by Fox News (i.e. corroboration of the fact that Hunter was a guest in the hotel, Edwards was not, or that Edwards hid in the men's roo for 15 minutes); (2) it does not contain the text of Edwards' non-denial ("I don't talk about these tabloids. They're tabloid trash and just full of lies."), (3) it does not contain the text of Hunter's denial and her claim that Edwards' campaign finance guy Andrew Young is the father -- and i think she should be named and quoted as giving that denial rather than pushed aside into the shadows. But this is a start, and so i support it. catherine yronwode a.k.a "IP-64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with IP-64 above that this should be expanded somewhat, but this is definitely much better than no mention of anything at all.  Kelly, thanks a lot for organizing this! --76.189.104.71 (talk) 04:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the real thanks should go to Therefore, who organized the discussion into this great format. My hat's off to him. Kelly  hi! 04:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Concur with IP-64, additional factual details needed. Bellis (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) This longer version is excellent.  It states the notable fact of the controversy, without giving undue weight to the yet unsubstantiated allegations.  It counters with an appopriately weighted response by Edwards.  Excellent, and if adopted, actually justifies the heretofore moratorium on comment that I had prevoiusly argued against.  A fair comprimise.  The shorter version, however, is useless.

Text
"In July 2008, several news media outlets speculated that Edwards chances for the vice presidency were hurt by unproven tabloid rumors."

Arguments for
See arguments against the Longer version. This statement is supported by the sources and is written in a neutral tone of voice. Recommending waiting for the MSM to corroborate further. Until which time, this version is adequate.

Arguments against
Excludes the details of the allegations, making the article incomplete.

Editors who agree with this version

 * I concur with this version. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 21:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer no mention at this time, but could live with this one, assuming no BLP violations are included in the citations. Tvoz / talk 05:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Arguments for
This lacks notability and doesn't have any encyclopedic value. Speculation on its impact is not encyclopedic. Wait until more developments occur.
 * [Note: argument against including this at the present time is more developed in my comment below . Tvoz / talk 02:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)]

Arguments against
This has been mentioned in several reliable sources and some believe that not including it leaves the project open to partisan criticism.

Editors who agree with no mention

 * 1) At present there is no reliable sourcing about the story; random media speculation about the effect of the story is not encyclopedic, it is just their opinion - if reliable sources were to report, with proper confirmed sources, that this story and/or rumblings about it did derail any VP possibility - not that they think it might -  then it would likely be appropriate to include;  the only semi-confirmed material is that he avoided tabloid reporters and that is not a story worthy of an encyclopedia biography.  There is no rush to include this - we are not the news - and the appropriate action is no action for now.  As I've said already, this is a wait-and-see.  If the story comes out in a real way, properly sourced - not relying on the unsourced National Enquirer article (and the reporters can't be their own sources for heaven's sake) - then we would  look at it again.  This is politics pure and simple, and the fact that right-wing blogs and snarky media gadflys have talked about this talk page only proves the point. We aren't the news, we don't run stories, we don't include speculation and innuendo.  If the story becomes real, it will be quite obvious and we'll have our choice of sourcing.  Further - the statements above do not indicate which sources they are considering using - that is crucial, as some of the overseas news articles have titles that are BLP violations themselves as well. Tvoz / talk 02:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion
There is clear consensus for the first version to be included in the article at this time, and I have accordingly done so. As soon as the protection expires or is lifted, the text may be amended through the normal editorial process, but I advise that this should only be done as soon as relevant new information becomes available through reliable sources.  Sandstein  07:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Today's the day, isn't it? The article was protected until at least 30 July 2008.
"This page is currently protected from editing until 30 July 2008 or until disputes have been resolved." Today's the 30th of July or until disputes have been resolved. Personally, I think the story has been mentioned in enough news sources that the longer, referenced version in the highlighted box above should be used. If the shorter version was used, I'd tag it with a "fact" template, if someone else didn't tag it first -- the short version is incomplete. Thus, the longer version should be used. Adding or deleting a reference can be done either acrimoniously or harmoniously after the mention has been added, but to keep dragging our feet over whether or not to mention the allegations on the main page because one editor prefers a different news source and wishes to see it referenced and another editor dislikes another news source, etc., seems to be tying the allegations up in red tape. Banaticus (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Be sure to discuss and reach consensus first before any substantive changes are made; otherwise the page will be protected again if edit warring recurs. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 11:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Once protection expires, I was planning to include the longer Edwards quote per the discussion in the RfC above. I do think it's a more accurate statement than the two-word snippet that's currently there. Kelly  hi! 13:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the dispute appears to be resolved based on the discussion and resulting consensus above, I have unprotected the article. (I am a completely uninvolved admin who has been monitoring this talk page and the content dispute since the ANI report.) Obviously, further edit warring will result in re-protection. Many thanks to all, especially Kelly and Therefore, for their efforts toward resolution. — Satori Son 13:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

[out] The quote that was included and footnoted to this Fox News article, does not appear in that article. I replaced it with the quote that does appear in the article. Tvoz / talk 17:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I want to applaud what's been done here, even by those I disagreed with. It took too long to get here, IMO, but for the most part, the dialogue was constructive and a proper consensus was reached. So, in particular, I thank Kelly and Therefore, for keeping the place honest. We just need to start the consensus process sooner (when possible) in response to cases like these in order to keep Wikipedia editors from appearing partisan or obstructionist. Which is probably an unfair criticism in any event (despite the fact that I made it). How long would it take Britannica to respond to something like this? A year? Encarta might get it in a month. It took Wikipedia, what, a week? That's still pretty good.


 * I do agree that some protection needs to be in place for pages in times like this so that DNH and BLP are respected. Despite my earlier comments, I am not interested in throwing either of those out, just tweaking them somewhat, and now that this has died down, I'm going to take my arguments there.Cjbreisch (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Reopened/Semi-protected
As other admins have noted, a consensus formed above, it was implemented in the article, and the page unprotected. Since then, two edits have been made by those who would be affected by semi-protection and reverted by Kelly. These edits appear to totally disregard the existence of the prior consensus (did they even see it?) and to violate the policy on biographical material about living people. It would be helpful if other editors who agree with that consensus could pitch in and help evaluate and respond to new edits, instead of leaving all the work to Kelly. Remember that all the named parties in this matter are living people. I don't want to semi-protect the page at this time, but I am evaluating this on an ongoing basis. GRBerry 16:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll help. AzureFury (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, AzureFury.
 * Virtually the same edit has occurred, and been properly reverted, once again. I am beginning to favor semi-protection for a short time. — Satori Son 18:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article again due to the edits by IP and new account editors. In the 10 hours since it was unprotected, we've had 12 WP:BLP violating or otherwise vandalous edits by such editors with no useful contributions from them. Established editors are welcome to continue editing in compliance with policy. I caution Grundle2600 and Therefore that their behavior with regard to the environmental stuff is verging upon edit warring. GRBerry 21:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Edwards' mansion and the environment
This is proof that Edwards does not care about the environment. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand, Grundle, I went and looked at your source. But WP:BLP is unambiguous on the use of blogs:"Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). 'Self-published blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs." Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 20:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My thought is that the blogger is barking up the wrong tree. He claims that Edwardses "hate forests." I think, rather, that they wish to "use" forests, as well as pasturage, to provide a setting for their mansion-home. Human beings are not generaly comfortable living in deep forests. Like Chimpazees, they prefer forest clearings. So part of what is happening there is species-preference. But, to take it a step farther, if i look at this specific instance of landscape mutilation as pure "design", what i see here is the aesthetics of a would-be "lord of the manor" and the creation of a lordly "vista-view." This English and English-colonial approach to landscape aesthetics is based on a series of premises that include the idea that a wealthy land-owner will control a specific mixture of pasture land (for the grazing of his domestic animals), agricultural land (for the upkeep of his household), and forest land (for his privileged hunting), and that the manor itself will be situatied on a rise or prominence (a remnant of earlier fortification-defence mechanics). When these considerations are put into play in a forested area, the result is almost always an artifical forest clearing landscape that allows the lord to look out and "survey the view" from on high while forcing visitors and guests to approach from below, through the winding areas of pasture, as if inferiors. The Edwards home thus suits the species need for a forest clearing and the aesthetics of an English-colonial country gentleman. And, for all the bad one can say about the impositions of such a mansion layout on forested land, it also must be said that no one in America truly owns land: we all pay rent, in the form of property taxes to the state -- and because animals can't pay taxes, animals are always being evicted from their land. Edwards will pay taxes on that land, and his choice of aesthetics is such that he will pay for the land-use of many hundreds of small woodland and grassland animals. For this they (and we, as their friends) can be thankful. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Contradictory sentence
We now have a sentence that says: "Edwards refused to comment on the allegations, stating "I've responded, consistently, to these tabloid allegations by saying I don't respond to these lies and you know that."" Well, obviously in that sentence he does comment on the allegations - he says they are, quote, "lies." Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well if that quote is accurate then it clearly disproves the notion that he has not denied them, doesn't it? On the other hand, I can see how the wording could be improved.  I'll try this:
 * When questioned, Edwards responded by dismissing the allegations, stating "I've responded, consistently, to these tabloid allegations by saying I don't respond to these lies and you know that."
 * Ethereal (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes - I was focusing on the fact that the quote that was in our article did not correspond to the quote that appeared in the source. I 'd say we should not characterize his comment, just include it as: When questioned Edwards stated, "I've responded, consistently, to these tabloid allegations by saying I don't respond to these lies and you know that." Tvoz / talk 10:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * He's actually been very clever in his answer - he didn't say "these specific allegations are lies," he said "tabloid allegations generically are lies," while the use of the word "these" gives the appearance of having denied them. Thus he has the option in the future of saying either "I have denied these allegations" or of saying "I did not deny these specific allegations," depending on how much real dirt it turns out there is on him. Don't forget he was a very crafty lawyer before he became a politician. Sooner or later, however, it will all come out, as it always does. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from ad hominem attacks. Your personal opinion of Edwards has no place on Wikipedia.  If there are new developments in the mainstream media, I'll be in favour of including them.  I agree with Tvoz we shouldn't characterise his response too much to avoid a POV.  That is, as I have said earlier, the job of blogs and opinion pieces. Ethereal (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that calling someone a crafty lawyer was an ad hominem attack. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Background Information on IRS implications
Here's an article on possible IRS tax implications for John Edwards. I am not suggesting that it be used un our encyclopediac biography entry, but it provides legal insight on a topic that may come into play, so this is a heads-up on background for editors down the line. The subject: If secret payments are made to a mistress for child support, who pays the gift tax? -- or, conversely, if the secretly paid money was not a gift, has the recipient paid income tax? The author uses the case of Eliot Spitzer as a model for how a hypothetical Edwards tax case might unfold, if the allegations are true. It also makes use of Wikipedia (but not this specific page). Find it here: []. Cordially, 64.142.90.33 (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

College for Everyone Being Phased Out
The News & Observer reports that his College for Everyone program is being pulled. Since the program is specifically mentioned on the page, we should look at adding information about this as well.Cjbreisch (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Main article is locked off and inaccurate. Can some Editor take care of this? http://www.newsobserver.com/news/higher_education/story/1160097.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.227.99 (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

His Wife is Dying of Terminal Cancer
I'm a little surprised and somewhat shocked that no-one has even considered the fact that his wife is dying of terminal cancer. A search for the word wife on this page came up empty. Those foaming at the mouth in the news and blogosphere to see some blood never even mention this. Spouses fooling around is as old as human-kind, a personal matter, and not news. Let's all have some compassion for Elizabeth Edwards, get out of the gutter, and focus on something actually important - there is no shortage and the world needs your productive help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reliablesources (talk • contribs) 11:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, protecting Elizabeth is one argument for suppressing the truth. Not a very good one, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.185.67 (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think "make sure you don't hurt anyone's feelings" is a great standard for Wikipedia to use. Lots of things are true, noteworthy, and encyclopedic, and still make some people feel bad. -- Narsil (talk) 00:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia moves the MSM (shouldn't it be the other way around?)
Interesting speculation that the addition of the allegations may be moving the U.S. MSM to report on this: Aaron Barnhart article. Now we have a national U.S. MSM source: McClatchey report. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 20:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fascinating...wow. I'm glad we took this seriously. Kelly  hi! 20:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The same McClatchey journalist has another article Birth certificate of child linked to Edwards lists no father (Edit: Similar story from the NBC station in NC ) which could be useful in the future. Joshdboz (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are birth certificates public in CA? I thought those things didn't become public until some time had passed? DiggyG (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, these sources show precisely why were right to be careful and not include the information until it was clear the story was widespread in the MSM Nil Einne (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Father not named on birth certificate
We are now informed by a reliable source that the baby's birth certificate does not name the father. This seems noteworthy given the earlier claim that the baby's father was Andrew Young. It's difficult to imagine how it is in the baby's best interest to omit this information. It certainly reflects on the credibility of this earlier claim. Is there a good reason why it should not be included? Ronnotel (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is. It's not really supportive of any of the possible explanations. Young is married - it's got to be pretty common for married men to not want their names on the birth certificates of children fathered outside of their marriage. Or maybe she's the one that doesn't want the father named. Or maybe she doesn't actually know who the father is... it's not significant enough to be added, IMO. DiggyG (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a good catch, Ronnotel, but i support DiggyG's thinking. Our role here is not to write an investigative piece. Mentioning the baby's not having a listed father on the birth certificate would make better sense on a page on Rielle Hunter (Lisa Druck), along with a brief description of her claim that Andrew Young was the father, taken from "reliable sources."


 * Until that foundation is laid, i suggest we focus on Edwards's second round of press-ducking, adding something very brief along the lines of, "On [date], after this story made national headlines, Edwards was again approached by reporters, but refused to talk to them. [citing WCNC and the Charlotte Observes] 64.142.90.33 (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But there isn't a page for Rielle Hunter; apparently one existed but was deleted. Arguably, the only reason she would pass WP:NOTE is the alleged relationship with Edwards.  So we're full circle.72.128.16.243 (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't need to include every micro-development in this story reported by the media. If we were to do so, then the pages on John McCain and Barack Obama would easily be 10 times its current length.  Let's stick to significant developments. Ethereal (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To be consistent (and avoid charges of partisanship), shouldn't we apply the same standards as were used for David_Vitter and Larry_Craig? Ronnotel (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You appeared to have left off your list Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal, Bill Clinton, William J. Jefferson, Lewinsky scandal. Did you forget White House travel office controversy, White House FBI files controversy, or Chappaquiddick incident? I could go on and on. Or are you arguing that consistency means giving as much information as the Republican Vitter (with a hundred times more MSM coverage) because Edwards is a Democrat? Or do you mean that every time partisan criticism arises (it comes equally from the left as the right), Wikipedia needs to "correct" itself?


 * You consider these new developments significant and worthy of addition. The most productive way to proceed in these matters is to give your reasons, suggest the text, and then we can discuss, amend and decide. Let's put aside implied partisan criticisms at this point ("we should include this because other pages do") and justify the changes of and by themselves. It really works best that way. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 17:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

How about:

The child's mother, Rielle Hunter, and a former campaign assistant to John Edwards, Andrew Young, had both claimed in December 2007 that Young was the father. The birth certificate, issued in February 2008, does not name the father.

Justification: These facts may be innocuous. However, failing to the list father on the birth certificate, when Mr. Young has already admitted paternity, is open to a simpler and more likely explanation that Ms. Hunter wanted to avoid filing a false document. Note that the text makes no such accusation, but simply enables the reader to draw their own conclusion from the available, reliably-source facts.

Ronnotel (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would suggest these changes: In July 2008, several news media outlets speculated that Edwards' chances for the vice presidency were harmed by allegations published in The National Enquirer that he had fathered a child outside his marriage, and that he had recently visited the child's mother at the Hilton Hotel in Beverly Hills, California.[59][60][61] When questioned, Edwards stated "I've responded, consistently, to these tabloid allegations by saying I don't respond to these lies and you know that."[62] He subsequently has avoided press contact. McClatchy Newspapers reported that the child's birth certificate doesn't identify the father even though an Edwards' aide had earlier claimed paternity.


 * I'd like to give this several hours to allow comments before adding. I agree with your arguments, just a bit less detail -- the source will flesh that out. Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 17:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I added in three additional references: the PDF of the birth certificate, The Raleigh Telegram and The Mercury News. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 18:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't use the Mercury News source -- it is the same article as the McClatchy source. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 19:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Ronnotel (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with this too. The McClatchy citation need not be in the text, but placing it there does visually balance out the National Enquirer portion of the story, by showing a "relaiable sources" angle as well as a "tabloid" angle. By the way, i know that speculation is not our role, but i would like to say that Ronnotel makes a convincing case that "Hunter wanted to avoid filing a false document." Again, time will tell. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned that this whole thing may be starting to gain undue weight and possibly sound biased. Ms. Hunter chose not to put the father's name on her child's birth certificate. Speculating, or implying, a reason for her decision (here by the use of "even though") is outside the purvue of Wikipedia's mission. Additionally, the fact that the child is mentioned directly after the speculation that Edwards may have a child certainly implies that the child being discussed is in fact his. Macduff (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is a concern. However, McClatchy is a reputable reliable source and found this a significant development. This section relies on this from the source:"But the space for the name of the father is blank, even though the child was born more than two months after Hunter identified Andrew Young, Edwards' campaign finance director, as the father.... [emphasis added]" This is one of the reasons it is important to attribute this to McClatchy to avoid a POV problem. It is written in a neutral tone of voice without excessive detail that would cause undue weight problems. Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 01:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Additionally, I agree that the source is making the suggestion that this is evidence that it possibly could be his child. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 01:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to include minutiae and tabloid-style developments of this sort of nature. This is an encyclopedic article about John Edwards, not a coatrack. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources are not tabloids, they're mainstream reliable sources. I would disagree with the coatrack claim on this. Kelly  hi! 01:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure how this is a coatrack -- could you please explain? &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 01:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject, a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias." To make it balanced, one would have to include the explanations by Hunter and Young and their attorneys as to why no father was named, which puts them on the defensive and really has no place in a bio of John Edwards either; making the section even more of a coatrack.  The real subject matter at hand here is the effect this is having on Edwards' shot at being a running mate. NPR merely states, "he has been the subject of unflattering rumors about his private life" which is more on target. Macduff (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is the definition of a coatrack. How is this article going out if its way to find facts that support a particular bias?


 * If you feel that the information is inadequate, what wording do you recommend that would make it more balanced and complete?


 * I've made a request on Blaxthos's talk page to please come and discuss this matter. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 02:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Would the addition of this satisfy your concerns for balance?"The mother's attorney responded that it 'was a personal matter'." &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 02:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, The edit is well referenced. I dont see how it violates WP:COAT. I also think the mother's response is unnecessary. Dock Hi 02:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, I don't think it adds substantially to the section. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 02:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand how one can fail to understand WP:COATRACK, unless one has not actually read it. ;-) This is a textbook case of inserting unrelated information into a biographical article, especially when said information is included to cast some sort of speculation.  There can be no other possible intent of including this information except to fan speculation that Edwards might be the father.  With regards to the tabloid comment, please understand that I'm saying that this sort of speculation is tabloid gossipy journalism; don't misrepresent it as a claim that the sources are tabloid.  This situation is clearly outlined in WP:COATRACK, though we can go through another RFC if necessary.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont think it is unrelated information (It is very much related to John Edwards). We are also not gossiping some unreported gaffe, we are just writing what was written in a reliable source.  Dock Hi 03:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Docku - it's directly related to the article subject, is notable, and the connection is made by the reliable sources, not by us. Kelly  hi! 03:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To Blaxthos: Having read it, I don't see it. Could you point to which "Typical coatracks" is similar to this situation? Isn't your complaint with the source? We aren't fact picking but using a directly related article from a reliable source. I certainly understand your opinion that this is tabloid-like but the source found this to be significant. *We* aren't making any speculations but instead attributing an opinion to a reliable source. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 03:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

"Subsequently avoided" needs a cite
I believe that the sentence --

"He has subsequently avoided press contact."

-- needs a citation, and that you will find one in the Charlotte Observer, or elsewhere.

Also, as a long-time editor here, i strongly caution against the construction of indefinite time-frames like "He has subsequently avoided" bcause they must be rewritten continually lest they grow like moss on forgotten pages, looking dumb. I spend a lot of my time cleaning up other peoples' indefinite time frames and placing them in the definite past, and it is a thankless task that could easily be avoided by never using such formulations. A simple "He subsequently avoided ..." (with a cite) is sufficient. Cordially, cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Generally, the scope of a footnote is supposed to encompass all text since the previous note. In this case, the McClatchy and Richmond footnotes support this information. But because of the criticality of this section, I'll go ahead and replicate the notes so that there is no confusion.


 * I'm not as concerned about rewriting continuously given the attention this section will receive. The use of the particular tense is in lieu of the more cumbersome use of as of construction, more useful in cases when there isn't an expectation story development. The second this resolves (i.e., he makes a statement), this sentence will be changed. If this story dies, then I would agree with your recommendation. Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 22:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that in this case there will be a lot of poring over the story and foks will be actively updating it for the next few news cycles. My comment was meant in a generally helpful way, not as a critique of what is on the Edwards page right now. To recap: i have found plenty of once "hot" story pages mired in two-year-old or older indefinite tense quagmires which no grammar fanatic had ever cleaned up until i wandered by, so avoiding indefinite time-frames is just an idea i try to promote all over WIkipedia. Once you've cleaned up a few too many of these "since [date] he has not done such-and-so" pieces, you start to want to pre-empt the problem. Yes, as you noted, it is more cumbrous to write "as of [date] he had not done such-and-so" but that was not what i had in mind either, because, again, it sticks one in a fast-eroding time-frame. I prefer a definite date and a conclusive, non-negative past tense. "On [date] he did such-and-so." It can always been rewritten, but it will never become untrue. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. In this particular usage, it isn't an indefinite time-frame since it is the present tense (present perfect to be precise) which reflects the current state of the article. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 23:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

a

Request for comment: Undue weight
After reaching a consensus on including the National Enquirer accusations, many editors have incrementally added information extraneous to the subject of this biographical article. Direct information about John Edwards, especially reliably sourced information regarding the impact of the incident on his political career, is certainly appropriate. However, additional information about the event itself is clearly inappropriate in a biography about John Edwards. Information about other claims to paternity is at best only marginally relevant, but going so far as to note that there is no father listed on the birth certificate is inappropriate. It serves no purpose other than to fan speculation about Edwards, and is clearly an attempt to use the article as a coatrack to either insert off-topic information into the article, or to give authority to biased speculation (or both). In any case, it's not an issue of reliable sourcing, it's an issue of inappropriate information. WP:COATRACK covers the issue succinctly, and while it primarily discusses coatrack articles, the fundamental concept of using an article about a subject as a cover to include information about a different subject is just as valid. Such information should not be included, per WP:COATRACK, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOT. If the incident had its own article, it would be appropriate there, but not in a biography about Edwards. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting that the information (presumably you're talking about the birth certificate of the child) is unrelated. The sources directly link this to Edwards. I think you're misinterpreting WP:COATRACK here.  Kelly  hi! 03:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is that McClatchy Newspapers printed an article stating that the birth certificate has no father's name. They stated:"But the space for the name of the father is blank, even though the child was born more than two months after Hunter identified Andrew Young, Edwards' campaign finance director, as the father...." The article uses this summary:"McClatchy Newspapers reported that the child's birth certificate doesn't identify the father even though an Edwards' aide had earlier claimed paternity." I argue this is a fair, neutrally written summary of the McClatchy article. Blaxthos argues that information about the event itself is inappropriate but the section is titled "National Enquirer allegations" which is what is under discussion here. But this isn't a coatrack -- he explains that this is because the information is about a different subject than John Edwards. The article makes this connection to John Edwards. A coatrack article would use unrelated materials. I am guessing that he strings the other objections (BLP, NPOV, NOT) as corollaries of the coatrack objection. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 03:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that we are giving this alleged affair undue weight. Please see WP:TOPIC  I was hesitant to support the inclusion of the NE allegations simply because the main source is the NE and apart from Fox News which I repeat, could not verify the story independently.  But it seems now that we're jumping on every single news article from the mainstream press to see if it could somehow be included in this article.  I have said above that just because the source quoted is reliable doesn't mean that we should include it unless it's also significant.  If this were the standard applied, then Wikipedia would be nothing more than a storing house for online news reports.  This is a biographical article of him, not of the affair, and there is no evidence that the child is his, the allegation that he fathered a child outside his marriage cannot be corroborated by the mainstream press.  Now we're including the fact that the birth cert doesn't list the father; how is this related to John Edwards' biography unless the main allegations themselves have been corroborated independently by a reliable source? Ethereal (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Despite a journalist's "linking" this to Edwards, the information is not about Edwards, and is not appropriate for a biographical, encyclopedic treatment of a person. It's speculative gossip, and serves only one purpose:  to give undue weight to the idea that Edwards is lying.  This isn't an issue of sourcing -- We're not a newspaper, we don't gossip or speculate in biographical articles (or anywhere else).  There is nothing neutral about inserting information that has no purpose other than to imply that the subject is a lying adulterer.  Hope this clears up my position.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's clearer. Your argument certainly is substantial. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 03:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ethereal and Blaxthos. Giving undue weight to speculation designed to push a POV.  It read like a prosecuting lawyer's argument. Macduff (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I am not denying both Ethereal and Blaxthos make a good point. But my point is that when the article contains information about an alleged report of him having fathered a child, what is wrong in including a report from another source which claims that the same child doesnt have a father in his birth cirtificate. Well, it may be fanning speculation about Edwards, but we are not the ones who are doing it. McClatchy Newspapers will take the heat if they are falsely reporting. Dock Hi 03:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By including speculative information designed to imply that someone is lying absolutely makes us the ones fanning speculation. Simply claiming that someone else said it first is not justification.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, multiple mainstream sources have pushed this story - and by doing so we can therefore infer it is relevant and notable. Omitting the fact would be a white-wash. Ronnotel (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Relevance and notability are not the basis for objection, and has nothing to do with the arguments presented above. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To Macduff: Well, it's not an undue weight issue, per se -- the argument isn't to make it shorter or that this is a fringe theory. Nor is a a POV issue since we are attributing the connection. We aren't speculating, we aren't gossiping, we are attributing. From what I took from Blaxthos' argument is that this is a BLP issue, pure and simple, a "do no harm" problem because the article is clearly making the implication that this is evidence that he may be the father (I don't know if I would use the more hyperbolic characterization of "lying adulterer, but I get the point). And under the DNH doctrine, this would be a problematic addition. I am becoming convinced that that is the correct position. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 04:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You know when omitting it would be considered "whitewashing"? When the mainstream media corroborates the alleged Edwards affair.  Until this is done, the fact that the birth certificate of a recently born child doesn't have the father's name bears no relevance to his biography.  McClatchy can speculate on this affair as much as they want; they are not bound to follow Wikipdia's standards and guidelines. Ethereal (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To Ronnotel: This has been picked up, so far, only in the McClathcy chain of newspapers and Fox News. Best not to user the term "white-wash" as that may not strike some as productive and others maybe as uncivil. These are editorial decisions, just as it was an editorial decision to include the details (was that a black-wash?). Arguing for inclusion based on Wikipedia standards is typically the most effective approach. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 04:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Minor correction - the birth certificate angle is also being reported by Editor & Publisher and United Press International. Kelly  hi! 04:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Kelly, for noting that there are several MSM sources for the birth certificate story, not just the McClatchy chain of newspapers. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Which is speculative here and which is already included in the article; If he has fathered a child or the child has no father in the birth certificate? I would be more sure about reading what is written on a birth certificate. Dock Hi 04:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct: The lack of the father's name is a verifiable fact. But that this should be used as evidence that he is the father is the speculation that does harm. Whether he is the father or not is still to be established. Once that is done, then this would be an important piece of the back story. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 04:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if that is the criteria, we should then remove the speculation from The National Enquirer as well. Dock Hi 04:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The consensus was that the DNH issue was trumped by others. Here, the issue is the somewhat tenuous inference we are inviting the reader to make -- clearly the one intended by the article but may not rise to the level to trump DNH. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 04:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: how the creation of a Rielle Hunter bio might diffuse these charges of coatracking and undue weight:


 * I would again like to note that as of today there is no Rielle Hunter bio and to suggest again that if there were, we would have a path out of this coatrack issue and we could also alleviate the undue weight issue on the Edwards bio.


 * I propose the creation of a short biographical article on Hunter, stating her background aand noting her work for the Edwards campaign. Also included, if citable and sourced, would be mention of the roman a clef in which she appears as a character named Allison Poole, as this adds to her notability. The NE allegations of her affair with Edwards would also be notable and citable, and it would be within the scope of the bio to cite MSM speculations about the meaning of the lack of a father's name on the birth certificate of her child. Her bio would naturally be linked to the Edwards article and, in return, the Edwards article would legitimately be linked to her bio.


 * Comments welcomed ... cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As seen at Deletion review/Log/2008 July 31, recreation of an article for Ms. Hunter presents its own set of problems. --Allen3 talk 12:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To 64: I don't believe that Blaxthos has made a convincing argument that this sentence is a coatrack case. None of the coatrack examples in the essay appear to apply here -- if this sentence promotes a bias, then it is a balance problem and not a coatrack which is designed for a specific situation (possibly a Hunter article). I'm unsure how your idea would solve this particular concern -- possibly your proposal would best be suggested as a separate topic? I also remain unconvinced that this is an undue weight problem -- a single, neutrally written sentence properly attributed poses no weight problems unless we define a weight problem as the existence of a single purportedly unbalanced statement which, again, isn't in UNDUE's purview -- that's a different issue entirely. If the sentence is unbalanced, that is easily repaired by adding in balance. How would your proposal decrease the current text? Or possibly you are suggesting this as a preemptive move to handle future possible developments? Nor is this a POV issue -- WP:NPOV allows for attributed viewpoints (it's not no-POV, just neutral-POV). The issue is: do we as editors believe that this assertion violates the WP:HARM doctrine? Does it pass the inclusion test? Well, I didn't think the original NE allegations passed the test (unlike all other editors except for Tvos, including MacDuff and, arguably, by his absence Blaxthos -- I preferred how NPR handled it) so I'm equally unconvinced this does. I do believe it passes the test of whether this is widely known (it's in the reputable McClatchy chain and Fox News, better sources than the U.K. references in fact -- the other two sources (E&P and UPI) are much less significant). I do have a problem inviting the Wikipedia reader to make the inference that the article is inviting because we are governed by WP:BLP whereas the paper is ultimately constrained only by legal concerns. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 12:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Blaxthos. This is a WP:COAT issue.  The fundamental aspect of coat (which is not always interpreted correctly) is to remove information only partially related.  While the article itself is not a coatrack, by including the statement that the father was not listed on the birth certificate, we are making an arguement that strengthens the belief that Edwards is the father.  In a sense it is a form of OR in that by including as much ancilary information as possible the overall impression is that Edwards is the father regardless of what has actually been proven.  While I agree that mention of the scandal is worthy of inclusion, unless verifiable proof comes forth, any insinuation that Edwards is the father is in violation of several policies, including WP:COAT (for this source) WP:UNDUE WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH.  Arzel (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It does not violate any of the policies mentioned. According to WP:COAT, a coattrack article is an article which starts discussing about a subject and deviates from the subject and dedicates majority of the article in discussion of an unfavourable incidence in the subject's life. In this case, it can be considered in violation of WP:COAT only if the article dedicates 5 sentences about John Edwards and the rest of the article about the incidence about his alleged affair.  Therefore, because the contentious section or sentence in this case is just a few words in an article which is made of thousands of words, it is clearly not in violation of WP:COAT. According to WP:UNDUE, we should give equal weightage to different viewpoints published in different reliable sources and the weightage should be in proportion to the prominence of the sources. WP:UNDUE comes into play only when there are more than one reliable source reporting contradictopry opinions. Since, we have only one or two sources reporting only one point of view (absence of father's name in the birth certificate), WP:UNDUE doesnt even come into play. We will need to worry about WP:UNDUE if there is another reliable source which reported that the birth certificate contained a father's name (contradictory to each other). WP:SYNTH deals with synthesis of a new fact by putting together incidences from different sources. I dont even know why this policy issue was raised here, unless to make us waste our time defending it. Since none of the above policies are not violated, it does not violate WP:BLP as well.  Dock Hi 15:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I made a rough calculation. Excluding references, headers, images, See also section and the whole electoral history section, the article contains more than 4000 words. Of these, only about 80 words are dedicated to The National Enquirer allegeations. I cant see how it violates WP:COAT. Dock Hi 16:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't think the inclusion of this info violates the COATRACK guideline. That's because coatrack refers to inclusion of information for the sole purpose of discussing or including more content only tangentially related to the original content added. But I'm not in favour of including this particular development, for the reasons I outlined above, that because the story of a child not having a father listed on its birth cert has no relation to John Edwards pending a mainstream news report independently corroborating the NE allegations, and it gives undue weight to the viewpoint that Edwards had fathered a child outside his marriage.Ethereal (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * good point. Dock Hi 16:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree that it's an WP:NOR or WP:SYNTH -- those both are cases where the editor, independent of a reliable source, contrives an argument. Here we have a reliable source making this connotation; we're not tossing together multiple sources to synthesize a result. It's not WP:COAT (I am capable of interpreting correctly and have seen hundreds of times when it has been applied correctly and several hundreds when it hasn't) for the reasons I indicated earlier. We're acting like prosecutors who toss in a batch of indictments hoping one will stick. ;-) I agree with Ethereal that including the text is a problem, less because of undue weight (you are arguing for zero weight whereas undue weight addresses balance). The article is making the insinuation. The article is a valid reliable source. The sentence attributes said insinuation to the source. This sentence arguably is not about John Edwards (thought the source makes it so, not us) and otherwise violates no other policy/guideline except for WP:BLP which trumps all other policies. Does this sentence pass the inclusion test? It passes the "widely known" test, more so than the original allegations, I would argue, as measured by the quality of the sources. Is its exclusion justified by the "do no harm" doctrine? &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 17:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Do No Harm is the only way that we can exclude it. However, I wonder why we should? Aren't people responsible for their own actions? Dock Hi 18:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * DNH isn't meant to never do harm, i.e., never to report negative things, by no means. It is meant to be a guide, both legal and ethical, to ask if a particular assertion goes beyond its boundary. We are adding in the clear implication that this is evidence that Edwards is possibly the father. That is the McClatchy take. Does its verifiability trump the DNH in this case? Say DNA evidence proves that he is the father, then clearly DNH is out the window. The birth certificate evidence is not nearly as strong, more an insinuation than direct evidence. This is a value judgment, not a clear cut case of this policy or that. As with the addition of the allegations, the decision to include will rely on consensus. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 18:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, undue weight can also results in zero weight. As it is the whole issue is insinuation and extrapolation of given events.  Just because the article doesn't outright say that Edwards is the father because there was no father listed, it is quite clear that this is the intent.  Now, editors familiar with me consider me to be a FNC fanboy and appolgist regarding conservatives and republicans, so my objection to this is clearly not a partisan point of view.  That said this is in violation of several WP policies.  Arzel (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would never assume you had partisan motivations; it's irrelevant nonetheless.  We're here as encyclopedists. Won't quibble on how undue weight applies to zero weight, I agree that the insinuation here raises a do-no-harm issue. I'm just unconvinced that it violates several other policies for the reasons I outlined. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 19:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Where were you when there was a survey asking for comment about inclusion below? It snowballed its way in, a real lowering of the bar of including these tabloid speculations. I suspect it was the external partisan pressure that kept BLP editors away. As of today, McClatchy Newspapers are also covering this. Why do you think the recentism tag is needed? Do you think this event is dominating the article? &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 04:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Responding below where it should have been. &#124;EBY&#124; (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

McClatchy reference unrelated to sentence?
Arzel deleted the McClatchy reference with the edit summary "ref not related to statement". Here is the sentence:"He subsequently avoided contact with the press." Here is the source's relationship:"On Wednesday, Edwards declined to answer questions about the allegations. About a dozen reporters and photojournalists attended a speech Edwards gave to an AARP Foundation symposium on poverty and aging in Washington. Afterward, he avoided waiting reporters, exiting through a side area used by the kitchen staff at Washington's historic Hotel Monaco. Edwards emerged near the rear of the hotel with two men. When approached by a reporter, Edwards said, 'Can't do it now, I'm sorry' and quickly walked past. Asked about the Beverly Hilton, Edwards said 'sorry' and got into a waiting car with the other men. Asked twice more to address the Enquirer story, Edwards was silent until the car doors closed." How, exactly, is this unrelated?

As an aside, it's a quibble, but Arzel deleted the above sentence citing WP:CRYSTAL with the edit summary "Not written in historical perspective WP:CRYSTAL" which confuses me. Could you please explain why the use of the present tense is excluded by CRYSTAL which is about future events? I typically am less moved by policy citation than an explanation of why the policy is applicable in this case. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 18:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the situation is still ongoing, and quite recent, to say that he will continue to avoid the issue. If in the future it is apparent that he continued to avoid the issue then it would be apt to add.  As it is the sentence adds little to the overall story, and appears to be used primarily to include the reference which indicates that there was no father listed, and the the article itself is devoted to that aspect.  The second reference makes less of an insinuation and provides the same information.  The reword of the statement (while better suited for historical perspective) should probably still be removed as it adds little to the story given it is a current event.  Lets not talk around the issue.  The McClatchy source is being use to try to make a logical link that Edwards is the father.  Leave the gossip and innuendo for the Enquirer and other such publications.  Arzel (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, the tense is a quibble -- it wasn't saying he would continue to avoid the issue and CRYSTAL has nothing to do with it.


 * The second reference makes the same insinuations -- please explain otherwise. Should I quote it? The Richmond Telegraph is an inferior source in that it is a low low circulation local paper (according to Craigslist, you can write a story for it for $10) vs. the mainstream and national McClatchy. This isn't about the birth certificate issue. Nor am I attempting to add in "gossip" etc. If I'm getting the gist of your real intent, you want to exclude the McClatchy source and your argument that it was unrelated to the sentence was, what? &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 18:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is CYRSTAL because it implies future intent for an ongoing issue, and extrapolation of current events. And by your latest admission about the Richmond Telegraph it probably is not even an RS if you can self-publish.  It has only been a few days since this event happened, to say write that he has not commented is a bit premature to say the least.  Thus I am removing the entire section again.  Give the issue some time to resolve itself.  Arzel (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Arzel you are completely wrong. Bonobonobo (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To Arzel: Wouldn't you prefer discussing it here rather than edit warring? Apparently not. And now you are citing SYNTH about a factual statement. You are a champ at citing policy but less convincing on how they apply.


 * I'll defer to you that you can infer from a statement that he is avoiding press content has future tense implication. I don't see it but clearly you do. Grammar says otherwise. The Telegraph isn't self-publishing, sorry I was unclear. It pays its writers $10/article. But it isn't a good source, I agree. The sentence that he has "subsequently avoided contact with the press" is entirely valid and supported by the reliable source. I could add in several more if that would help it. This isn't gossip, speculation or anything else. The above quote from the source establishes this statement of fact. Is your goal to exclude this source by any means necessary? &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 18:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess we will just have to disagree about the interpretation of some of the policies. Looking at just the issue at hand, it appears to me that the only reason for the McClatchy reference is to shoehorn the belief that Edwards is the father because no father was listed on the birth certificate (the title says it all).  Since in the previous sentence his response to the media questions was that he doesn't respond to these kinds of lies, to have a second sentence saying he has avoided the media on this issue is redundant, so I must assume that the only purpose is to make use of the McClatchy neither reference adds anything to the article, hence the aspect of WP:COAT, throw as much as possible on the fire and hope something burns.  The intent is also clear, trying to insinuate that Edwards is the father, hence WP:SYNTH.  As for the grammer, it is not written in a historical perspective.  He had already stated his response to the allegations on the 23rd of July, the following wednesday when asked again he had no comment (from McClatchy).  The Telegraph reported the same story.  Neither source adds anything to the article and they are redundant, and unless this story is over, the sentence is written as a current event, thus WP:CRYSTAL.  Although I don't think it belongs at all here is a compromise written in correct past tense with the source with the least contencious title.  Arzel (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When questioned again a week later, Edwards had no comment. [Telegraph ref]


 * I can understand why you make these assumptions, but it contradicts assuming the good faith of fellow editors. But since you raised the idea, let me assure you that it is not my intent to "shoehorn" "throw fire", or "try to insinuate that he is the father". In fact, if you note my previous opposition to the sentence that makes mention of the birth certificate, I would think you could more easily assume good faith on my part. Possibly not. All I'm arguing for here is this sentence:"He subsequently avoided contact with the press." I support the use of the McClatchy reference because it is the best source on this to date -- in fact, better than most of the references used for this section which use far worse titles ("love child", "mistress", "sleaze", "golden boy"!!). This source should replace the U.K sources used in the previous sentence for just this reason. The quote from McClatchy above clearly supports this sentence -- far superior to the Telegraph reference which is not a mainstream paper. I get now your concern -- it's with the title of this solid reference. I do not see anywhere in any policy, guideline or essay that supports that position. I can find hundreds upon hundreds of reference titles that aren't related to the sourced sentence and may in fact include information that is not a candidate for inclusion. There is no question that the McClatchy source is a solid source -- reliable, mainstream, reputation for accuracy and fact checking (they were the ones who did decent pre-war Iraq coverage).  More reliable you will be hard to find (among MSM, that is).


 * This sentence is not redundant to his previous (understandable) disdain for comment. This is a newer and ongoing element.


 * Again, I'm confused about your citation for CRYSTAL. You are absolutely correct: this is written as a current event. CRYSTAL has nothing to do about writing current events. In fact, current event writing is one of the critical aspects of Wikipedia. You would lose a huge chunk of Wikipedia additions if writing about current events was precluded. It isn't. Use of the present perfect tense ("he has subsequently avoided") is both accurate and useful. But, to avoid quibbling, we now have the past tense ("he subsequently avoided"). Neither the past nor the present tense imply future activity -- otherwise, if both do, then every sentence has within it a future implication. Again, we're debating grammar here. &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 21:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc -- The proposed addition is improper for many reasons. First of all, there is no proof that the two are related. Secondly, the phrase "has avoided" implies factual knowledge (which the accuser can not know). Finally, just like the discussion above, the only purpose it serves is to try and introduce the idea that he is actively avoiding the press (of which there is no evidence). The statement runs afoul of the same policies as I detail in the undue weight RFC above, and should be excluded for the same reason. It adds nothing beyond the already-stated fact that Edwards has no comment, and is a subtle attempt at implying that he's lying. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Which two are related? "has avoided" = "Afterward, he avoided waiting reporters, exiting through a side area used by the kitchen staff at Washington's historic Hotel Monaco. Edwards emerged near the rear of the hotel with two men. When approached by a reporter, Edwards said, 'Can't do it now, I'm sorry' and quickly walked past. Asked about the Beverly Hilton, Edwards said 'sorry' and got into a waiting car with the other men. Asked twice more to address the Enquirer story, Edwards was silent until the car doors closed." This isn't an undue weight for the reasons I outlined above even if you declare it so. (I declare, therefore it is?). The problem with the birth certificate was certainly not an undue weight problem -- you stretch its application beyond its intent. Who exactly is the "accuser" here? The journalist? Really? It is your point-of-view that this implies he is lying but which part of "avoiding the press" implies he is lying? He has avoided the press. That is well established and reliably sourced. I understand you don't want it but why then did you approve (by inaction) the much more poorly sourced NE allegations (the U.K. cites were crap)? &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 02:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant. If we're referring simply to the fact that, on the date alleged by the National Enquirer, Edwards avoided the press, that seems okay.  It was my feeling that one was attempting to say that he has avoided the press since the incident, which would be more speculative innuendo (in which case my comment above would be applicable).  Sorry if I misunderstood (I think I may have misread your text).  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It was reported in various sources that Edwards hid in the restroom on the date alleged by the NE, and that he also avoided reporters and their questions on one or two other instances after that date. Macduff (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To Blaxthos: Do you think the topic is whether the McClatchy reference is related to the sentence? I'm at a loss why we are discussing this under this heading. What was misleading about my previous heading? Aren't we talking about removing the sentence? Ack, I be dizzy. ;-)


 * McClatchy states that Edwards has avoided the press since the original hotel incident. As they state, when at the AARP Foundation symposium last Wednesday (which is since), he did avoid the press as the above quotation states. Who is this accuser? How is it "speculative innuendo" that Edwards avoided the press? It's in black and white, as it were. Here:"On Wednesday ... [a]bout a dozen reporters and photojournalists attended a speech Edwards gave to an AARP Foundation symposium on poverty and aging in Washington. Afterward, he avoided waiting reporters, exiting through a side area used by the kitchen staff at Washington's historic Hotel Monaco. Edwards emerged near the rear of the hotel with two men. When approached by a reporter, Edwards said, 'Can't do it now, I'm sorry' and quickly walked past. Asked about the Beverly Hilton, Edwards said 'sorry' and got into a waiting car with the other men. Asked twice more to address the Enquirer story, Edwards was silent until the car doors closed." &#8756; Therefore | cogito·sum 03:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, I point you to the logical fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc. Politicians often use clandestine exits to avoid the press, and there is no way to know Edwards' motivation in doing so.  Since the section is about a specific date (the National Enquirer accusation) then a statement of his avoidance on that date is germane and could (should?) be included.  However, including accusations of avoidance on other days within this section is an attempt to link the two when there is no reason other than spin and conjecture.  Hope this clears things up.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm still confused why this is under this topic heading, but not a biggie if you prefer it here.


 * It clears up your position, certainly. However, your complaint is with the source. The source states that he avoided the press after his initial disdain for comment. The source found this significant. If you feel the source is spinning and conjecturing, I would recommend you contact them and have them withdraw the statement. You are saying that a reliable journalist is an accuser but how is your POV relevant? That is your characterization, your point-of-view. I don't see it that way. I see a reliable source report on an event relevant to this paragraph. First he disdained from comment, now he avoids further contact with the press. This doesn't do him harm that would be covered by BLP. It's reliable, verified, written in a neutral tone of voice. Are you trying to delete the reference from the article entirely as Arazel is arguing and hence why this discussion fits here? &#8756; Therefore / cogito·sum 04:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And please explain how "He subsequently avoided contact with the press" implies he's lying. &#8756; Therefore / cogito·sum 04:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Do we typically mention in encyclopedia articles when the subject of the article does and does not talk to the press? Add it attributes significance to the statement, hinting that there is some notable reason he would not speak to the press. The implication is clear. Gamaliel (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is? &#8756; Therefore / cogito·sum 04:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is important enough to mention that he did not talk to the press, then that says there is an important reason we mention it and that he did not speak to them. Given the context of the statement, the implication is clear - he has something to hide. Gamaliel (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Was that what the source was getting at? &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 04:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made a compromise edit, but I tell you - it's a nightmare that Wikipedia has lent any legitimacy to something that currently only Fox News and the National Enquirer are storming over. I also tagged it because it looks like this is gonna stay a hot potato. &#124;EBY&#124; (talk) 04:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Where were you when there was a survey asking for comment about inclusion above? It snowballed its way in, a real lowering of the bar by including these tabloid speculations. I suspect it was the external partisan pressure that kept BLP editors away. As of today, McClatchy Newspapers are also covering this. Why do you think the recentism tag is needed? Do you think this event is dominating the article? &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 04:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been here, all along. As a BLP editor who concedes to no partisianship, I can say that my boldness was prompted by the narrowing of the gap in this debate. &#124;EBY&#124; (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Mine was a rhetorical statement and certainly not directed at you. Talk:John Edwards slipped these allegations in to my surprise -- I really would have thought that more BLP editors would have participated in the other alternatives. As for your edit, I agree that it is a reasonable alternative. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 05:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In BLPs, the emphasis is always on removing disputed and contentious material, not for the material to remain until discussion is concluded. There is no consensus for including this material and thus I am perfectly free to remove it, despite what your edit summaries claim. Gamaliel (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't an sort of serious BLP issue -- I've begun discussion below. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 15:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Implying that the subject of the article is lying is in fact a serious BLP issue and precisely the sort of thing our policies like NPOV, BLP, UNDUE, etc. were designed to prevent. Gamaliel (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion is now below where I'm asking you to defend your string of claims -- citing policy is one skill set, defending it, another. I've asked (now twice thrice) was that the intent of the source to imply he was lying? &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 15:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * By "our policies" I have faith that you don't think me a newbie -- I've been around long enough to remember the days when you steadfastly battled to keep in the rumors about Joe Scarborough and the death of an employee. It is satisfying to see that your views on BLP have evolved closer to the project's. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 17:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, you are unpleasant. So far you've called me out repeatedly because I didn't reply to your incessant talk messages fast enough, opened up multiple sections on the talk page when one would do, removed a NPOV tag a little over 24 hours after it was placed, and now dredged up a years old and particularly nasty conflict and mischaracterized it to make me look like I was supporting "rumors" (when, for the record, as you must know, I supported including an incident which received coverage from plenty of reliable sources) and have since changed my views, and implied that I am not a supporter of the core policy of BLP and a supporter of using Wikipedia as a forum for "rumors" (again, for the record, my work with BLPs and the BLP noticeboard obviously shows your innuendo to be false, regardless of your attempt to take one editing conflict and portray it in an unseemly light). The section in question will be rewritten soon enough when events change, so I can return to this page then, but until that happens, I think I will spare myself the experience of participating here.  I hope for the sake of other editors here you take a less combative tack to your interactions with them. Gamaliel (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am truly satisfied that you have changed -- haven't we all? The Scarborough section makes clear the implication that he may have murdered an employee, using local N. Florida newspaper reports. It says that Michael Moore believed in the rumors. I wonder what Michael Savage thinks of this Edwards silliness? You fought tooth and nail for a more extensive version. Because your current views have obviously evolved (and that is obvious both, as you said, on the BLP noticeboard and your efforts here to delete a neutral statement about his lack of comment), why don't you push for the removal now of the Scarborough allegations which are many times more scurrilous than an extra-marital affair? Why do you let stand the guilt-by-association on Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism?


 * I make no apologies for removing the NPOV tag per NPOVD and did invite anyone who disagreed to revert. My good intentions were to remove a tag that was drawing unnecessary attention to this section. After 24 hours of your only involvment being to edit-war unilaterally and complaining that I was requesting a speedy resolution, I felt justified. Feel free to revert and discuss.


 * I feel within bounds to move a discussion from one thread to another when the thread topic changes.


 * I believe that my comments on this page, while you may call them "incessant", have been to keep things organized and focused. Beyond that role, I've defended my positions and certainly that will be unpleasant to some. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 20:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It was obviously a mistake to respond to you at all, because you have just upped the ante by trolling through my edit history and presenting more editing conflicts out of context attempting to make me look bad. But that's just defending your positions, isn't it?  I'm not going to respond to this crap because this talk page isn't the place for it, I shouldn't have to respond to random, unrelated incidents, and you are just trolling. Since I made the mistake of escalating it, I'm just going to let it drop, but I will warn you against engaging in this type of "defense" against other users.  Stick solely to the content of the article in the future. Gamaliel (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I have to agree with Gamaliel here... the theatrics of Therefore has risen to the point of lunacy here. Opening multiple talk pages (with or without the intent) creates convoluted and unmanageable discussions; ad hominem attacks and attempts to bring up past events that have zero validity here; rapid-fire responses to editors without giving the chance to reply; inserting misleading headers to other editors' comments; mischaracterizations and strawman arguments; critiquing other editors' actions and positions on their talk pages; completely bypassing the points raised in an attempt to redefine the argument... these are all completely unacceptable behaviors that shows a serious lack of respect of others' opinions. Someone above communicated surprise that more editors haven't participated in the discussion; the prospect of having to put up with this sort of bullshit is exactly why few editors are willing to contribute to the discussion here. Metaphorically speaking (don't take out of context): There is no point fighting with a pig; everyone gets dirty and the pig likes it.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thusly, chastised. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 22:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Recentism Tag/N.E. Controversy
This section is undergoing rapid fire change (both edits and reverts) in reaction to unfolding current events. A scan of both the page editing history as well as this talk page both bely it, and Wikipedia's response to this issue even made outside press notice, highlighting it even further. Is the tag needed? Heck, if I could have built the tag with 20-point type and dancing bears on it, I would have. &#124;EBY&#124; (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Color me obtuse, but the recentism tag is for the case when an article (not the talk page) becomes "overburdened" with documenting controversy; it warns not to allow an event to dominate a page, certainly not the case here. What is your purpose for the addition? Is it to critique that this is a current event? Isn't this contradicted by"It would greatly weaken the encyclopedia project if article development about ongoing events were discouraged in a campaign against so-called 'recentism'." Would you have added this to (say) Virginia Tech massacre when it was constantly updated? Is the intent to signal a desire to remove this material? I'm a little lost here. Thanks! &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 05:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the tag. It is getting crazy here. I guess people should take a break and have a fresh look at the article a couple of days later. Dock Hi 05:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The article seems to be fairly stable. We should certainly keep a fresh eye on the page and certainly if no other developments occur, then we need to rethink this paragraph, as will be the case if they do occur. I just don't understand the purpose of the tag and am a believer in including them judiciously according to their intended use. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 05:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, given that what we know of the affair has only emerged recently, it's inevitable that the section would be slanted towards recent events, so the tag is largely redundant. The "outside press" refers to blogs, not actual mainstream media coverage, and we all know Wikipedia's stance on blogs. Ethereal (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Recentivism tag was born of an essay (Recentism) meant to caution editors against weighting an overall article too much towards a current event - an encyclopedia is not a newspaper, and should be written with the long-term in view. Although I disagree with Therefore on the stability of this section, the comment prompted a memory and I just revisited the Recentism essay to find the words; It would greatly weaken the encyclopedia project if article development about ongoing events were discouraged in a campaign against so-called "recentism". While I think the sheer number of edits and reverts has certainly brought undue attention to a very iffy, validity-wise, subtopic - the debate that is going on here has resulted so far in a pretty strong paragraph and I would never want to get in the way of that process. I retract the tag. My guess is that another editor will reapply it, when and if the time returns. &#124;EBY&#124; (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the revert. Where is it said (anymore) that Wikipedia isn't a newspaper with the implication that Wikipedia doesn't cover current events? The proscription is Wikipedia isn't journalism meaning we aren't journalists reporting directly on breaking news, which is governed by WP:NOR. It then follows up with:"Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recent verified information." This notion that Wikipedia doesn't report on current events is inaccurate. The recentism tag, as its use documentation makes clear, is designed for the particular case when a recent event begins to dominate the article. The current event tag is designed for the situation when hundreds of editors are simultaneously editing a current event. Neither is the case here. My point that the page is "fairly stable", possibly better put as "relatively stable", since the consensus paragraph addition, there have only been a handful of additions/deletions. An active talk page doesn't reflect instability, just the opposite I would say, when the discussion has been civil. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 14:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Rielle Hunter page helpful?
I have attempted to start a Rielle Hunter page. Alas, doing so is currently blocked and the consensus seems to be that it should stay that way. I bring this up here because I think that the issues are related, as discussed above. First, Hunter is only notable because of her connection, if any, to Edwards. If her name is not at least mentioned here, then the consensus seems to be that she should have no article of her own. Second, if she does have an article, then we can solve all the undue weight and other issues by including that information in the article about her rather than the article about Edwards. The stuff about the birth certificate, for example, is a fact which should be somewhere in Wikipedia. I agree that it probably does not belong in the Edwards page. But it belongs somewhere. If we had an article about Hunter, then it could go there. So, I guess my proposal is to mention Hunter's name here, but then move much/most of the material to the page about her. Thoughts? David.Kane (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There isn't much to move. The problem with the birth certificate was not undue weight but a BLP problem. I don't see how a separate article (which will have its own challenges due to BLP1E, notability, etc.) will solve problems on this page. If this ever develops beyond the tabloid-level buzz, then a separate page for the event may be possible but we are a long long way off from that. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 00:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Like David Kane, i think that there should be a Rielle Hunter (Lisa Druck) article. In addition to her work as a film-maker, and the alleged current connection to Edwards, we also have the notability of her connection to the 1988 roman a clef novel Story of My Life written by her then-lover Jay McInerney: This well-known author has gone on record that the book's main character, named Alison Poole, was based on the real-life Druck (now Hunter). Google has 171,000 web pages on the search term <"Rielle Hunter"> in quotes, plus 6,020 for <"Lisa Druck"> in quotes, as well as 4,650 for the combined <"Lisa Druck" "Rielle Hunter"> together with each in quotes. To put the 171,000 "Rielle Hunter" pages in context, "Elvira Mistress of the Dark" produces a comparable 166,000 hits and Cassandra Peterson / Elvira has a Wikipedia entry. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say this discussion is best suited for the AfD. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 02:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are probably right. And i have copied the above to the comments on deletion Thanks for the pointer. :-) 64.142.90.33 (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Good God, much more un-notable people have wikipedia pages, yet a person mentioned in multiple newspapers is not worthy of an entry?

Also what reliable sources merit the inclusion of numerous fictional characters on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.180.183.38 (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Therefore is right: If you have a strong opinion, please go to the AfD page and state your opinion there, with your reasons. Concensus is the best way to change things. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

}}

This discussion was moved classified as off topic. I have changed it back. Isn't it a little rude to make that classification without discussion? Anyway, the reason that this needs to be discussed here is that I am specifically proposing including Rielle Hunter's name in this article. Do people think that this is a good idea or bad? Even if we do include it, she may not merit her own page. (That discussion should go on elsewhere.) I think that we should mention her name now that McClatchy has mentioned it. I would add it by as ". . . child's mother, Rielle Hunter, at . . ." (I think it was reasonable to not mention it while only the National Enquirer had mentioned it before.) For those who don't want to mention it, what would have to change in terms of news coverage for you to change your mind? David.Kane (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Cutting Rielle Hunter's name out of the John Edwards page seems foolish and prudish to me. Even without a Rielle Hunter page, you can see right now that the name Lisa Druck redirects to Story of My Life by Jay McInerney -- and Rielle Hunter should do the same. I would phrase it as "fathered a child out of wedlock with his former campsign film documentariam Rielle Hunter" -- or something equally succintct. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Appreciate your interest. I dont think we are in any hurry to make any hasty decision. I suppose it is a good idea to let the events play out itself a few more days and bring up the discussion again. Dock Hi 06:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that Rielle Hunter ought to redirect to the relevant section of John Edwards article. Beyond that, it's not necessary to start an article just to cover the allegations of an affair. Ethereal (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dock, i did not urge haste, and have no idea why you bring up that idea with respect to me; i have been posting here for weeks on this subject now amd have yet to even log in and make a change to the page itself. I am in discussion mode, out of choice.


 * What concerns me is that there is a lack of understanding of the material on the Lisa Druck ->redirects to--> Story of My Life page; it is my opinion that the name Rielle Hunter should appear on THAT page, after which her name could be added to the Edwards page and linked to that page. One does not "father a child out of wedlock", you know -- one father's it out of a MOTHER, and i think that her name is interestly notable enough -- as the protagonist in a roman a clef by a well-known writer -- to rate a mention, and that said mention will not be a violation of BLP because McInerney already said he based the Alison Poole character on Lisa Druck and Lisa Druck changed her name to Rielle Hunter.


 * See what i am getting at here? The woman has thousands upon thousands of google hits on her name. She's notable.


 * Let's say that some LP -- Celebrity X -- was rumoured to have fathered a child by a woman to whom he was not married. I see no reason to name the woman, as she is not notable.


 * Okay, now say Celebrity X was alleged to have fathered a child with Starlet Y, the protagonist of a well-known novel by Author Z, that both had denied the connection, and that Celebrity X had been caught in the middle of the night visiting the hotel where Starlet Y was a guest. Now my opinion changes: I see that Starlet Y's notability logically leads me to wish to mention her motherhood on the page about the novel, to which her name redirects.


 * cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "and has subsequently refused to comment on the matter."
Gamaliel has removed:"and has subsequently refused to comment on the matter." before finding page consensus for doing so. He previously reverted:"He subsequently avoided contact with the press." The current version was a compromise version suggested by another editor. We were in a discussion on this matter and Gamaliel decided unilaterally to remove this and I reverted. Here is the current state of our conversation (from above) before the amended text.

Do we typically mention in encyclopedia articles when the subject of the article does and does not talk to the press? Add it attributes significance to the statement, hinting that there is some notable reason he would not speak to the press. The implication is clear. Gamaliel (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Which is? ∴ Therefore / cogito·sum 04:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If it is important enough to mention that he did not talk to the press, then that says there is an important reason we mention it and that he did not speak to them. Given the context of the statement, the implication is clear - he has something to hide. Gamaliel (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Was that what the source was getting at? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 04:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

At that point, EBY offered the "and has subsequently refused to comment on the matter" to no objections. I invite Gamaliel to continue the dicussion and to avoid making unilateral page edits without consensus. I'll ask again: Was that what the source was getting at? &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 15:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't refused anything, despite your implications. There is no need for you to copy a chunk of discussion from two screens above. Why all the theatrics? Gamaliel (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the theatrics (edit warring is somewhat dramatic). I've pushed this aspect of the discussion into a separate thread as it is irrelevant to the previous header's topic and intend to indicate the current state of our discussion. This is where I would like to continue, particularly in light of the amended text. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 15:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Also, I apologize for saying you "refused" -- I should have said "had chosen not to". edit: I actually never said you refused -- I think you may have confused the word as applied to Edwards. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 15:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I like McDuff's current, more neutral version:"and subsequently has not commented on the matter." Is there going to be any further discussion on this matter? If not, I recommend we remove the tag since it draws undesired attention to the section; WP:NPOVD recommends ongoing discussion to resolve a problem and not simply tag, cite policy acronyms, and quit. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 16:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do you assume I've quit the discussion just because I don't reply to your satisfaction within an arbitrary and short timeframe? That is unreasonable and does nothing to further collaborative discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize and await its restart. I do have a concern the tag highlights this section. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 17:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's start off where we were 12 hours ago: Was that what the source was getting at? &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 17:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

My take
While waiting Gamaliel's response in the hope we can move this forward and remove the attention grabbing tag, I'd like to answer my own question: I wouldn't characterize the papers' reporting as "he has something to hide" -- I believe they are implying that he should address these questions and by not doing so, thereby adds fuel to the fire. If that is considered a point-of-view, it isn't a disallowed point-of-view. From WP:NPOV:"As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean 'no points of view'. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it 'POV'. [emphasis added]" If you believe that this sentence is an opinion, then we could attribute:"and subsequently has not commented on the matter, according to news reports." I.e., attribute the purported opinion. IMO, not necessary because I don't perceive it so laden with negative connotation as Gamaliel nor do I see it as an "opinion" but a neutral statement of fact. It is a neutrally written summary of news reports (emphasis added):

"On Wednesday, Edwards declined to answer questions about the allegations. About a dozen reporters and photojournalists attended a speech Edwards gave to an AARP Foundation symposium on poverty and aging in Washington. Afterward, he avoided waiting reporters, exiting through a side area used by the kitchen staff at Washington's historic Hotel Monaco. Edwards emerged near the rear of the hotel with two men. When approached by a reporter, Edwards said, 'Can't do it now, I'm sorry' and quickly walked past. Asked about the Beverly Hilton, Edwards said 'sorry' and got into a waiting car with the other men. Asked twice more to address the Enquirer story, Edwards was silent until the car doors closed."

"But Edwards himself is fueling the speculation by ducking mainstream reporters who want to talk to him about it. ... Reporters from our news partners at The Charlotte Observer tried to question Edwards yesterday at a Washington event and he ducked out a side door used by the kitchen staff."

"On Wednesday, the former U.S. senator, presidential candidate and 2004 vice-presidential nominee refused to answer questions about the reports after giving a speech on poverty and aging at an AARP Foundation symposium at Washington's Hotel Monaco. Edwards exited through a side area used by kitchen staff, telling a reporter, 'Can't do it now, I'm sorry,' and quickly walked past."

"After the speech, Edwards ducked a throng of reporters waiting to ask him about the Enquirer story, exiting via a rear entrance of the hotel. Intercepted by a McClatchy news reporter, Edwards refused to answer her questions."

"Former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards slipped out the back door of yet another hotel on Wednesday. The Raleigh News and Observer reports that Edwards was in Washington for an AARP Foundation symposium at Hotel Monaco and avoided reporters for the second time in as many weeks. He escaped through a fourth-floor side area used by kitchen staff, and then through a handicap ramp at the rear of the hotel. Edwards refused to answer reporters' questions about a story in the National Enquirer that says he visited a woman — said to be his mistress — and their love child at a hotel in California last week."

"Facing questions, Edwards evades reporters ... Afterward, he avoided most of the waiting reporters, at least some of whom wanted to question him about recent reports in the National Enquirer that alleged an inappropriate relationship with a former campaign videographer. ... On Wednesday, Edwards apparently ducked out a side area used by the kitchen staff in the fourth-floor ballroom of Washington's historic Hotel Monaco. Edwards emerged from a lower-level handicap ramp near the rear of the hotel with two men. When approached by a Charlotte Observer reporter, Edwards said, 'Can't do it now, I'm sorry' and quickly walked past. Asked what he was doing at the Beverly Hilton last week, Edwards said 'sorry' and got into a waiting car with the other men."

"At an AARP speech on Wednesday in Washington DC at the Hotel Monaco, rather than face reporters after the event, Edwards reportedly ducked out of the hotel through the kitchen, exiting out onto a handicapped access area. 'On Wednesday, Edwards apparently ducked out a side area used by the kitchen staff in the fourth-floor ballroom of Washington's historic Hotel Monaco,' reported the News & Observer. 'Edwards emerged from a lower-level handicap ramp near the rear of the hotel with two men. When approached by a Charlotte Observer reporter, Edwards said, 'Can't do it now, I'm sorry.''"

If we encapsulated the above news reports to say,"News media reported that Edwards has avoided further mainstream reporters' questions. A local North Carolina station said that his actions were fueling the speculations." then attribution would be necessary. Because the sentence "subsequently has not commented on the matter" is succinct and neutral, it doesn't require attribution. But it doesn't merit removal -- more than sufficiently verifiable, neutral tone of voice and doesn't in any fashion rise to the level of "doing harm" -- which doesn't mean never report verifiable facts. You do see that the neutral version is a honest compromise to the one I just listed which, under Wikipedia policies and guidelines, could also be arguably valid? &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 18:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Administrator chiming in
Coming back from my usual weekend break to review activity on an article I semi-protected, I'm not pleased to see the amount of recent edit warring over this material. If it continues, I will either fully protect the page or block the edit warring editors, depending on my judgment at my next review. I am not concerned about WP:BLP for this edit; it only authorizes unlimited removal of unsourced or inadequately sourced negative material, and sourcing is not the issue here. So there will not be any BLP exception in my handling of the edit war.

I do, however, wonder, if this McClatchy Newspapers story of the same date and by the same reproter might be a better source to use. While we don't get to change the title of a source - the citation must be accurate - because we feel it offends our BLP policy, nothing prevents us from using a different source of equal reliability if it has a better title. That source, however, could require using the phrase "refused to answer" instead of "avoided". So there is a potential tradeoff on which I won't make the editorial judgment - that is the responsibility of all of you collectively. GRBerry 00:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The current language is:"and subsequently has not commented on the matter." I would agree to the alternative article to support this statement. However, I still prefer the original McClatchy source to support the NE allegations. It's title is much less problematic than the sources used:


 * "Love child and mistress claims hit Edwards"
 * "Sleaze scuppers Democrat golden boy"
 * ""VP dreams end in Rielle nightmare"


 * The McClatchy article, a solid, well written article, supports the entire text of the paragraph, allowing us to remove these other poorly written, sensationalistic articles (not just the title). &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 00:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Without taking a stand on which source to use, I want to mentiona subtle point about the disputed phrase "and has subsequentl y refused to comment on the matter." While it appears to be factually accurate and consensus for its sourcing shouldn't be out of reach, what does it contribute to the article?  I would suggest that it contributes very little of value ("so that's the only thing he's said on record about this...OKaaayyyyyy...").  On the other hand, this type of content has the effect of subtly suggesting the subject has comething to hide (similar to when news organizations report "calls to (person) were not returned": while nominally trying to demonstrate the balance of the reporting efforts, it too often suggests that (person) is hiding something).  Given that the net contribution of the phrase is ambiguous, and that the paragraph there is probably a couple of lines longer than is ideal per WEIGHT, this phrase seems like a good candidate for removal.  I admit this is a subtlety, but I really think that it would be a good editorial process to consider this point.


 * Secondly, I removed the subheading for this incident, mainly on grounds that its inclusion into the TOC would be undue weight (as well as some recentism). I could also suggest that the existence of the heading gives undue weight visually to those reading the 2008 section, although I admit that might be in the eye of the reader.  Just a heads up, as I acknowledge the level of controversy involved with the subject matter. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur with the removal of the heading, the intent of which is to add (unnecessary) weight. Please note that the current text reads:"subsequently has not commented on the matter" excluding the use of term "refused" which another editor (rightly so) said that was a judgment call (though supported by the above sources multiple times). Above in "My Take", I don't agree that the sentence necessarily implies "something to hide". Along with all of the above quotes from sources, let me add this one:"The story about Edwards' strange behavior with the press in Washington was legitimate -- the encounter was very public -- and was appropriately played inside the paper." The fact is, msm considered this event notable and hence appropriate for inclusion here. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 19:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you please point out the policy/guideline that states that "if the mainstream media considers this even notable then it is appropriate for inclusion in wikipedia"? I believe the objections raised above have nothing to do with "notability".  Thanks.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point -- it is a candidate for inclusion. However, notability is an important consideration. WP:N is relevant here:"'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." New articles, addressed by WP:N, require a higher standard than new article content; this sentence satifies this higher standard. There are a multitude of sources for this statement that characterize it more strongly. It satisfies WP:V, written neutrally and succinctly, isn't original research, and doesn't raise harm issues. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 22:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Independent and The Irish Independent, sources of the "Love child and mistress claims hit Edwards" and "VP dreams end in Rielle nightmare" respectively, are not tabloids and are very highly respected award winning newspapers. Removing these sources (I have since reverted back) was out of consensus and there is no validation in discrediting them. --Oakshade (talk) 05:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been out of town for a few days and need to catch up but I want to weigh in on the subhead which was added a few days ago.  It is inappropriate for this bio - it clearly gives way too much weight to this story and adds to the appearance of non-neutrality.  I support  the removal of that subhead at present, and it can be revisited if this story takes on significantly more weight in the subject's life - it is his biography.  By the way- I see  the latest edit summary replacing it says it was removed without discussion - was it added with discussion?  As I said I have been away from here since Friday, so would appreciate if someone would point me to the discussion where consensus was reached to add it so I can see what the arguments were and provide more of my opinion. Tvoz / talk 15:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Have to agree, the sub-head seems like WP:UNDUE at this point. More coverage in MSM would likely change my mind. Ronnotel (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe all discussion of the heading to date is in this subsection of the talk page and in edit summaries on the article. GRBerry 15:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I originally removed it without discussion but immediately posted here that I did so. I did not bring it here first as I thought it was a no-brainer, and still do, but acknowledged it anyway to avoid the appearance of untowardness.  I just reremoved it per Tvoz and someone who agreed with the first removal.  Since then I note the above two notes so I stand by my actions.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Tvoz, just to answer your question "I see the latest edit summary replacing it says it was removed without discussion - was it added with discussion?", if I'm to assume you're talking about The Independent source, it in fact it was added with heavy discussion and consensus. See Talk:John Edwards. --Oakshade (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Oakshade,  I was talking about the sub-head. I said "the latest edit summary replacing it"  which referred to this edit.  I haven't yet commented  in any new discussion on my view of which source should be used, but I am glad to see GRBerry's  comments regarding BLP and the titles of source articles - I have been making this point for a while, as I believe that if a source article's title contains language that can be a BLP concern, then we should not use that source here or in mainspace footnotes, even if we don't use those words in the text of our piece.  Tvoz / talk 22:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Environmental record
I realise this may get swallowed up in discussions about the other topic which dominates this talk page but here goes. I do not see why Environmental record gets a seperate section, while any other political positions are covered in the Political positions section and in the relevant sub article. Unless someone has a good reason otherwise I would strongly suggest that the Environmental record section is merged into the political positions section. Davewild (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good call -- and i agree wholeheartedly. Insofar as his environmental speeches, proposals, and votes have played out to date in the political arena, they are part and parcel of his political positions. If, after retirement from politics, he were to beome an evironmentalist, or a philanthopist, or even a train-spotter, then those activities would be deserving of a separate section. For now, though, his environmental activities should be listed under the sub-head of political positions. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As there were no objections, i moved Environmental record under Political positions as a sub-sub head, and then sub-sub-headed the other disctinct areas of similar weight (War in Iraq, Housing vouchers, Universal Health Care). I did not play with "the" story, and i will now return to my typically un-logged-in-status. Cordially, cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" Catherineyronwode (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks and nicely done. Davewild (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

[outdent]  Sorry - I did miss this section, and somehow also missed the addition of a separate "environmental;" section on May 15. I'd like to discuss this some more: this article, like most if not all of the other bios of politicians who are/were running for office,  uses summary style, where "political positions" are a separate article which goes into detail and the main article has just a short summary paragraph. We did that because the section would otherwise be too large in the context of the whole bio. I certainly agree that having a separate "environmental position" section was way off and this current edit was fairly done, but it necessarily emphasizes some positions over others that don't have a subparagraph. I think "political positions" should include a mention of his environmental stance but the section is better handled as a summary with detail in the sub. Tvoz / talk 18:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, now talking a closer look: the lead sentence makes little sense in context of the section: eliminating poverty, pro-choice and "college for everyone"  - among his most articulated positions - aren't explicated, so why are the others?  And global warming is sort of hanging out there in the section's lead. Further,  DOMA,  immigration pathways and same-sex marriage amendment are improperly tucked into a "Universal Health care" subhead.  And the environmental sub is too long. So... all in all, I think this was a good faith attempt but the section should go back to how it was before that Environmental section was added in May - it always should have been part of political positions in summary and perhaps should be expanded in the Political positions of John Edwards subarticle. In light of these inconsistencies cited, I am reverting to the earlier approach according to WP:SUMMARY which this article has more or less followed since the sub-article was created in March 2007.  I posted the removed material on Talk: Political positions of John Edwards and that subarticle should be looked at to see if any or all of this material should be incorporated there. Tvoz / talk 20:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * All well and good -- the summary style is fine -- except you have re-created the problem than another editor (sorry, i have no time to look up who it was) attempted to address by writing the misplaced "Environmental Record" section in the first place! Please take the time to insert a one-sentence summary of his environmental record with respect to the "carbon credits" issue, with about the same word-count as the other summaries -- because otherewise, the entire problem will pop up again. Thanks! cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - I'll take a look, or anyone can. Tvoz / talk 00:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)