Talk:Rielle Hunter

Question: do any editors still wish to delete this article?
Over the course of the development of this article, several editors have stated an intention to see it deleted on grounds of non-notability or insufficient ("one event") notability. At least one has said that a move for deletion will occur soon and/or after the 2008 presidential election. As more information about Hunter has come forth, and given the state of the article at present time, i'd like to find out if anyone is still planning to list it as an AfD. A simple keep or delete response would be appreicated. THANKS! I'll start:


 * Keep. I do not intend to nominate the Rielle Hunter article for delation -- and if it is nominated for deletion, i will fight for its continuance. cat yronwode User:Catherineyronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deletion would be out-and-out censorship. AdamKesher (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect/merge to the Edwards affair page. I still think a single paragraph bio, added to that page, is the right amount of coverage for someone who is still not generally well known, and mostly known for just one thing (same goes for Vicki Iseman). I won't nominate it until after the election though. DiggyG (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. She's notable on two dimensions. Regarding the Edwards affair, similar figures such as Donna Rice and Jessica Hahn have articles. Second, her involvement as an inspiration for characters in several important books. Finally, Blaxthos's point below that there's no actual AfD at the moment. Wellspring (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've already stated this earlier (above on this Talk page), but this woman is notable for multiple things beyond the Edwards affair. This is a definite, easy keep, not even a borderline case. —Lowellian (reply) 11:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not go getting the cart before the horse. First of all, there is no nomination for deletion. Second of all, if someone does nominate it, we should consider his stated rationale for deletion. You can't try and prevent an AFD by making a strawman argument against a non-existent AFD, rally a bunch of "keeps", and then declare that the article should be kept. This will be determined by a proper AFD, not a rallying cry to already-involved editors. Feeding this thread is counterproductive. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem, Blaxthos, is that one's enthusiasm for putting in dozens of hours of work on improving an article is significantly lessened when other editors have stated categorically that they will move to have it deleted regardless of how much it has been upgraded since the last time they checked in. For instance, it is disheartening to realize that even after all the work that we've put into this bio, one editor who wants this article gone hasn't read the text closely enough to understand that the McInerney novel is not being used as a source for facts about the horse murders scandal, but rather that -- inversely -- the novel preceded the scandal's exposure by several years simply because the novel was a roman a clef based on the early life of Lisa Druck. Obviously we need a horse murders article at this point, since ESPN has called it the biggest scandal in the history of equestrian sport. I just am not sure that i am qualified to write that article. I mean, as a professional writer, i could do it, but ... well, it would be nice to have some reassurance that one's work is appreciated and not just a waste of time. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree 3000%, and if anyone tires to have this or an upcoming article on horse (which i am surprsed doesnt already exist (!)) I will figt to the finish to have it kept irregardless of the reasoning behidn such an action, and on the off chance tha t is is deleted I will personally take it upon ymself to persuade an admin to userfy it for me so that we can upgrade the aritlce to the point where it is satisfactory to all editors concerned. I see no problem with rallying editors to fight the increasingly common deletionist trend that deleties articles before reading them. Smith Jones (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos is correct. This talk page is not the place to have a "potential future AfD" discussion. Given the state of the article, it seems like a "delete" consensus would be extremely unlikely. However, any such arguments would have an appropriate place. Everyone who has made efforts on an article nominated for AfD hates to see those efforts go to waste, but this one isn't special in that regard (however, those efforts make a "keep" even more likely should it occur). LotLE × talk 19:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the reason I did not nominate for deletion was to give the article a chance to develop beyond a singular event. Although I'm not convinced that the majority of the content is germane or makes the subject worthy of a biography article (seems to be a lot of recentismesque interest), since it has developed beyond the initial scope it is unlikely (at this point) that an AFD would result in consensus either way (which is a default keep).  However, in any case I gave a good faith delay during which the article was improved; it is likewise necessary that editors wait until a nomination actually occurs instead of trying to build a strawman, knock it down, and declare victory before the proposal has been made.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image
Her 1981 yearbook photo has been posted on the web site of The Ocala Star-Banner. I wonder if that would be public domain.chrisvnicholson (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately not - the copyright on those photos are generally retained by the photographer. Kelly  hi! 18:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will use The Ocala Star-Banner, a reliable source, to note that she attended North Marion High School -- and the cite will link to their page with the picture in the footnote. :-) cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is so obscure, that it seems to me that it qualifies as OR. Furthermore, it's not relevant, nor of any encyclopedic value: "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability." from WP:NPF. DiggyG (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC).


 * That's an interesting attitude. I mean, how can a link to a published newspaper from her home town, giving her family hisotry, be OR? THEY did the OR, not us. We just saw it when some Wikipedian mentioned it here. I don't get that this is OR. As for the name of her high school -- i dunno -- that's pretty common. You did not ask us to delete the name of the two colleges she attended. Why her high school? I am one of those editors who prefers to add rather than subtract. Also, since her first notability (the murder of her horse) came while she was in high school, one could argue that her high school days are relevant. I'm just saying, is all. cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of what anyone prefers. We have to be careful about following wikipedia policy, and the policy is very clear about favouring Hunter's privacy. Not that I think her high school info is damaging in anyway, however, if we add every piece of trivia that we can find a reference for we will end up with an overlong, unencyclopedic mess of an article. DiggyG (talk) 04:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Ocala Star-Banner, as you can see by the working wikilink, is a notable newspaper and, therefore, fine to link to in the article as a source. Cla68 (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

New section on her spiritual outreach ideas?
Should we create a small new section on her spiritual writings?

So far we have nothing at all about her now-scrubbed New Age and self-enlightenment web site beingisfree.com or her connection to the New Age movement. We have not mentioned her work with spiritual healers, her statements that John Edwards could have been the next Gandhi, or the assertions by others that she could arrange audiences for people with the Dalai Lama.

Her spiritual beliefs -- treated as "flakey" or "dingbat" by those who also would wish to characterize her as a "blonde bimbo" or who would ask why Edwards wanted a woman who was "not as hot as he was" (!) -- are a distinct part of her life. Solid references to the work that sprang from her unique brand of spirituality are not difficult to locate (key-word search them with her name at google), and they do help us to present a more fully-rounded picture of her position in the world at te time of the Edwards affair.

As i have said before, i think that, taking their cue from the generally "non-notable" prior histories of younger women involved in political sex scandals with powerful men (e.g. Sonna Rice, Christine Keeler, Monica Lewinsky) some prefer to see Hunter was just another nobody -- but as many reporters have already uncovered, she had her own unique history long before Edwards fell for her.

Anyway -- what do y'all think?

cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like you're edging towards "reporting" rather than a biography. Can you list some reliable sources that cover this information before/beyond the affair?  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I honestly do not see this as warranting any more than a sentence—it's just not that significant to her biography. There are other much more important areas reported by reliable sources: the PAC money paid to her, the scrubbing of the internet (e.g., beingisfree.com), her relationship to the Youngs and Mr. McGovern, her fame seeking, the Edwards cover-up, etc. Every item on this list is much more relevant, and not currently treated. AdamKesher (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Adam, i would love to see mention of all the items you list, but some will do better in the extramartal affair article, probably, rather than in her bio. The scrubbing of beingisfree.com and her fame seeking should go on her page. As for the Youngs, Bob McGovern, Fred Baron, her telling that lady in Santa Barbara that her name is Jaya / Joya, using the name Jaya on the baby's birth certificate -- please, give any of these a shot if you can find RS/MSM mentions. --cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The recently published book, Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin talks about Hunter's New Age views and how they affected Edward's political judgment adversely. I plan on adding this information to the main article. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 14:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Who Hawk?
Call me old-fashioned, but it's my feeling that a section that includes the phrase "Henry the Hawk" in its title ought to mention Henry the Hawk somewhere in the text body and not as just a footnote. Also, Henry the Hawk is just a cool name. rowley (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Someone deleted it. It's back in again. Thanks for noting it. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Affair
"Steady As We Go" from the album Stand Up by the Dave Matthews Band was cited by Andrew Young to be a favorite song of Edwards and Hunter during their much-publicized affair. This sentence is superfluous and should be removed.Strombollii (talk) 04:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It has been removed several times. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Article is a bit twisted up
The leading paragraph says she is known as the basis of a character in Generation X literature, as an early victim of the horse insurance fraud scandal, and as an early adopter of YouTube as a means of distributing political viral marketing.

That is simply not true. She is ONLY known for her relationship with Edwards. The other things may be things that actually happened to her, but they are minor trivia.

The article is also messed up by putting elements in chronological order rather than in order of interest. Most people will be interested in reading about the Edwards affair. Her basic biographical information of birth and marriage and so on is a fine way to begin, but it should be immediately followed by the Edwards affair. THEN the other things that have happened in her life should be covered. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, both your points are wrong. You may have only known her for her relationship with Edwards, but she is also known for other things. And second, chronological order is the correct and usual order on Wikipedia biography articles. John Edwards is best-known as a Vice-Presidential candidate, but it is not covered until well down the page on his article. —Lowellian (reply) 00:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Daughter's birthdate on Oprah was mentioned as May 2007 yet this lists it at Feb.
Daughter's birthdate on Oprah was mentioned as May 2007 yet this lists it at Feb.

http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Oprahs-Conversation-with-Rielle-Hunter/12

Rielle herself says, "the end of May." AngelGeekCG (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)AngelGeekCG


 * She conceived the pregnancy in May 2007; found out she was pregnant in July (that's what she says); and gave birth in February 2008.188.25.161.73 (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Chronological confusion in note 30
"According to a conversation with a Game Show Network employee, episode #1061 of Lingo with Rielle Hunter will be broadcast again on December 13, 2008, if the current schedule is maintained.The episode was rebroadcast on Friday, April 30, 2010."

This needs some work.

Scanlyze (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Rielle Hunter. 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/20080820104847/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5jfOq80s0bbfh1UP_b8x29EsWTXAwD92EBCTO0 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jfOq80s0bbfh1UP_b8x29EsWTXAwD92EBCTO0

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 19:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Rielle Hunter. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20080819231236/http://www.palmbeachpost.com:80/politics/content/state/epaper/2008/08/12/0812jose.html to http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/state/epaper/2008/08/12/0812jose.html

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 21:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Rielle Hunter. 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://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/08/edwards-mistres.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080812063557/http://www.newsobserver.com:80/643/story/1169932.html to http://www.newsobserver.com/643/story/1169932.html
 * Added tag to http://www.charlotteobserver.com/100/story/100081.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)