Talk:John Edwards extramarital affair/Archive 1

Article recreation
I have not recreated this article simply because I want to, but because I believe that discussion on the question of speedy deletion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents seems to tend against the idea that speedy deletion was appropriate in this context, especially as a speedy-delete tag had already been removed (and not by the page's creator) before speedy deletion. Deletion, I believe, is the best choice for this page, but only as the result of the AFD process, not a speedy deletion. For this reason I have restored only the shortest version of the page, after which I have moved it to a title suggested in the ANI discussion and retitled the article accordingly. Nyttend (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Article name
Assuming this article is kept (as seems likely from the current state of the AFD), I feel we should reconsider its name. The current name - 'John Edwards paternity allegations' - implies that it is John Edwards' paternity which is in question, which is obviously not the case. I'm not sure what a better name would be - 'John Edwards infidelity allegations', perhaps? - but the current one is arguably not quite right. Terraxos (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. My original name, based on what the press was calling the story, was John Edwards love child allegations, which raised hackles all over the place. I'm at a loss for an encyclopedic name that won't make people angry. Ideas? Kelly  hi! 03:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How about something like "John Edwards and National Enquirer Allegations"? In any case, over time I think this should become a sub-topic in the John Edwards page.  I agree completely that the speedy deletion was itself a POV violation.  This is a real story, and Kelly's content was extremely well sourced.  --- Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * At this point, with the National Enquirer photos in print and all over the web, showing John Edwards holing a baby said to be the child he fathered with Rielle Hunter, we might consider a name like "John Edwards - Rielle Hunter paternity allegations". Catherineyronwode (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"No need for article"
There is no need for a separate wikipedia entry for this. This article would best be served as a topic in the main article for John Edwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.172.231 (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please post your opion at the article's AfD page.


 * Said Articles for Deletion page is here: Articles_for_deletion/John_Edwards_paternity_allegations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macduff (talk • contribs) 18:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What the hell?
Why is a womans name a link to an affair? Shouldn't this page be about her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.246.82 (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

finally?
has wikipedia, at long last, pulled its head out of the sand?--24.160.128.207 (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

DNA
A DNA profile of Edwards has already been obtained (via two different samples of discarded hair). When a sample is eventually obtained from the child in question (by non-invasive means), the matter will be settled definitively. DNA Dick (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Name Change
Shouldn't this article now be titled something along the lines of John Edwards sex scandal with the paternity allegations as a subsection? Joshdboz (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure I like that exact title, but I see you point and think we could do better than the current name, based on the new information. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * John Edwards infidelity scandal? Kelly  hi! 19:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently someone has changed it to John Edwards extramarital affair. Seems appropriate enough unless there are other suggestions.  Joshdboz (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not ideal, but definitely better. OK for now.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to be pedantic, but shouldn't the title really be John Edwards' extramarital affair (w/possessive apostrophe)? Ronnotel (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an option, though other articles follow the current pattern (ex: Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal). Joshdboz (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that makes more sense; the title is simply refering to the nominative object. It's just that since Edwards ends with and 's', I read it the other way. Ronnotel (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This hurts my brain:
Several news outlets noted that the birth certificate listed no father, although the child was born approximately two months after Young's claimed paternity had been announced by Hunter and Young. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.193.44 (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion in the opening section that few outlets covered this until July. Few outlets covered this until AUGUST.Danoldh (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Danoldh

mainstream media
The little jab about the neglect of the story by "mainstream media" seems like the weasel words many freak out about on here. Just another chance for conservatives to deride the "liberal drive bys" with a couple words. Simply because the media didn't pay attention until he admitted it, and didn't take the "stellar" reputation of the enquirer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.244.116.10 (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not conservative and I find it pretty amazing how the media protected this story for so long until he came out and admitted it. Why wasn't the media going after him during the primaries? They aren't doing their job of vetting candidates properly. JettaMann (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Until the admission, there was no story. Just gossip.  Sometimes (like now) gossip turns out to be true, but that doesn't mean that news sources should start printing unverified rumors just in case.Originalname37 (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When I researched this article, I was actually shocked to find that the Enquirer was doing real reporting - they assigned seven reporters to it for months, knocked on doors, investigated financial records, etc. Their story was not "gossip", and to say that it is gossip is just sour grapes. Old Media was pwned by New Media on this story, and they have been forced to admit that, as well - even the public editor at the New York Times says so, among many others. Yes, they all say that the Enquirer sucks, but what does it mean when you get beat by someone that sucks? It means you suck worse. Kelly  hi! 15:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I admit I hadn't seen what Hoyt had said about it. It's still not clear to me that the Nyt sucks more that the Enquirer, but you're right about them missing the boat on this one.  I stand corrected.Originalname37 (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

ABC interview?
In all seriousness (have to say that since sometimes I'm not) shouldn't we have something on the content or just the event of his long ABC interview? I was actually coming here to try to follow the story and timelines and such (actually using the wikipedia rather than shaping it) and I didn't see anything on that interview. MEans I have to rely on Google or other blogs or something to figure out what he said, when.
 * Please be bold and fix it.Ronnotel (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In all seriousness, I was in the mood to consume, not create. And my post was a request for someone to create what I want to consume.  (I'll do some work some other time.)
 * I don;t have time to add this stuff, but someone might:


 * We have more news on Bob McGovern, the man who drove the car to facilitate the Hunter-Edwards meeting in July, 2008. The article is has a great New York Daily News headline, "My dad didn't rat on Edwards, says daughter of Rielle Hunter's driver" and it can be found [here]. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 08:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

now can we please delete this article?
When can we re-nominate this article for deletion?

This crap is a stain on wikipedia's face. Has wikipedia been taken over by the tmz.com crowd? The content is completely irrelevant scandal mongering of the worst kind. Edwards does not hold any public office, nor is he running for any. And even if he did, some politician's one night stand is not encyclopaedic, nor even newsworthy.

Having this article here is degrading to readers, writers and everyone affected. A person's sexuality is his own private matter and can not be matter of debate in polite company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.96.10 (talk • contribs)
 * The deletion discussion was closed early with a consensus to keep. There is no rule about when a renomination can occur. However, in the absence of new arguments, submitting such a request within the next couple of months might be viewed as tendentious. Ronnotel (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Prior to this scandal, Edwards was on the short list for Obama's vice-president and remains a possible nominee for Attorney General. John Edwards's sexual misconduct (not sexuality) became an issue the instant he made his wife and his fidelity to her central to his campaign. The media's avoidance of the story is a scandal in its own right, worthy of investigation. This article should remain indefinitely. 116.233.170.223 (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Really it is just a passing event. It should be covered in Edwards' own bio. BTW there is no reason to mention the name of the baby. WP is not intended to repeat every bit of information out there, but (like Encyclopedias in general) to be selective in what is presented. Redddogg (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think its to early to call it a passing event. For instance, take Gary Hart.  The only thing that most folks remember about him now is that his bid for president was nixed by his affair.  I think there is quite possible that similiarly in 20 years Edwards to will be remember in the same way as Hart (i.e. the presidential hopeful who had an affair).  That said I think its kinda sad really that a mans entire career gets defined by his personal lifestyle choice, but it is what it is. Dman727 (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Payments to Hunter and Young
I've split out the one sentence about this into a separate section. There is more information available in news stories (Hunter and Young's family were renting a house in Santa Barbara, with funds provided to them by Baron; Baron is a wealthy lawyer and close friend of Edwards; Baron provided monthly payments to Hunter when she moved out of the Young's house); Hunter got $14,000 in April 2007, four months after finishing the videos; the money came from Edward's PAC, and into the presidential campaign fund (which had no money), then to Hunter. Much of this is in a recent NY Times article, and I encourage other editors (with more time than I have) to expand the section. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"please see talk page"
'This discussion is also taking place at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Please continue the discussion there, not here.' -- Noroton (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A revision made by Redddogg involved removing the name of Frances Quinn Hunter from the page, with this tag: 14:47, 13 August 2008 Redddogg (Talk | contribs) (46,575 bytes) (Undid revision 231671084 by Kelly (talk) violation of WP policy removed, please see talk page) (undo)

However, contrary to Redddogg's edit comment there has been no discussion of the deletion of the child's name on the talk page. So now there is. I have reinstated the name. Also, i will note that Reddogg has deleted the child's name repeatedly at the Rielle Hunter page and it is being discussed at that article's talk page as well. Also there is a BLP noticeboard thread open on the whys and wherefores of retaining the child's name. I am herewith copying (again) my comment from the BLP noticeboard discussion on the subject:

"A major point in the article, as in all media stories about the affair, is the information on the birth certificate. The information on the birth certificate is very unusual, and one might say, potentially deceptive on three points: The mother presents a pseudonym instead of her own current legal name, listing herself as Rielle Jaya James Druck; the child is given no father's name; and the child is given a diffent surname than the mother's -- Frances Quinn Hunter. That is why virtually all media reports have named the mother (Rielle Hunter) and the child (Frances Quinn Hunter); both names must be explicitly stated in order to show that the surnames are connected, in order to remove any potential for confusion. This is pretty basic to the story, and therefore the child's name should be retained in the Wikipedia entry, i believe. cat yronwode a.k.a. '64'"

In revising the article page itself, of course, i did not engage in an opinion bordering on synthesis, such as might appear in the behind-the-scenes comment above. Rather, i edited the material like this, with no synthesis:

On August 1, 2008, the Enquirer published an article naming Hunter's child. Mainstream news organizations subsequently obtained a copy of the birth certificate, and confirmed that a girl had been born at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital on February 27, 2008. The information on the birth certificate was unusual: The mother named herself Rielle Jaya James Druck, but the child, Frances Quinn Hunter, was given a diffent surname than the mother, and no father's name was listed. Media reports stated the child's name, linking the Druck and Hunter surnames to conclude that the mother's name was Rielle Hunter; they also noted that the child was born approximately two months after Young's claimed paternity had been announced by Hunter and Young. When questioned about the birth certificate omission, Hunter's attorney said "A lot of women do that" and that the issue was "a personal matter" between Hunter and Young, before declining to comment further.

I expect we will revisit this issue, but, please, let us do so here, and not through edit-warring. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Couldn't the fact that different names were used be mentioned without stating the child's name? Redddogg (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The name is is correct and is a significant part of the story. There is no special policy to not name children.  She's news.  TCO (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * However WP is not news. :-) Redddogg (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that we could use cat's wording which is making a valid point, but just change it to simply say The mother was listed as Rielle Jaya James Druck, but the child was given the surname "Hunter", different from the mother's, and no father's name was listed.   without spelling out her full name. What  is the need for it?  I think the baby is entitled to basic privacy (as if there's any chance in the world, but we don't have to add to the tabloid noise about a baby) and we are not news as Redddogg says.  This rewording would, I think, accomplish was cat was trying to do but also acknowledge Redddogg's legitimate concern.  Tvoz / talk 21:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an "ongoing event" or whatever the wiki blurb says. Seriously, it's relevant and we should not be so ginger.  Let the chips fall.  BTW, you all have already been shown to be out of accord with the consensus during the arduious edit war (finally resolved by voting) on the article itself.  So I propose that you put your edits up for community discussion first.TCO (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As there is no court injunction against printing the name in Florida (obviously since it isn't Canada or the UK and we have the first amendment) then it is public information that is a part of the story and I would support including it even if it did not add another angle to the article, which it does as shown above. We have lost our way and lost sight of our most fundamental principle. This is to be the "sum total of human knowledge" and we are to never be censored. If multiple news orgs are happy to disseminate the name of a child then for us not to do so can only be censorship. Bonobonobo (talk) 07:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If WP were the "sum total of human knowledge" it would no longer be an encyclopedia. Redddogg (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I support removing the child's name from the article. I think it adds extremely little useful information and there's a possibility that this article, mouldering and forgotten by nearly everybody 10 years from now, will cause the kid some grief. On balance, it seems like the right thing to do to remove it. -- Noroton (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I also notice that most of those who want to include it don't give their own names on their user pages. ;-) Redddogg (talk) 03:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not hearing any new arguments/concepts. Vote?TCO (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Her name is in the papers anyhow and will be searchable 10 years from now. Respected papers by the way.  It's not Wikipedia's fault that her conception is part of a scandal, in the news, involving Edwards, etc. etc.  Not sure why Wikipedia should be protecting her in particular.  We seem to let the chips fall on everything else.TCO (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't "vote", TCO, we reach consensus. This is also under discussion at WP:BLPN as you know, and I see that cat hasn't commented on my proposed change to her wording - so why don't you just cool your heels.  Your preferred language is in the article, and no one  is edit warring as far as I've seen, so back off.  Cat, if you're reading, what do  you say about including "Hunter"  to make your point, but letting this child have a modicum of privacy from us?  Tvoz / talk 08:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) i commented on the other page -- the noticeboard. --cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is that we are not getting new information. All that is going on is repeating simple points.  The question is "protecting" an individual versus "including information".  Where do we draw the line?  Should we "protect" Reihle?  John?  Etc.  Etc.   Either develop the thoughts (for instance some comparison to external standards, other articles, general guidance, is it the "childness" that is being protected, or just the individual, etc.).  Please link to the discussion at WP:BLPN (maybe that is more substantial, more real digging into ideas).  The comment about voting and edit warring was a little glib, but you know sometimes truth can be buried in humor (cf. South Park).  Anyway, hope you are well.TCO (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Could someone tell me why the name is so useful to the article? How badly would the article be hurt without the name? If this is covered elsewhere in the discussion, please just point it out to me. I've argued elsewhere that college students who have done or said something once newsworthy don't need to have their names in Wikipedia articles that might embarass them -- their names really add nothing to the article and a lot of potential embaraassment is avoided for them. I think that's a humane practice. For those discussions, see:
 * Talk:Alleged Ouze Merham interview of Ariel Sharon
 * Talk:Controversies about the word "niggardly"
 * I assume this discussion has already brought up WP:BLP: When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger. In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, editors should be willing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. What is the overriding need to use this name? If the only answer is that the name is already out there, well, Wikipedia can make a name much more prominent for a much longer period of time, and that counts. The standard isn't whether or not someone working hard enough can find a name online, but how much more Wikipedia's mentioning the name will make that name prominent. The child's mother has changed her name already and can easily do so again. It's harder for the child to do so, and our actions should not push a child into having to change her name to escape the Wikipedia spotlight. Noroton (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

'This discussion is also taking place at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Please continue the discussion there, not here.' -- Noroton (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This quote from Edwards should be added.
I have been topic banned from political articles, so if anyone else thinks that adding this quote from Edwards would make the article better, please do so. "I know that it's not possible that this child could be mine because of the timing of events..." Source ABC News Grundle2600 (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Enquirer article says Edwards' paternity test is positive
Normally the National Enquirer wouldn't be a reliable source, but given that the paper a) broke this story and b) has been right every step of the way, should we add this article? YLee (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the article should say that the National Enquirer reported that information. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't pretend you don't what a WP:RS is. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In general, the National Enquirer is not a reliable source. But it is a verifiable fact that they published the information. Please note that I did not say the DNA test proved that Edwards was the father. What I did say was that the National Enquirer claimed that the DNA test was carried out and proved that the child was his. Given that the National Enquirer broke the story, and has been accurate in everything else on this subject so far, there is no reason not to state that they reported that the DNA test proved that Edwards is the father. Grundle2600 (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on John Edwards extramarital affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080731085405/http://abcnews.go.com:80/Politics/story?id=3720191&page=1 to http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3720191&page=1

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on John Edwards extramarital affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080828205932/http://www.cnn.com:80/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/08/26/elizabeth.edwards.ap/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/08/26/elizabeth.edwards.ap/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080806031157/http://www.newsobserver.com:80/politics/story/1160737.html to http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1160737.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on John Edwards extramarital affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://mediamatters.org/items/200712190010?f=h_latest

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Page name change proposal
Should this page be titled "John Edwards' extramarital affair" instead? 01:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.183.189 (talk)