Talk:John Edward/Archive 3

Images

While I'm glad the article has two good images at the moment, I think it could use a couple more, including:

• An actual screenshot of Crossing Over or Cross Country. This would qualify under fair use.
• Images of Edward's most notable media appearances. One of these is surely the South Park episode, so a screenshot would be appropriate and would (I believe) qualify under fair use as long as the episode is discussed (as it is now). The episode shows Edward in several scenes, most notably on the set of Crossing Over and also at the intergalactic awards ceremony where he is crowned and given his "award". We could use an image of either scene.

If other media appearances deserve to be pictured, I'd like to know so I can try to track down images from them. — Elembis 16:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Expanding the introduction

Wikipedia:Lead section is a guideline for introductions. Since the neutrality of the lead is disputed at the moment, I'll offer my suggestions for discussion and amendment here on the talk page until the current dispute is resolved. In part, the guideline reads:

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article.

One suggestion the guideline makes is to "try to have a sentence, clause, or at least a word devoted to each of the main headlines in the article." I think this is a good idea, so here are the sections and my suggestion for each:

• Biography: Mention that Edward was convinced of psychic phenomena at 15, or perhaps "at a young age" — don't give everything away too soon. =)
• Television shows: Mention his current show in slightly more detail; both shows are already mentioned.
• Paranormal study, Criticism and Controversies: Say that he is a controversial figure or that he has drawn support and criticism.
• Appearances in the media and Books: Do nothing, since they are already mentioned ("Edward ... is an American author and television personality").

I don't think any of these changes should be applied to the first sentence. Here's one way they might be presented, with a little additional text to flesh it out:

John Edward McGee Jr., (born October 19, 1969 in Glen Cove, New York), better known as John Edward, is an American author and television personality best known for performing as a [professed] psychic medium on his shows Crossing Over and John Edward Cross Country.

Edward was convinced at a young age that he could become a psychic. After writing his first book on the subject in 1998, Edward became a well known and controversial figure in the United States through his shows and other media appearances. His current show, John Edward Cross Country, has been aired on WE tv since May 2006.

Amend away! — Elembis (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think the Wikipedia:Lead section guideline is going to make for some longer introductions than the actual article itself. Dreadlocke ☥ 08:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Edward and Randi

So the situation where Edward purportedly refused to participate in Randi's million-dollar psychic-giveaway: What, if anything, should we put in the article - if it can be WP:RS'd. It appears to be such a gimmick, with no scientific value. We'd have to add whatever Edward's reasons are too, not just a blurb on Randi's "challenge" all by its lonesome. Dreadlocke ☥ 08:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you calling a gimmick with not scientific value?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Randi's million-dollar challenge. Dreadlocke ☥ 04:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In what way is James Randi's challenge a "Gimmick"?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I’ll be happy to explain. There are two poles of possibilities, with a wide range of potentials arrayed between them.

• If one doubts Randi: then, as he has stated, “I always have an out”, which is interpreted by his detractors to mean that he would find a way to never pay.[1] They believe he has the power and ability to set up a test so the subject would fail, thus the challenge is gimmicked.

• If one believes what Randi says: (which is that he doesn’t believe anyone has paranormal abilities), this means he doesn't believe anyone will ever collect – so that too is just a marketing gimmick.

Instead of proving his opinion by empirical evidence, which would be the proper scientific approach – he uses a gimmick. And it indeed fits the definition of gimmick. (a “trick or device used to attract business or attention <a marketing gimmick>”)

Let’s face it, Randi was a professional magician – full of gimmicks to make it look like he was performing supernatural or paranormal magic – and that’s the way he views ‘’all’’ individuals who make a claim to have paranormal abilities. One can make anything look like its just plain old stage magic, whether you’re talking to the dead or walking on water and raising the dead.

Randi is still using gimmicks. And who can blame him? It’s hard to prove to people that the paranormal or supernatural doesn’t exist – that’s exactly why it’s paranormal and supernatural. He’s fighting what he perceives as fire with his own fire. Trickery and gimcrackery. Dreadlocke ☥ 03:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There is part of Randi's 'out' statement that you have missed out. The full quote is "I always have an out – I'm right!". I have to say, I take exception to what is written above – you have implied that the JREF would not pay out in the event of a genuine winner. A challenge application is a legally binding contract between applicant and the JREF, and serious legal consequences to the JREF would ensue were it not to pay out the money. As you yourself said here, personal attacks on talk pages have absolutely no place in Wikipedia. Do you stand by what you have written? — BillC ^talk 03:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I stand by what I have written. I know what the full quote purportedly is, but I am describing what his critics have said about his comment, not necessarily my own pov - I'm not implying anything. If you read what I wrote, it clearly describes both angles with "if, then" statements: "if you believe what Randi says, then" and "if you don't believe what Randi says, then..." Do you disagree that Randi does not believe that anyone has paranormal powers and therefore does not believe he will ever have to pay anyone the money? Do you disagree that his his statement about "having an out", even as you fully quote it, has been used by his detractors as I have indicated above? My only implication here is that I believe the challenge to be a marketing gimmick instead of an attempt at true scientific exploration. I'm sorry if you are offended, it wasn't meant to be offensive to anyone - I'll even delete the comment if you truly find it offensive (after reading and understanding my explanation, of course). I'll also be checking with others to see if this is a personal attack against Randi, I don't believe it is - but if it is - I'll retract, because a PA is not my intention. Dreadlocke ☥ 05:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I still stand by what I originally wrote, but I did rewrite it to better explain what my intent and meaning is. Now, does that mean I'm not really standing by what I wrote? I'm not actually sure....hopefully someone will drop by my talk page and explain it to me. And I've verified with a couple of folks that it's not a personal attack - at least in their professional opinions.... Dreadlocke ☥ 06:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the opinions I have written about above are verifiable from a WP:RS, and in no way violates WP:BLP as did the true personal attacks made by the editor to whom I made the remark you quote above. Dreadlocke ☥ 06:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarification, the quote I used when presenting the detractor's side: "I always have an out", sans any "- I'm right", is a direct quote from the person Randi said it to, Dennis Rawlins. It may be incomplete or a lie, but it's V. Dreadlocke ☥

For those who may be interested, here's the entire quote from "sTARBABY":

"Randi asked my advice on the Helmut Schmidt parapsychology experiment which some CSICOPs had been investigating. I simply urged that it be approached with all the caution KZA had thrown to the winds in 1975 and 1976. He assured me how cautious he was in the testing for his well-publicized $ 10,000 prize for proof of psychic abilities (for which he acts as policeman, judge and jury -- and thus never has supported my idea of neutral judgment of CSICOP tests. "I always have an out," he said."

Apparently, there has been some problem verifying Randi's version of the statement, as it is quoted by BillC above: always have an out quote?

Dreadlocke ☥ 07:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to refute your anti-randi triflings but this isn't the place to do it. This is a talk page for the John Edwards article. So discussing it here is against wikipedia policy. I will however direct you to the James Randi message board where you can start a thread discussing these things and I will refute them there. Here's a link to the forum [[2]]. It's free to register and post.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Damn, that was my line. Well, mostly, it's not really against policy, it's recommended by the Talk page guidelines, I was going to reply to your query with a very similar line...but I decided to answer it here - in most fulsome detail. Although I could make an argument that this is an appropriate place for the discussion - since the challenge itself is mentioned in this article, I do happen to agree with you. So, this little sideline is over. Dreadlocke ☥ 07:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all. Never edit my posts. WP:NPA clearly says "Comment on content, not on the contributor." That's precisely what I was doing. I called your COMMENT triflings not you. However, If you think I insulted you then take proper administrative actions by reporting it. Never alter my posts. Second of all, Debating James Randi on a John Edward talk page is certainly off topic and does not help contribute to the Page itself. Thirdly..The challenge still stands. Register on James Randi's forum and I will debate it with you there. Post your registered name on my talk page and I will post in the thread you start on that forum.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I will once again attempt to take this WP:NPA discussion to your talk page, as outlined in that policy. Dreadlocke ☥ 07:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

See the comment on my talk page then.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Self-proclaimed" is not a weasle word if it's sourced.

The dispute concerning this page deals with the wording concerning John Edward and whether or not to call him a "Psychic" or a "Supposed psychic" or a "purported psychic" etc. It is true that some of those terms should be avoided in encyclopedia articles in some cases. However specific terms such as "Self-Proclaimed" would be suitable as long as they cited the assertion. Calling Edward a "Self Proclaimed Psychic" would not violate wikipedia policy nor is it considered a weasle word if it's sourced. From WP:WEASEL

“ It is acceptable to use some of these phrases, if they are accompanied by a citation that supports the claim...Bertrand Russell, a self-proclaimed atheist (Bertrand Russell, Collected Papers, vol. 11, p. 91) ... ”

Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Links to Schwartz and Hyman articles

See this edit

Why not put in the links, since they make it more obvious that one can go and read the source, and it might be useful?? Is there something wrong with such links? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#External links says "You should not add a descriptive title to an embedded HTML link within an article"; that is, our links should look like [3] and not this. Also, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#URLs as embedded (numbered) links suggests that sources may be included as inline external links or as references in the References section. I recommend that we continue to use the latter system. — Elembis (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality tag?

What justification is there for keeping the neurality tag?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The {{POV-intro}} tag is in place pending the outcome of a mediation case concerning the introduction's wording. Until the disagreement is resolved, the tag should remain. — Elembis (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The mediation needs to start. It can't stay there indefinitely. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Ive taken this case to mediate. Ive familiarised myself with the basics. Seems like a basic issue of how the lede should be written. Id like to take a quick poll of your views if you like the qualified wording (professed, etc.) or the wording which avoids the qualifiers (is a psychic medium, etc) -Ste|vertigo 08:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

How do people feel about the current lede? -Ste|vertigo 09:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• I support referring to John Edward as a "Self-proclaimed psychic". The dispute concerning this page deals with the wording concerning John Edward and whether or not to call him a "Psychic" or a "Supposed psychic" or a "purported psychic" etc. It is true that some of those terms should be avoided in encyclopedia articles in some cases. However specific terms such as "Self-Proclaimed" would be suitable as long as they cited the assertion. Calling Edward a "Self Proclaimed Psychic" would not violate wikipedia policy nor is it considered a weasle word if it's sourced. From WP:WEASEL

“ It is acceptable to use some of these phrases, if they are accompanied by a citation that supports the claim...Bertrand Russell, a self-proclaimed atheist (Bertrand Russell, Collected Papers, vol. 11, p. 91) ... ”

I therefore believe that saying John Edward is a "Self proclaimed psychic" would not qualify as a weasel word and describes the situation perfectly.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Concerning this sentence..."is an American author and television personality best known for performing as a psychic medium on his shows Crossing Over and John Edward Cross Country." I believe that "as a psychic medium" should simply be removed. If we say "performing as a purported/alleged/self professed psychic medium" that would be incorrect grammar. Since he isn't "performing as a purported psychic". What we should simply say is he ""is an American author and television personality best known for performing as a psychic medium on his shows Crossing Over and John Edward Cross Country."Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• I like the current lede overall. However, I think it is problematic to say Edward "performs as a psychic medium" because it can mean that he acts as a medium (which can be either neutral or anti-Edward) or that he performs what a medium does (which I think is pro-Edward). Clearly, we cannot say under WP:V and WP:NPOV that he is a medium — someone who transmits messages from the dead — but under those policies we can and should say that (1) he professes to be a medium and that (2) he is best known for his shows. ("Professed" and "self-proclaimed" have the same meaning, but the latter, while not necessarily pejorative, has (negative) POV connotations which the former does not.) I think we should say Edward is a "professed psychic" because that, in itself, is grammatically correct, verifiable, non-weaselish and, as far as I can tell, neutral. — Elembis (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with "self professed psychic". I don't see how that could imply negative connotations.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Wikidudeman, I think I understand your position. There are a couple problems with it. For one just the word "psychic" alone, by definition doesnt typically mean "someone who has psychic powers and uses them" but rather it means "someone whom people go to for spiritualistic guidance (of a non-religious and perhaps dubious nature)". Saying John Edwards is a psychic therefore carries with it this definition. "Self professed" part is also dubious, because his career is based on the views of other people about his "psychic" abilities, not just his own. Your desire to introduce the qualitative language may not be weasel wording, but it certainly seems motivated by your pov to take a skeptical focus on Edward's supposed "psychic" abilities - an aspect which belongs in a critical section, and (if and only if criticism is noteworthy) a small paragraph at the end of the lede explaining the controversy. More to the point, criticisms about Edwards should be specific to him, while criticism of psychic performance should be on the psychic article.

Elembis, I think the current version is fine. "Performs" is not weasel wording, as even psychics are plain about their work as being a "performance". Qualifiers are often appropriate, but the word "performs" is a fairly accurate description of someone who 1) has an entertaining show on television, and 2) performs in front of an audience. -Ste|vertigo 01:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

My Suggestion on the Wording of the Intro

You guys should take a look at the Sylvia Browne article. The intro for that article does a good job, in my opinion. "... describes herself as a psychic and a medium". That completely avoids making any factual statements about whether or not the subject of the article really has psychic powers. I think that's entirely appropriate, too... if people want to see a debate on whether or not psychic powers are real or not, they can click on psychic and read its respective article. – Lantoka (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Not my article, but that sounds like a truly excellent idea to me. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

...On the surface, but I can't see how it would work, as one must say how he, um, does stuff, on his show. Sorry. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we don't know how he does stuff on his show. The topic is surrounded by allegations and controversy, without anything really being known for sure. As an encyclopedia, it's our job to present facts (or, barring that, opinions of all significant parties). I think the wording above is a good compromise for this reason. It's a fact that John Edward describes himself as a psychic and a medium. That shouldn't be hard to prove nor cite. Whether he actually is a psychic/medium (or whether or not such phenomena even exist) is not a fact, though, and is something that in my opinion we should not comment on if we want to maintain WP:NPOV. – Lantoka (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you should read my comments again. -Ste|vertigo 10:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just re-read your comments and I'm not exactly sure what I'm missing. Would you care to elucidate the points you made most relevant to my comments? – Lantoka (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Stevertigo, What definition of 'psychic' doesn't include someone with paranormal powers? The most known definition is someone with paranormal powers and simply saying he 'is a psychic' or 'performs as a psychic' would imply he has powers. I agree with Lantoka BTW aswell.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, I think you need to take it down a notch. Please understand that criticism of Edward is entirely separate from criticism of psychic phenomenon. Please also understand that changes to a consensus agreeable version should be well justified, not merely motivated by the typically skeptical point of view. Any mature definition of the word "psychic" should naturally carry all the caveats associated with skepticism. To assert the skeptic POV is in essence a lack of AGF that others will interpret the term correctly. -Ste|vertigo 01:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Stevertigo, I don't know what you're talking about. Take what down a notch? You said that one definition of "psychic" could include "someone whom people go to for spiritualistic guidance (of a non-religious and perhaps dubious nature)". I questioned this assertion and also said that even if it is true, the most common definition and the definition most people know is the one that implies supernatural powers. However we don't even need to use the term "psychic" since it's technically incorrect. John Edward claims to he a "medium" i.e. someone who talks to dead people. See MediumshipMediumship. What we should say is John Edward is a "Self professed Medium". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidudeman (talk • contribs) 02:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

BTW Stevertigo, If any of my responses seem abrasive or rude in tone then realize that it is totally unintentional. If that's what you did mean by "take it down notch". I don't know.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I, too, am pretty confused by Stevertigo's comments. Can we get some third party input on the ideas/issues raised here? I think it would help alleviate some of the confusion. – Lantoka (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Stevertigo is the third party. Latonka, I agree with everything you say concerning the fact that it would be nice if we could say "describes himself as." I just tried re-writing it, and couldn't make it work in practice, in an actual sentence. Because, what is it he does on his shows?

"Self-proclaimed" is probably the most awful WP:WTA you can apply. It has the air of "self-proclaimed Savior of the World and Lord of the 7th Dimension," and is totally derogatory when used on a psychic, because psychics get so much scorn.

You have to say what he acts out on his shows, or you will be leaving something important out.

The word "perform," can mean to "(really) do an act," or it can mean to "put on a (false) act." This dual meaning means it is totally NPOV, and Wikipedia is not telling the reader which meaning to apply. According to WordWeb it can mean:

1. To act or perform an action
2. Perform a function
3. Give a performance (of something)

"Self professed" part is also dubious, because his career is based on the views of other people about his "psychic" abilities, not just his own" This is true.

However, all definitions of "psychic" do include paranormal powers, as far as I know. This is irrelevant, however, because of the meaning of the word "performs," which doesn't indicate whether he really does it or whether he just acts like he does. This is especially true in this case, because it is used in the context of a performance, a TV show.

"take a skeptical focus on Edward's supposed "psychic" abilities - an aspect which belongs in a critical section, and (if and only if criticism is noteworthy) a small paragraph at the end of the lede explaining the controversy. More to the point, criticisms about Edwards should be specific to him, while criticism of psychic performance should be on the psychic article." This is dead-on. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... well, perhaps the dual meaning of the word "perform" is exactly what we need. That covers both sides of the issue, wouldn't you say? I've spent a good five minutes trying to re-word that intro and nothing less ambiguous has emerged. At this point I'm in favor of keeping the wording as-is. – Lantoka (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that is exactly what I did, I couldn't re-word it. I agree that the dual meaning of "perform" is perfect here. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What does Wikidudeman think about the above consensus? Do people agree with Wikidudeman to use 'medium' instead of 'psychic?' -Ste|vertigo 09:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's how I think it should be worded...

“ John Edward McGee, Jr. (born October 19, 1969), better known as John Edward, is an American author and television personality best known for performing on his shows 'Crossing Over' and 'John Edward Cross Country' where he says he talks to the dead relatives of his guests.

Born in Glen Cove, New York, Edward was convinced at a young age that he could become a medium. After writing his first book on the subject in 1998, Edward became a well known and controversial figure in the United States through his shows and other media appearances. His current show, John Edward Cross Country, has been aired on WE tv since May 2006.

”

This is really the only realistic way to word it to avoid POV or implying he actually is psychic.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What's the issue with the word "psychic"? That's what he claims he is, right? I mean, medium implies that he has the same kind of supernatural powers. So why is medium okay but psychic bad? – Lantoka (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Stevertigo was saying that "psychic" could be used without saying he is not necessarily a psychic because some definitions of 'psychic' might simply mean someone who people go to for "someone whom people go to for spiritualistic guidance (of a non-religious and perhaps dubious nature)" which is a problem we don't have to deal with if we simply say he's a "self-professed medium" because technically a psychic and a medium aren't the same thing. I believe "Psychic" is the general term and "Medium" is the specified term. I don't think John Edward claims he can move things with his mind or see the future like other self professed psychics claim.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, this guy seems to fit your first definition perfectly. Doesn't he have his own talk show where he pretty much tries to console people by using his "psychic powers" to communicate with dead family members? As for the second definition, which includes additional powers, I guess he doesn't really fit that bill, so medium would be a bit better (although we could also just mention both). Just my two cents. ;) – Lantoka (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway...Who here opposes my rendition of how the introduction should be worded?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, your version is a bit conversational and not encyclopedic. I agree that using the word medium. Now deal with your fellow editors on the other issues please. The idea now is to work here on a finished lede section - you can just work on the same copy rather than pasting over each other. I dont think the issues here are major nor are you far from agreement provided (Wikidudeman) you can show yourself to be agreeable with your respectable peers. -Ste|vertigo 00:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman doesn't seem to realize that "psychic medium" (if I am correct), is a subtype of "medium." Edward says he is a psychicmedium, as if it is all one word. He gives a performance of being a "psychic medium" on his show. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current lead. The only thing we are really arguing about here, as far as I know, is the word "performed." All suggested alternative versions make it less accurate, or less NPOV. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"The only thing" - WDM is talking about other things though.

If thats what Edward claims, then its quite encyclopedic to say "Edward claims to be a "psychicmedium" (a combined psychic and medium)" and add a footnote to explain any particulars about the usage. -Ste|vertigo 02:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Moving beyond what "psychic" or "psychic medium" means. The current lead says "best known for performing as a psychic medium on his shows Crossing Over and John Edward Cross Country." That wording implies he is actually a psychic medium. I don't see a problem with this wording.."best known for performing on his shows 'Crossing Over' and 'John Edward Cross Country' where he asserts he talks to the dead relatives of his guests."Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's clear either way. Remember, the word "perform" as discussed above can imply both that he's putting on an act or that he's using a power. And this is actually very convenient for our purposes. It's, in effect, a neutral wording that doesn't make a claim either way. Which is why I'm most in favor of the current wording. Your wording sounds pretty skeptical to me, and while I don't personally have a problem with that, I think the current wording is more WP:NPOV and thus more appropriate for the encyclopedia.

And again, if people want to get into the whole Does John Edward have psychic powers? or even Do psychic powers even exist? argument, they can click on medium (spirituality) and read about the issue there. By maintaining the current wording, we sidestep the entire debate and maintain NPOV. – Lantoka (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I feel that most people who read it will interpret it as meaning he is actually a psychic. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think so bro. Either you come to the article believing in psychics or you don't. No matter what wording we use for this lede, we're not going to change people's minds with one ambiguous sentence. That would take a full article on the subject, like parapsychology or medium (spirituality), and those articles are much better equipped to deal with the subject than this one. – Lantoka (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, there is nothing in the current lead which says anything about the reality or unreality of Edward's powers. That's because of the meaning of the word "perform." We can link the words "psychic medium" to Mediumship. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm. -Ste|vertigo 22:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well to get done with this mediation, I think we should simply remove the "POV disputed" tag from the article for now considering the dispute is fairly trivial and we've come to somewhat of a consensus that it should be kept the same way it is. The rest of the article beside the introduction is something i'll check for neutrality but the introduction itself doesn't seem to bee too "POV". Any thoughts? Disagreements? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I think the lead is as neutral as it's gonna get, personally. – Lantoka (talk) 06:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I have been away on holiday for about a month, and have not been able to participate, I agree with the point that you have made Stevertigo that the is nothing to say that he is or is not, however my contention is that the statement performs is in itself ambiguous and can lead to multiple interpretations, multiple interpretations are by their nature not encyclopedic, and through thier ambiguity lead to POV. I think it would be far more clear if the introduction indicated that the claims of psychicness come from Edwards himself.

I also kind of disagree that it is fairly trivial, it establishes a precedent where it is okay to use ambiguous language in an encyclopedia. Belbo Casaubon 13:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The important thing here is that neither meaning of the word performs is verifiable, if we take the meaning that Mr Edward is disingenuous about his abilities then no one can prove it, if we take the pro Mr Edward stance, it is equally not verifiable, the only thing that can be verified is that Mr Edward is providing entertainment in a public arena, where he claims to hear the voices of the dead...performing is ambiguous, and in this case doubly not verifiableBelbo Casaubon 15:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That ambiguity is exactly why we like the word. Since neither can be proved either way, the word "perform" implies and covers both. It's a completely neutral word. And I don't think WP:V applies in this case, although if it did, there's plenty of evidence that he "performs" psychic acts... or at least appears to. Ever watched one of his two television shows? – Lantoka (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm. The word 'performs' well in that function. :) -Ste|vertigo 22:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! ..... Nice one, nonetheless! Dreadlocke ☥ 23:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I support keeping the disputed sentence as it currently is: "John Edward, is an American author and television personality best known for performing as a psychic medium on his shows Crossing Over and John Edward Cross Country." This sentence accurately describes what Edward is best known for, "performing" on his TV shows. The word “performing" does not make a statement either way about his presumed abilities - which is the very nature of NPOV – yet it is not at all ambiguous, because he is indeed giving a televised performance. As a side note, the current version was reached by consensus of editors a few months ago after much dispute over various other versions. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Psychic medium" is far more accurate than either "psychic" or "medium". A "psychic medium" is a type of medium, and it is what John is referred to as on his show. If we link it to Mediumship, then we're good to go. Dreadlocke ☥ 00:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Belbo Casaubon, Lantoka, Wikidudeman, and Dreadlocke. The claims of psychicness don't come only from Edward himself, but from all his fans. So what should we say, "acclaimed and claimed psychic medium"? "Performs" is NPOV. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Belbo Casaubon is the one arguing that it isn't NPOV, so I doubt you agree with him. =P – Lantoka (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I think I pasted his username in there because I was going to object, the got distracted. It should read:

I agree with Lantoka, Wikidudeman, and Dreadlocke. Belbo Casaubon, the claims of psychicness don't come only from Edward himself, but from all his fans. So what should we say, "acclaimed and claimed psychic medium"? "Performs" is NPOV.

Thanks, Lantoka Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we're getting pretty close to consensus, then. What does our mediator think? – Lantoka (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, There was nothing ambiguous about "self professed" from the start and it's clearly allowed per WP:WEASEL. Secondly, I have no idea what is going on with "Dreadlocke" and "Belbo". Neither one of them have been participating in this mediation from the start and then all of a sudden they both come back at the same time and both have similar reasons for not being able to mediate? See [[4]]. Thirdly, This is fairly trivial. Arguing over whether to use "performs as a psychic medium" or "self professed psychic medium" really makes no difference in reality and there's no such thing as "precedent" on wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a court of law and what the consensus is here only applies here and nowhere else. I don't see the point in continually debating this trivial thing personally. If you all want to continue to debate whether that one sentence should stay the same or be changed then be mu guest but as long as that stays the debate then I'll keep out of the debate for now.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What does the mediator think? I had thought you all agreed to leave it. Then Belbo came along and raised some hackles - undoing the spirit of consensus we worked hard to reach. Belbo, sometimes when you go on vacation, you miss out. -Ste|vertigo 03:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That's actually how we got to mediation. Five editors (not all the same ones in this current consensus, only two are here from the original consensus group) ended a dispute over wording with my "performing as a psychic medium" solution. This wording worked perfectly until Belbo came in a few months later and "raised the hackles" that led to this mediation. Interesting circle. Dreadlocke ☥ 03:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, the original consensus was 5 for and 0 against. Pretty clear that time. Dreadlocke ☥ 03:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Raised the hackles? I am sorry if I have, I thought I was contributing to a Dispute Resolution which was raised with my name on it, Dreadlocke was off on the sick, so I never logged on while I was on holiday, you must forgive me I am not and 'old hack' at dispute resolution.

My points are that Performs is not WP:NPOV, indeed Lantoka, you phrase: there's plenty of evidence that he "performs" psychic acts... or at least appears to

If you read WP:Weasel it clearly states If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, then it lacks NPOV, this is clearly the case in this instance.

Performs is also clearly ambiguous, either of its meanings giving rise to a potentially POV interpretation These common meanings are (to paraphrase) 1.To Do. 2:To Enact(as in pretence)

Any reader who reads this introduction must interpret this line as having either of these two meanings, one has is negative POV and one is positive POV, it is inescapable. The other point is that neither of these interpretations is verifiable.

I think there is some stuff sailing pretty close to incivility in some of the raised the hackles comments, remember and treat the newbies nicely, and in Good faith. Belbo Casaubon 11:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I completely agree with Lantokas point about the Sylvia Brown Article, it is a perfect introduction, with perhaps the exclusion of the James Randi SectionBelbo Casaubon 11:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I for one oppose using the Sylvia Browne style introduction, I find it pejorative and incomplete - it does not include the hundreds of thousands of 'believers' that acclaim him as a phychic medium - and it's not what he's known for - his show performances are the key to his fame.

Are there any others besides Belbo who oppose keeping the current version in place? We seem to have an almost unanimous consensus on keeping to the current version and ending this mediation. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Belbo Casaubon is saying that it is a weasel word, because it can be interpreted in different ways, which would both be POV. But we are not responsible if the reader comes to the page with a POV. If the reader were to come to the page with no POV, then the reader can give "performs" the interpretation that Edward is doing a psychic medium show. So the meaning of "performs" in that situation would be "he is doing a show," and the question of whether he is "really psychic" or not would not be settled in the reader's mind, because the reader can't tell from the word what the status of Edward's powers is. If the reader is pro-psychic, the interpretation would be "he is performing psychic acts and hosting a show." If the reader is anti-psychic the interpretation would be "Edward is fooling the audience into thinking he is really a psychic." Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I hope Belbo has read the mediation discussion. I consider the matter closed, where we agreed that "performs" is not a weasel word and functions quite neutrally. A piston engine "performs." A computer "performs" computations. Case closed. -Ste|vertigo 06:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Stevertigo. Nice job of mediation. Dreadlocke ☥ 06:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ste|vertigo, you're very neutral and on-top-of-it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

So we have 2 members of the wikipedia paranormal project advocating performs, does that not tell you something, I also think you are wrong and you arguments non intellectual.Belbo Casaubon 08:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Belbo, you'd come off as a lot more civil if you chose your words a little more carefully, you know. Above, instead of lecturing a moderator and experienced user about WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BITE, you could have just said "I think your comments were unnecessarily rude". And here, instead of deriding the quality of the arguments on this page, instead you could just say you "disagree".

If it makes you feel better though, I'm a pretty neutral party to this whole affair. I joined the debate late and I'm not a regular editor of paranormal articles nor a member of WikiProject Paranormal. The ultimate way of solving disputes and even determining content for Wikipedia articles is consensus, and despite the fact that you disagree, I do honestly think it's been achieved here.

Does the wording really bother you that much? I honestly don't think we can get any more neutral than this. And I feel pretty confident saying that, after going through several steps of dispute resolution and a considerable amount of debate on this talk page. – Lantoka (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

So you really think saying I disagree is enough to justify an opinion on a matter, please dont accuse me of incivilty because my arguments are irrefutable, I came to the mediation late and have had comments like 'raised the hackles' which is incivil, and now you are having a go for providing quality arguments.~ Belbo Casaubon

Come again, I didn't catch that. Did you really just say that your arguments are "irrefutable"?

Wow. Just wow. – Lantoka (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Are we beginning to notice a theme here Lantoka? Isn't it strange how the paranormal nutcases aren't the ones who believe they are all-knowing? So unscientific of us. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 09:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No, they are irrefutable, go on try and refute them if you can, remember, keep it civil, and don't attack me personally. All I have heard so far is we have made up our mind...so there! Belbo Casaubon 09:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Renewed "performs" dispute

I'd have to agree that the current wording "performing as a psychic medium" is vague and potentially misleading, it makes it sound like wikipedia is saying he's a medium. What's wrong with something like "performing as a self described psychic medium". The fact is not that he's a medium but that he says he is one. An encyclopedia needs to present information clearly, not use intentionally vague wording so that people who don't agree can make their own interpretations. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Milo, you've described exactly what I was trying to say, I have no axe to grind with John Edward, I dont care whether or not he has bona fide psychic powers just that the article represents the verifiable. I think the current version is a simulation of neutrality through vagueness and multiple interpretations but under analysis it breaks down.

The other thing is that I cant see how we have reached consensus, as at least Wikidudeman, Elembis, Milo and I think that the wording could do with review. Although WDM appears to have gotten a little bored (no offence intended), and Elembis has not commented for a while. Belbo Casaubon 15:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're not happy with the mediation results, you will need to take this up the chain, then. Adding a tag after mediation and totally against consensus of the disputing editors is not the way to go. Don't remove the book cover photo, either. Dreadlocke ☥ 15:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but mediation is non-binding and consensus can change. You don't get to lock down a version of an article just because you had a mediation about it. And as you said yourself, an individual editor can add a tag. The current into certainly can be read in a NPOV POV (oops) way, so I'm putting it back. Please leave it until concerns are addressed. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You'll need to reopen mediation again, then. This was formal mediation, and you cannot ignore it's results. I suggest you do it the proper way and not by edit warring. Dreadlocke ☥ 16:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I see nothing in the mediation guidelines that says anything about reopening mediation. Second, on the "formal mediation" page, both Belbo and Elembis are listed as parties - I don't see how it can be "closed' without agreement from either of them. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont get how the mediation could be closed consensus had not been reached, Elembis WDM, and I all objected to the wording...then Milo came along. that is 4 to 3 as far as I can see infavour of a change to the lead.Belbo Casaubon 16:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to read Wikidudeman's last entry, and let Elembis speak for himself. You can also complain to the mediatior. Right now it's closed as resolved. I'll leave the tag for now, until I get instructions from a higher authority on this issue. I think it's just a disrputive tactic that goes against the spirit of Wikipedia policy and guideline. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have read WDMs last entry and it looks like he is bored, Come on Elembis...speak for yourself...please. One objector make no consensus. And please stop talking to Milo and I like we are one person. Anyway, I notice some interesting articles that need some work over at Electronic voice phenomenon and Mediumship Belbo Casaubon 17:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

In wikidudeman's last entry, he still says he favors something like "proported" and doesn't so much agree with the consensus as give up on the discussion. And I see posts from Elembis opposing the current wording (he has spoken for himself) - is there a later post I missed where he changed his mind and supported it? --Milo H Minderbinder 17:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's be clear, I'm talking about post-mediation commentary by Elembis. And you can cherry pick from WDM's comments all you like, but that doesn't change the result. Feel free to open a new mediatiation case - see if they'll take another one right on top of the last one. Or complain to an administrator about it. Formal mediation on this is closed. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether mediation is closed is a moot point. This article can be discussed and edited. I'm still not sure why you think a new mediation would need to be opened, is there anything in the mediation guidelines that says that? If you really want a binding decision, open an ArbCom case. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom doesn't take content cases. This one is very clear, "performs" is NPOV. The only way to get anything else is for you to open a new mediation case. It's obvious you do not have consensus for a change that overrides the mediation. I'd read Wikipedia:Canvassing too. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, you say I'd need to open a new mediation case. I dispute that - where in the mediation guidelines does it say anything of the sort. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it any more true. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, if Stevertigo is satisfied, so am I. I appreciate everyone's participation. — Elembis (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about with Wikipedia:Canvassing, I don't understand that at all??? Belbo Casaubon 19:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

He won't be responding for a bit as he's currently blocked for violating WP:3RR on this article...maybe he's talking about the request for comment I made at Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Book cover image on author page?. One mention at a relevant policy page certainly isn't canvassing. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Milo, you say that "The current into certainly can be read in a NPOV way" There should be no problem then.

Disruption and being quarrelsome is not the way to get what you want on Wikipedia. This intro has survived two mediations already. I suggest that you review the extremely good reasons given for keeping it. If you want it changed, come up with something which is not weaseled and which is accurate (something other than "self-proclaimed, which is weaseled and inaccurate). It may be that you are not being good sports, and that you need to adhere more strongly to the spirit of Wikipedia. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please AGF. My bad, I meant POV, not NPOV. One mediation or ten aren't reason to lock down editing of a page or ignore good faith objections. I have proposed wording that is not "weaseled" in fact it's similar to one of the examples of what is acceptable on the WP:WEASEL page. If you actually read my proposal, I said "describes himself as a psychic medium" which is literally what he does on his web page, so there should be no complaints about point of view or accuracy. How much more neutral could we be than to use the description he himself has chosen and attribute it to him? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am very much afraid I see no consensus, 4 editors have indicated that they wish to see the page changed 3 wish to see it remain the way it is...2 are members of the paranormal project or whatever it is called, one I seem to have pissed off cause she and Dreadlocke are mocking me on her talk page...This is no consensus, if you can explain why this is consensus, and why we are not being 'good sports' which sounds a bit personal, is this because your current viewpoint is that you have won?? Belbo Casaubon 21:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I simply suggested that since it has already gone through 2 mediations, that it might be time to give it a rest. If you don't want others to think your posts are funnily unscientific, perhaps you should refrain from saying your arguments cannot be refuted. If Milo can suggest a smooth, NPOV, and accurate replacement for the current intro, then I'd be quite happy to go with it. No one has so far. As it is, however, we have a smooth-sounding, NPOV, and accurate intro- which has twice been judged acceptable. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a guy, Belbo. And by the way, what good are we doing discussing people's behavior here on this talk page? We're just pissing each other off. We should get back to debating the article or not post at all. This whole dispute has dragged out long enough. – Lantoka (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Martin, I'm sorry you feel the article needs a "rest". Unfortunately, looking at the intro, it's POV and inaccurate (since it can be interpreted as as saying JE is a psychic). And since consensus can change, if it no longer has consensus support, we need to look at possible changes. I have suggested an intro that I feel is NPOV and accurate, is the only objection that it doesn't describe him doing feats on his show? Isn't it clear that if he says he is a psychic medium and has TV shows, the stuff he does on the shows is "psychic medium" stuff? (especially since it seems acceptable to just say he's an author and not spell out that he's an author on "psychic medium" topics) --Milo H Minderbinder 23:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Another proposed intro

John Edward McGee, Jr. (born October 19, 1969), better known as John Edward, is an American author and television personality who describes himself as a psychic medium. He is best known for his shows Crossing Over and John Edward Cross Country.

It's not vague like the current version, and saying how he describes himself is factually accurate and neutral point of view. Why the insistence on the current arcane wording? --Milo H Minderbinder 16:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I also take issue with "This article is about the TV psychic. For other uses, see John Edwards (disambiguation)." It also can be read as saying he is a psychic. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

We've been through all this in the above discussions. The intro needs to describe what he is known for, performing as a psychic medium on his tv shows. I suggest you read through this entire talk page. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe not about the dab, I'm not even sure it's necessary to have the dab. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Milo, I actually suggested the very same wording as you earlier and there are some problems with it. See above for the arguments. – Lantoka (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think we could all agree to Milo's version, and of course we've thought of that before. Except that, we have to say what he does on his shows, in some way. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I like Milos lede, however I agree with Martin that we do need to know what he does on his shows, what we do know is that he claims to receive messages from the dead, that is verifiable. Therefore something along the lines of...

John Edward McGee, Jr. (born October 19, 1969), better known as John Edward, is an American author and television personality who describes himself as a psychic medium. He is best known for his shows Crossing Over and John Edward Cross Country, where he claims to communicate with the spirits of audience member's dead relatives.

It fulfils all the criteria we have discussed before, and is verifiable, and not POV, under any interpretation. Belbo Casaubon 23:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Is using a book cover fair use

I think not its confusing, and like an advert. The image although containing an image of John Edward is of a book...not the man himself, if you want to put an image there of Mr Edward not of a book.Belbo Casaubon 17:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you get an official opinion on this, talk to one of the copyright/fair use admins. Book covers are in widespread use throughout Wikipedia in their author's articles - it's one of the few ways to get a photo in. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yah man, that seems a bit far-fetched to nuke the only free photo we have of Edward on the basis that using his own book cover is excess advertisement for him. What else are we supposed to use? And it's his article... what's wrong with using his book cover? – Lantoka (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A book cover isn't free, it's fair use, and it's questionable in this case. Since he's a living person, any fair use image is (at least in theory) replacable by someone somewhere taking his picture. He does leave the house, right? --Milo H Minderbinder 17:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a good photo like that, then feel free to replace it. In the meantime, it's perfectly good. Run over to his house and snap off a shot. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Oooooh. I figured since we replaced a fair use image the new one would be free. My mistake. However, I'd hesitate removing that image unless you can replace it with a better one. Arguments about fair use are just going to end in edit wars and headaches. And speaking from experience with other fair use image debates, the guidelines on how strict or loose to be about the use of fair use images is nowhere near set in stone. – Lantoka (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that the reason an editor might look at this article and think "This usage fails Wikipedia:Fair use" is because the book cover is in a big infobox, and is clearly being used just to show what a living person looks like. If the book cover were moved out of the infobox and put in a section about this person's work and career, with a caption like "Edward's book, which describes both his philosophy and experiences, received mixed reviews from critics [ref]", I suspect no one would look askance at it. Jkelly 18:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

While better, if the book only merits one line, I think there will still be some including me who will question whether there is any justification for including the image Nil Einne 19:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Belbo Compromise

John Edward McGee, Jr. (born October 19, 1969), better known as John Edward, is an American author and television personality who describes himself as a psychic medium. He is best known for his shows Crossing Over and John Edward Cross Country, where he claims to communicate with the spirits of audience member's dead relatives.

What do you guys think? Are there any objections to this wording? I think this would be a great compromise if everybody is okay with it. – Lantoka (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to argue with my own suggestion, but I think I may get trouble for claims, the WP:WTA compliant suggestion in this case would be:

John Edward McGee, Jr. (born October 19, 1969), better known as John Edward, is an American author and television personality who describes himself as a psychic medium. He is best known for his shows Crossing Over and John Edward Cross Country, where he says he communicates with the spirits of audience member's dead relatives. Belbo Casaubon

What about "appears to communicate" instead of "he says he comunicates"? It's a little more concise and decently non-judgmental. – Lantoka (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good also.Belbo Casaubon 00:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, what do the rest of you guys think? Would this be an acceptable compromise?

Proposed new intro: John Edward McGee, Jr. (born October 19, 1969), better known as John Edward, is an American author and television personality who describes himself as a psychic medium. He is best known for his shows Crossing Over and John Edward Cross Country, where he appears to communicate with the spirits of audience member's dead relatives. – Lantoka (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

While I do maintain that the current version is completely NPOV and flows much better, Belbo's second version isn't too bad. I would much prefer however that we stick to the current one, because as already stated, it is only POV if the reader comes to the page with a pre-existing POV, and that isn't our problem. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This is where we differ unfortunately, I believe that the readers come before the editors, and words that can potentially enforce a positive or negative point of view (intentionally or not) in this case are wrong. Belbo Casaubon 01:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you completely. That is what is so good about the word "performed." Because in the absence of any way to not bias the reader, we should use, if we can, a word which could be taken either way or no way. When you say "where he says he communicates with the spirits of audience member's dead relatives"' This automatically sows doubt as to whether he is really doing it. In other words, what you do is take a sentence which can bias the reader pro, con, or neutral and make it into a sentence which can bias the reader either neutral or con, but not pro. Thus, this one is worse than what is there. Thanks for clarifying my thinking on that! (: Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Elembis just declared himself satisfied with the results of the mediation (but it's hard to find where he said it, so I'll put this here). Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer "says" over "appears" but I'd support either as a big improvement over what's there. The current wording can be read in a POV way (since one definition of "performs" is "carries out") regardless of preconcieved notions. The new proposal doesn't bias or cast doubt, it presents the situation factually, which is he does things that we don't know are psychic or not, and which some people believe and others don't. He does things that look psychic, so the most neutral thing to say is just that, not that they are or aren't psychic. Are there other objections beyond Martin's?

What about the disambig? I think it's POV to call him a "TV psychic" (since it sounds like it's saying he's a psychic), is there a streamlined way to say it in a more NPOV way? "Self described TV psychic" or just "self described psychic"?--Milo H Minderbinder 17:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have decided to back off this for a while, I realise now that my problem is with deliberately vague phrasing and not this particular article, even though John Edward is a dick, I am going to concentrate my efforts on getting something done with the repeated use of vague language in paranormal articles. Belbo Casaubon 11:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Vagueness is usually only a response to extreme views which assume that the article cannot be taken as a whole, and even that a single paragraph cannot be taken as a whole. So we come out with vague sentences because you can't have one pro sentence ballanced by one con sentence. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it is an attempt to muddy waters, and occlude the truth. Belbo Casaubon 20:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a good illustration of my point. People are pushing their little "truths", their little POVs, and the only thing that can stick is vagueness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martinphi (talk • contribs) 22:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

The only truth is that which is verifiable, trust me in 5, 10, or 20 years time if it gets proved that the paranormal world is reality, then there will be nobody happier than me, the pushing of half baked vague dissemblance does absolutely nothing to help the case of those who have an interest in the paranormal, and makes bona fide investigators (which there are some) be viewed as the same as those who think that vagueness is acceptable in an encyclopedia. Belbo Casaubon 22:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I can only repeat that the vagueness comes usually from the POV-pushing of skeptics who will not accept a paragraph which is balanced, but have to balance each sentence. And the only truth which is verifiable is that something exists. Period, end of story. That is the rock bottom truth, unless you have some knowledge missed by everyone since Descartes. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, are you stating opinion or fact when you say :

vagueness comes usually from the POV-pushing of skeptics

Would you care to elucidate this:

And the only truth which is verifiable is that something exists

cause I dont have a clue what you are talking about. Belbo Casaubon 23:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. The first is of course just my personal opinion. The second is from the analysis of Descartes, where he looked around and wanted to know exactly what he could really know. He came up with "I think therefore I exist, cogito ergo sum. He then went on to try and prove the existence of God, but it is agreed by philosophers that he failed. As far as I know, his starting place is as far as anyone has ever gotten since. We know only that something exists, because we would be unable to question it if nothing existed. That is all we really know. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

BY that reasoning we should not bother with anything, wikipedia should just be a page that you turn up to and it says ,

Something exists, what it is we can't be sure about, but something existsBelbo Casaubon 10:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the dispute...

I want to point out toStevertigo that a mediation isn't some sort of "decision". A mediation is simply a process where a neutral person helps "mediate" the debate between disputing parties. I also want to point out to Belbo Casaubon that even though this specific mediation didn't go your way you can always request another mediation and mediator or you could take it to the WP:ARB since you have tried mediation.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Care to weigh in on the latest proposed versions above? --Milo H Minderbinder 18:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Post it for me here. I can't tell which one you're referring to.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"John Edward McGee, Jr. (born October 19, 1969), better known as John Edward, is an American author and television personality who describes himself as a psychic medium. He is best known for his shows Crossing Over and John Edward Cross Country, where he appears to communicate with the spirits of audience member's dead relatives."

I prefer "says he" over "appears to" but I think either is an improvement over the current version. I'm not sure what the objection to either of these is other than they take out the vagueness and possible misinterpretation that some seem to like. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. He doesn't "appear to" to me. So that is overtly vague and dubious.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with going back to the other wording. Not a big deal. – Lantoka (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to go from an intro which is more NPOV, to an intro which is less NPOV. As I explained above, this is a less NPOV version than what is there. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 09:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So a quick straw poll: who is favour of the change, I am for sure. Belbo Casaubon 09:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Now now. Seek consensus, and wait a while for the others concerned to get back and weigh in. If you change it now, you'll have no consensus, and we'll have to just keep at this. Also, my arguments seem to have been ignored. I have to go for the night. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 09:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Its annoying when your arguments get ignored isn't it.....and I am seeking consensus. Belbo Casaubon 11:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Belbo and Milo.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The comments haven't been ignored, there just doesn't seem to be agreement with them. The "explanation" of NPOV seems to be that making it sound like he is a psychic is neutral, while saying that he describes himself as one (which is true, doesn't say that he is or isn't which nobody really knows, and doesn't conflict with the fact that some people believe he is psychic and some believe he is not) is somehow biased. Declaring a biased position "neutral" doesn't make it so. (And please assume good faith, calling those who want to make the wording neutral "POV pushers" is failing to do so)

Lantoka, your last proposal was "appears". Would you support "says"? Besides Martin, are there objections to the proposed update? --Milo H Minderbinder 14:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Says is also perfectly fine (sorry if I wasn't clear above). As for your "straw poll", you can count me as neutral. I support both the current wording and Belbo's proposed wording (both with "says" and with "appears"). All of them work, and all of them seem NPOV to me. – Lantoka (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It only appears to say he is a psychic because you are reading it that way, as explained. But in your edit, it would apear to say he is either not a psychic, or to be neutral. So let's wait till Dreadlocke gets back, and see what he has to say. I believe that we should stick with the more neutral intro till a better one can be made. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And I'm reading it that way because that's the dictionary definion of the words. I'm not misreading anything or reading with bias - one possible correct way of reading the ambiguous wording is factually incorrect. And that is unacceptable (and less neutral, not more). How can the suggested edit be read as saying he's not a psychic? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What way would that be? Surely not another POV about the actual abilities of Edwards? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that response. Could you please rephrase? --Milo H Minderbinder 23:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by this: "one possible correct way of reading the ambiguous wording is factually incorrect." Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Performs as a psychic" can mean either "Does things as a psychic" or "puts on an act as a psychic". In the absence of proof that he really is a psychic, the first is factually incorrect, meaning we shouldn't use that wording. Make sense now? --Milo H Minderbinder 01:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No. That's why I wondered whether it might not just be another POV. You don't have the right to decide for Wikipedia or the reader that John Edward is not a psychic. You have just given evidence that the current version is NPOV, and the proposed version is not. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying he's not a psychic, I'm saying it's not factually correct to say that he is. Subtle difference, do you get it? You're not saying that it's OK for wikipedia to say that he's actually a psychic, are you?

And do any other editors besides Martin have any objection to the proposed change? --Milo H Minderbinder 01:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't see the difference, no. If it is not correct to say he is, then it is correct to say he isn't. Wikipedia should not say he is a psychic, and Wikipedia should not close off that interpretation. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Martin, quick question...where does it say in the proposed intro that he is not psychic?? Again I just can't see it, it is a statement of the verifiable facts, that John Edward describes himself as a psychic, and says he can hear the voices of the dead, nothing more, nothing less, and it's certainly not ambiguous. I think stevertigo put it as perfectly as it could have been said whe he said....A piston engine "performs." A computer "performs" computations in both these cases the device is doing the action not pretending to do the action, and the current intro will most likely be interpreted in that way, making it POV. Belbo Casaubon 10:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Martin, I'm glad you agree that WP shouldn't say he's a psychic. I just don't understand how you can support "performs as a psychic" which seems to say he's a psychic. The only objection so far seems to be Martin (whose objection seems to have no basis in policy), so I'm going to go ahead and put the revised version up. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Milo, I got you mixed up with Wikidudeman. Sorry about the "another POV" thing above. I said it up above about the neutrality of the word "performs." This is the best word yet, because it lets the reader think anything they want about his powers or lack thereof, or it lest them merely think he does a TV show:

We are not responsible if the reader comes to the page with a POV. If the reader were to come to the page with no POV, then the reader can give "performs" the interpretation that Edward is doing a psychic medium show. So the meaning of "performs" in that situation would be "he is doing a show," and the question of whether he is "really psychic" or not would not be settled in the reader's mind, because the reader can't tell from the word what the status of Edward's powers is. Thus, it allows the neutral interpretation. If the reader is pro-psychic, the interpretation would be "he is performing psychic acts and hosting a show." Thus, it allows the pro interpretation. If the reader is anti-psychic the interpretation would be "Edward is fooling the audience into thinking he is really a psychic." Thus, it allows the con interpretation. This word does not tell the reader what to think, and so it is totally NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martinphi (talk • contribs) 22:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

POV has nothing to do with it. If the reader comes to the page with no POV, there are two possible ways they could interpret the sentence. It's a coin flip. One is NPOV and factually inaccurate. That's not acceptable. As far as I'm concerned, the whole discussion of POV preconceptions is a smokescreen. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

From a neutral POV, it has 3 possible meanings, not 2. It therefore leaves the question open. It is therefore NPOV. And I don't know what you mean by "One is NPOV and factually inaccurate." Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not insert this new intro before you have consensus. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is not unanimity. I see four editors who are OK with it and you are the only one who has objected. --Milo H Minderbinder 02:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Five now, if you count me. I see nothing wrong with Milo's proposed version, though I'm not keen on the word 'appears' in the second sentence. — BillC ^talk 02:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, good enough. I'm sure the debate will re-open, as you didn't wait for all parties to weigh in. But for now your version is "on top" as it were (: Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This was proposed five days ago. How long are we supposed to wait? --Milo H Minderbinder 12:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The new version looks quite redundant to me, after all, speaking to the dead is what a psychic medium does. I prefer that we go back to the original, NPOV version that has been through a bout of formal mediation after a previous consensus was reached. If this version needs to be changed again, then a new consensus must be reached or through the WP:Resolving disputes process. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"after all, speaking to the dead is what a psychic medium does."..I disagree. And asserting they do so is in violation of NPOV.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm asserting that here, not in the article. In the article, it clearly states that he "performs as a psychic medium", then goes on to say that "he says he speaks to the dead". Clearly redundant, even though both are NPOV - in the article itself. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at medium, it doesn't seem to be limited to speaking to the dead, so not redundant. And there was concern about not saying specifically what he did on his TV show without that statement. I can't disagree more with the idea that the previous version was NPOV. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and John Edward says he is a psychic medium and says he has and uses all those abilities as described under psychic medium - speaking to the dead has several different avenues of communication. And yes, you clearly disagree that "performs" is NPOV, so we go through the dispute resolution process yet again - you don't have consensus to make that change. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dreadlocke, I don't see any problem with saying he is a "Professed psychic medium" and also in ANOTHER PART of the article saying he "claims he is a psychic medium". It's only redundant in the same sentence not in different parts of the article. I have a feeling your dispute has to do with your bias and not with wanting to keep wikipedia neutral.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

We've been through two rounds of discussions and a formal mediation on the issue, and all three rounds have agreed with me and my "bias" so far. Which begs the question of who actually has the bias. "Performs" is completely NPOV and is an excellent choice. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can change. The most recent discussion didn't agree with you. Sorry. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm part of that discussion and I disagree with certain elements of the proposed version, so there is no "recent" consensus. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

(undent) "Performs" may or may not be neutral, but what it is is vague. — BillC ^talk 18:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Virtually everyone on television is "performing", it's the nature of the beast - it's a performance medium. That is not "vague", it is very clear. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Dreadlocke. So add me to that consensus. "Performs" is dubious. It can mean he either is a psychic or he isn't. It doesn't suit the purposes of this article. Stating that "He is a purported psychic" and "He says he is a psychic" is much less dubious and NPOV. I agree with Milo and BillC. The only reason I can imagine someone would want to have he "performs" as a psychic in the article is for it's dubiousness which could imply he is actually a psychic which of course is not NPOV and I think Dreadlocke knows that.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, we disagree, and we seem to be polarized - same as before the previous mediation results. So what's next? Another mediation? Will ArbCom take this type of case? Dreadlocke ☥ 19:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What's next is we leave it until there's consensus to change it. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't have consensus to change it in the first place! Dreadlocke ☥ 19:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Milo uses words like "consensus" in a unique way, to mean supermajority. No, he never had consensus, nor did he respond to my arguments. He used his majority to force through a change, without consensus, knowing that those who agreed with him would out-revert me if I tried to revert it. I explained throughly how the old version was more NPOV than the old, because it allows pro, con, and neutral interpretations, while the current one only allows con and neutral ones. Milo's response was that the version with "performs" allowed for one incorrect interpretation. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"nor did he respond to my arguments" That's just comical. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice. I see you continue to act out of good faith and with the utmost in civility. There's no call for that kind of comment. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK- perhaps I missed it. Why don't you copy it from above where you gave a response to my pro/neutral/con argument? All I saw that you said was a vague reference to one of the choices not being "true." Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

And there's the admission that you did see my response to your arguments. See why I'm laughing?

There's a difference between not liking my response and pretending I didn't respond. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think unfortunately Dreadelocke and Martin are missing the point of the argument that is being presented, and that is that the use of performs is vague and open to multiple interpretations, the current wording does not allow for vagueness or ambiguity, but is a statement of what we know.... Belbo Casaubon 20:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm not missing your point. I just completely disagree with your assessment. I'm not the only one, the Mediator did too! So did Lantoka! And others. You seem to be missing or ignoring my point. Thus, we're at another deadlocke...er...deadlock - so we need to revert back to the last mediated version, and follow dispute resolution to assess your version again. Why is that so hard to take? And you, Milo - shame on you for not assuming good faith and following the rules of civility. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You keep talking about dispute resolution - if you feel it's necessary, go ahead and start some. But in the meantime, this article is open to editing by consensus. We certainly can evaluate past, present, and proposed versions without DR. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, DR is the proper way for you to get your version into the article. Apparently, you'd prefer to make up your own rules about consensus, and use edit or wheel warring to maintain your version. Fine, I'll take it back to mediation. I won't play your reversion games again. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it was not a good mediation, the mediators first comments to both WDM and I were disparaging , I think we have a rough consensus here and no reverts should take place, I also think your comments to Milo sail pretty close to a personal attack. It is currently 4 to 2 with one neutral, I am puzzled as to why you cannot accept this , I also think your last edit is not too bad...:)Belbo Casaubon 21:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think 2-3-1 would be a more accurate representation, unless I'm missing a regular editor. In opposition are Dreadlocke and MartinPhi, in support are Wikidudeman, Belbo Casaubon, and Milo H Minderbinder, and I'm neutral. If this assessment is correct, there's far too few people to call anything a consensus, even a rough one. – Lantoka (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You missed BillC who makes four preferring it. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Which still does not make a consensus. Your change was unwarranted. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

New edit

Dreadlocke, you just made an edit to the page without even proposing it on the talk page first. We all know this article is controversial so please don't make edits until there is consensus to do so. Especially when you revert to a wording that multiple editors have objected to. I don't see how you can call that wording a compromise - you put back the wording you've been arguing for and others opposing "performs as a psychic" - making a few other changes around it doesn't make it a compromise. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I left in the "says" part, that's the compromise. You never had consensus for the current version anyway! You're just trying to force the issue without proper discussion. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There certainly was discussion. What makes it not "proper"? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion that led to a proper consensus. You didn't have one, no matter how much you doth protest. It's very clear. So, yes, I'll take it back to mediation. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

proper consensus, I did not agree, and Elembis did not agree, he only agreed after at the point that stevertigo declared consensus, so that statement is completely bogus, cos by that point Milo had joined in, 2 editors against makes no consensus...and incase you had not noticed Elembis has lost interest. Belbo Casaubon 23:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Milo joined in after the mediation decision had been made and the case was closed. If you have a problem with the mediation results, this isn't way to handle that. Clearly, at that point, mediation must start again - meanwhile the previous version should stay in place. It's really the only fair thing to do. I find the current circumstance of forcing a new version without consensus to be far worse than what you are describing, Belbo. Let's revert back and take it again to mediation! That seems to be the fair way to do it, doesn't it? Dreadlocke ☥ 23:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"mediation must start again" I'll believe that when I see where it says that in WP policy. From WP:RFM: "Mediation does not provide binding resolution to disputes; mediators can not, do not, and will not issue rulings on disputes." --Milo H Minderbinder 23:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know all of that Milo, I've read about mediation and it's limitations. However, for you to just ignore it because it's inconvenient shows a huge disregard for the spirit of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You do not have a consensus for your version, you can't get around that execept by forcing a consensus where there is none, and the apparent threat of edit warring. That, in my opinion, is an uncivil means to get your version into place. At least I followed the rules and spirit of Wikipedia dispute resolution - can you say the same? Dreadlocke ☥ 00:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's see...we made a proposal, five editors said they were OK with it with one objecting, and after five days, I made the proposed edit. And when you edited the POV version back without agreement to do so, and without even proposing the wording on the talk page first, I reverted it. How dare I? --Milo H Minderbinder 00:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, how dare you claim a consensus for your version when there clearly has been none. I edited on Feb 23rd and disagreed with you that day, and today is only the 28th - the fifth day. There is no "five day period" for your proposal to go through. It was made very clear to you that I objected or would object to your version. No consensus. But I can see this is falling on deaf ears, so I'll agree Lantoka's comments below and try to move forward. You can try to twist this any way you like, Milo, but you had no consensus - ever. My version had consensus and a mediation behind it, yours does not. You ignore it all you like, but what you did was wrong. Ok, Lantoka, let's try it your way.. :) Dreadlocke ☥ 00:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Come on guys, let's just discuss the article below so that we can get out of here quicker. Ideally we should try to get all of us to be okay with one version or the other, and it's hard to do that when we're arguing over old stuff, ya know? =P – Lantoka (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I doubt we can agree on a version that makes everyone happy since some editors will only accept biased, POV wording that makes it sound like Edward is a psychic. Personally, I won't agree to any wording that violates WP policy. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith if you will. Just consider the arguments. Nobody's forcing you to change your mind at gunpoint. The idea is that if we explore and discuss the issue for long enough that we'll arrive at some sort of consensus. – Lantoka (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think MartinPhi put it best

“ ... the old version was more NPOV than the old, because it allows pro, con, and neutral interpretations, while the current one only allows con and neutral ones. ”

After all, this entire debate is over our interpretations of these various words. Things get complicated because the words have multiple meanings and we don't always choose the same meaning to interpret this stuff. – Lantoka (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The words do have multiple meanings. And one of those meanings is a statement that is POV and factually inaccurate. That is unacceptable.

Why would we possibly want to go with a wording that we all agree is vague enough that it can be read in a misleading way? Why should we be intentionally vague when there alternative phrasings that aren't open to misinterpretation? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Martin raises a good point though. The alternative that we chose also has a negative interpretation. "He says..." can express doubt as to his credibility just as easily as being factual. So if you look at it from Martin's standpoint above, "performs" is actually more neutral because it has a positive interpretation to balance out the negative.

I know, this whole thing sucks. It's a shame that the English language isn't serving us well in this instance. – Lantoka (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

When Milo says "The words do have multiple meanings. And one of those meanings is a statement that is POV and factually inaccurate. That is unacceptable." What I believe he means is this: "The words do have multiple meanings. And the interpretation that Edward actaully has psychic power is a statement that is POV and factually inaccurate. That is unacceptable."

Thus, his position seems to be pure POV. He is trying to censor the content, and bias it in the skeptical direction. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So saying he is a psychic is NPOV but not saying that is POV? And now, opposing POV language is "censorship"? Bizarre.

We shouldn't use language that requires interpretation. Period. We know what the facts are and state them as accurately as we can - if readers draw conclusions from those words, that's up to the reader. "Performs" is a vague statement and open to inaccurate interpretation, which is unacceptable. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Milo, performs on its own is completely biased toward the believers POV, I am noy a sceptic, I just think that ambiguity is wrong in an encyclopedia, encyclopedias are statements of verifiable facts, not vague ambiguous dissemblance.

I also question the logic of why "he says" is negativistic, it is a statement of the truth, he stand up in front of an audience and says "I hear some voices coming in" (or something like that), it is not negative or positive just verifiable, it is what he does, and of that there is no doubt

Belbo Casaubon 23:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

By compairison to "performs," "he says" is biased- the wording allows pro and con, but not neutral interpretations, and is tipped in the direction of the con interpretation. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is that?? really I am keen to know Belbo Casaubon 23:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that there doesn't seem to exist an unambiguous way to say that he does psychic "things" on his talk show, without implying that he either does or doesn't have psychic powers None of us are in the right here... both statements have multiple meanings and both are thus biased. At this point it's just a matter of using our good judgment to select which one is most acceptable and most NPOV, precisely because we lack an ideal alternative.

Hey, if anybody can come up with a statement that unambiguously says the same thing, I'll instantly support it. The issue isn't that black and white though. Reasoned discourse is needed to analyze the merits of each statement, and then we need to choose one. – Lantoka (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Says" is about as neutral as you can get

Wikipedia:Words to avoid recommends using "says" as a neutral term, particularly in cases "when a statement is unproven or subjective". Is JE being a psychic unproven? Yes. Is it subjective? Yes. So WP guidelines specifically say that "says" is neutral and recommend using it - calling the word "biased" is just an excuse to justify misleading, POV wordings. Is there any real objection to the current wording, other than it doesn't push POV and make it sound like he's a real psychic?

The guideline also says "In general, words and expressions should be avoided if they are ambiguous, uninformative, or non-specific." Since we all seem to agree that "performs" is ambiguous and non-specific, that's not an option. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Despite what the guideline says, the word "says" here does have NPOV problems, because an interpretation of it is clearly POV. Geez, I wish the dispute were this easy to settle. I understand what the guideline is getting at (when something is unproven, resort to action verbs to state fact), but verbs used to state fact can still be loaded/biased. For example, you guys raised objections to my recommendation that we change from "says" to "appears". It's the same thing. He both says and appears to do his psychic stuff, but both of those words can also cast doubt because of the emphasis they put on him "saying" and "appearing to do" this stuff. – Lantoka (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, even though I've tried to rewrite it, it still doesn't work. It's incomplete, as it in no way indicates the view of those that follow him ("describes himself as", is just not the entire truth of the matter), it glosses over the fact that he's best known for his shows, all the while leaving out his private practice and books - it's so incomplete as to be wrong and misleading! He's best known for performing as a psychic medium on his show, I do not see how it can be better put than that! Then we leave the details for the article body. Putting in a misleading, incomplete statement is not the way to go. Dreadlocke ☥ 03:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Dreadlocke. He summarizes the matter well. JoshuaZ 03:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Joshua! I tried to point up the "best known for his shows", but I'm sure that sentence won't pass NPOV muster - even though it says "describes himself" at the beginning of that sentence, which should really address the concern. Besides, it's the premise of the show - this just describes it. Dreadlocke ☥ 03:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've done the best I can with the wording, but we still have the problem of incompleteness by the statement "describes himself as...". Incomplete, misleading and therefore incorrect. Going back to "perfoms" strikes me as a much better solution all the way around, and leaving out "describes himself" or "self-professed", which are not only incomplete and incorrect, but inherently POV as well. Dreadlocke ☥ 03:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct on all points. The summary was perfect. One of the best I've ever seen for being NPOV while maintaining smoothness with no weasels or cast doubts or cast beliefs. We should go back to it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: remove the intro text to template:John Edward/Intro. Then move the page to John Edward/Intro. Then transclude the intro into the article like its a template. The lede can be protected separate from the article. -Ste|vertigo 04:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Load of Crapola

So anyway, all this arguing is a load of crapola, we should really be spending some time with our partners and children and taking it easy, maybe smoking a little dope and getting it on, I think Edward is a charlatan, Dreads thinks he is some kind of conduit, well I can live with that...just don't tell me I amwrong for my beliefs cos I don't mock yours....Belbo Casaubon 00:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's roll a jay and smoke it in Jimbo's Office. ;) – Lantoka (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Casaubon, you're right. And I would also support a more NPOV version. About the word "says," the reason it is less NPOV than "performs," is because you can interpret it that he does have powers, or that he doesn't. But when someone tells you "so-and-so says he can jump 10 feet" instead of telling you "so-and-so can jump 10 feet," you automatically question whether he really can. Thus, "says" is biased toward the interpretation that he can't, and the neutral interpretation is not possible. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

New Deadlocke Wording

John Edward McGee, Jr. (born October 19, 1969), better known as John Edward, is an American author and television personality who describes himself as a psychic medium. He is best known for his shows Crossing Over and John Edward Cross Country, television shows which are premised on Edward communicating with the spirits of the audience member's deceased relatives.

Ladies and gentleman, we may finally have a winner. What do you think? – Lantoka (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is the intro a transcluded template {{John_Edward/Intro}}? Otherwise I think it is fine. — BillC ^talk 08:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason why is because I proposed it as a way to protect the lede but still allow work on the article. This way the work we did in mediation to find an agreeable neutral intro isnt overturned by just anyone who happens to come along. -Ste|vertigo 08:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, once we reach real consensus, that won't be an issue, because we'll have half a dozen people zealously watching what happens to this page, and bad changes will be reverted instantly. – Lantoka (talk) 08:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I still prefer the previous reading as the new version sounds pretty awkward, but I can live with it as a compromise. It's certainly doesn't have the inaccuracy and POV issues of "performs". Now the question is will it stay, and if it does, now what's next for the article. I strongly disagree with making the intro a template and protecting anything with "mediation" as a reason. There isn't edit warring going on right now, and protecting something "per mediation" completely goes against the notion that mediation isn't binding. "Anyone who happens to come along" has just as much right to edit the article as those who participated in a mediation. The only limit on editing is that it should be done with consensus. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everybody, I did my best, it's heartening to find it's still in one piece this morning! I still prefer the version with "performs", as it was a perfect and less awkward means of delivering what is essentially the same information. The last version was totally unacceptable. This one barely squeaks by. Dreadlocke ☥ 16:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

We still need to find a way of making the "describes himself" statement more complete and correct, it's still inherently misleading - as if he alone is claiming this ability. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

More on "says"

Wikipedia guidelines recommend "says" as a neutral wording, and yet there is objection to that here. Amazing. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Martinphi did an "amazing" job of describing the objection to using the word "says" in this instance:

"About the word "says," the reason it is less NPOV than "performs," is because you can interpret it that he does have powers, or that he doesn't. But when someone tells you "so-and-so says he can jump 10 feet" instead of telling you "so-and-so can jump 10 feet," you automatically question whether he really can. Thus, "says" is biased toward the interpretation that he can't, and the neutral interpretation is not possible. User:Martinphi Ψ 00:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)"

(my own emphasis on "says")

I think Lantoka had one as well, I'll see if I can't find it. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's preposterous reasoning. By that logic, if someone says they can jump ten feet, you don't honestly believe his article should say "he can jump ten feet" instead of "he says he can jump ten feet", do you? And if someone says they can jump ten feet, we should consider the possibility that it may be just a claim and not the truth. For an article to say that he jumps ten feet, we'd need a third party, reliable source documenting that fact. It's actually a perfect example of why "says" is the right, neutral phrasing. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the entire premise of the example. Using the word "says" in this particular instance, brings an instant bias with a loaded word. Instead of using "says" in this case, detailed content in the body of the article should take care of that concern. No one is saying what you're saying we're saying. We're saying to find another way, just like I have with other parts of the intro. Be a little creative without adding unnecessary bias - especially in the intro of the article's subject. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I want to make sure we're understanding your example. Here's our hypothetical:

• I say that I can jump ten feet, and we're writing an encyclopedia article about me.
• "Minderbinder says he can jump ten feet" you consider biased and unacceptable.
• What do you propose we say instead?

We're writing an encyclopedia here so this situation happens all the time, it's not unique to this article. If unproven claims can't be expressed neutrally using "said", what is the solution in the thousands of other articles that need to do this? There is nothing unique about this situation, why not just do what other articles do instead of reinventing the wheel? And why are the thousands of other articles that do use said acceptable? Do you really think a huge number of articles on WP need to be changed because they use "said"? --Milo H Minderbinder 17:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll let martinphi answer your questions, if he cares to do so. The point is actually moot since using the word "says" doesn't address the concerns I've outlined in the above section. I will say that there are many circumstances to use the word "say", but the way it was utilized in the Edward article struck me as adding bias rather than neutrality "he says he can speak to the dead". That sentence doesn't read as very encyclopedic. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Struck you as"? We're getting into IDONTLIKEIT territory here. It's not really a moot point since "describes himself as" is still in the article, which basically is the same as "says" and which you seem to object to for the same reasons. So answer my question, how would you phrase the sentence about me jumping ten feet? --Milo H Minderbinder 17:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in a much similar fashion that "performs" strikes you as POV. Call it how you will. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

So how would you phrase the encyclopedia article about me jumping ten feet? --Milo H Minderbinder 17:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I dunno yet, I'll have to think about that. Probably by saying something about the premise of your show being that you can go jump ten feet - something like that. Neutral. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

So you don't think any article should use "says" because it's not neutral? --Milo H Minderbinder 18:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I said at all. If you'll read my comments above, you'll see what I actually said. I was very clear about that issue. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can think of a NPOV wording that you like better, go ahead and propose it here on the talk page. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Milo. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dreadlocke, Milo, others and I have al provided consummate arguments as to why performs is unacceptable, I am kind of on your side at the moment with the current intro, however if performs or any other analogy of it appears, I am sure it will be met with the same resistance.

PS. I astrally project into George Bushes bedroom every night and whisper to him that he should invade Iran, how could I phrase and article like that? Belbo Casaubon 21:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Belbo for the "kind of" support and the warning - believe me, I'm well aware of what kind of resistance there is to using "performs" - I'll definitely be taking that into consideration - as well as the means by which it's recent replacement was put into the article. I've learned quite a few lessons from the recent events here.

As for the other, simple. "Belbo's television show is premised on Belbo astrally projecting into George Bushes bedroom every night to whisper to him that he should invade Iran". I'm sure that article would go over very well...until it was speedily deleted...;) Dreadlocke ☥ 21:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You're still whining about that past edit? Let it go already. It's over. And "premises" only works (barely) for things like TV shows, what would you say if the jump/astralprojectwhisper was something claimed to be done generally, not on a TV show? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, well, aren't you Mr. Pleasant today? I was responding to Belbo's comments. If you want responses to your questions...well, let's just say that I wouldn't start off by accusing the questionee of "whining", that's not gonna getcha very far - with me at least.... Dreadlocke ☥ 22:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I think this line of discussion has gone past it's end-of-life, so let's discuss the contents of the Edward article, not all these imaginary situations - well, unless Belbo is actually projecting himself into Bush's dreams...but that's a subject for another talk page entirely... Dreadlocke ☥ 22:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the hypothetical is absolutely relevant to this discussion. If you can't suggest a way to describe an absolutely clear-cut situation that happens all the time on wikipedia, it means there's probably something wrong with your perspective of what is "neutral". (it doesn't help that you're blatantly disagreeing with WP guidelines) --Milo H Minderbinder 22:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I've already addressed that particular issue in my above comments. VERY CLEARLY. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I missed it, I only saw a response in the context of a TV show and an "I dunno yet". Could you please point me to the specific post? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's Wrap This Up

Can everybody live with the lead as it stands now? I'd like to hear a response from everybody so that we have some basis for consensus. – Lantoka (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• As for me, I absolutely love the new lead. I think it's both clearer and more NPOV than any wording posited thus far. I support it 100%. Do you guys see any problems with it? – Lantoka (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• I don't think it's as good as the previous version, but I think it's an acceptable compromise. I'd be fine with either this or the previous "says" version. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• I don't think it's as good as the "performs" version, but I think it's an acceptable compromise. I'd be fine with either this or the previous "Performs" version. Glad you like it, Lantoka!! I'm very happy with the TV show "premise" solution, that works very well in this case! Dreadlocke ☥ 23:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Fine by me.Belbo Casaubon 23:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• I can live with this lead. It is clumsy, but it is the best that can be done. I would like again to register protest at the non-logical, uncivil and non-consensual tactics which were used to try and change this introduction; Wikipedia and all its responsible citizens deserve better than this reprehensible behavior. I would also like to thank Lantoka for his consensus building and unswerving civility, Dreadlocke for his brilliant changes in the introduction, Stevertigo for his neutral mediation, and Belbo Casaubon for his efforts at consensus and for noticing that this argument is not worthwhile. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you really feel that "rephrehensible" behaviour took place, take it to an admin or RfC. Otherwise, I'll ask you to quit making personal attacks - the means of putting in the previous edited version were conservative if anything, and I will not stand for false accusations of "non-consensusal tactics". It's very disappointing to see editors taking potshots at other editors just because they didn't get their way, especially continuing to go on about an issue in the past when we seem to have agreement and resolution. As WP says, comment on the contribution, not the contributor. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

To which contributors are you referring, Milo? I was merely saying what I though of tactics used. I didn't name anyone. I said the tactics, not the editors, were reprehensible. However, putting personal attack warnings on my and Dreadlocke's pages concerning this might in itself be considered a personal attack- especially seeing you were not named, nor were you personally attacked. And since Wikipedia is ongoing, it is not all in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinphi (talk • contribs)

When you're talking about "tactics which were used to try and change this introduction" you're obviously referring to those who changed this introduction - if you'd like to clarify who specifically you're talking about instead of making vague accusations, be my guest. Incivility isn't acceptable just because you make implications instead of mentioning names. And talking about "tactics" is reflecting on editors, you should be discussing edits. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Things going OK I take it? -Ste|vertigo 00:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think so. We probably would have ended up here anyway, there seems to have been too much flak about the "performs" wording. Apparently, it would have been an endless discussion, this seems to have settled the matter for now. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

We're pretty close to consensus. Just waiting to see what MartinPhi and BillC have to say. – Lantoka (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with the lead, as I said earlier. — BillC ^talk 16:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, formal consensus has been achieved for the compromise lead then. Obviously, any further changes to it should be discussed on this talk page first. But other than that, I think we're pretty much done. Cheers! – Lantoka (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A true consensus.

Well done to all of us, I've removed the disputed tag. Belbo Casaubon 21:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)