Talk:John Edwards/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Link to spinout article

I reverted without prejudice a WP:BOLD edit that User:Baccyak4H made earlier, and restored a link to the John Edwards paternity allegations using the {{main}} template. This seems to be standard practice for spinout articles per WP:SPLIT, and the other main reason was to call attention to that article for various anon and new editors that have complained here about "censorship", et al. I do think the existence of the spinout article, and the current prominence of the story in the news, may warrant a section header as mentioned above. Comments welcome! Kelly ^hi! 04:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree about this - we don't ever see "main" hats in the middle of sections the way you did it, and it would be wrong to have it in the top of the section as then it runs into undue weight problems. And there is no agreement that this matter is worthy of a subhead at this time. It is common practice to use the wikilink format to link to spinout articles - see, for example, how we handled the link to the spinout article Hillary Rodham senior thesis in Hillary Rodham Clinton, where it is wikilinked to the phrase "was suppressed at White House request". This item did not warrant a subhead in the HRC article, nor did it warrant a "Main" template "hat", but the spinout article was wikilinked. At the present time I do not see that the paternity spinout warrants more than a wikilink either. I'm putting it back as it was - consistent with the style of the encyclopedia - but certainly it can be discussed more here. Tvoz/talk 07:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Tvoz: i have never seen a "main" hat within body-copy, only directly under a sub-head. Good call. cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I do think the wikilink is still a better idea due to WEIGHT concern. I also did think the AfD for the spinout would be close to snowballed delete, and was anticipating it by allowing for the redlink to appear inline rather than as {{main|redlink}}. The AfD perception aside, the WEIGHT issue with this template is orders of magnitude less than a subheading would be, I don't feel this is an urgent thing either way. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The above comments all make sense, thanks! Kelly ^hi! 15:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Archiving the talk page

I'm getting dizzy - is it time to archive this page yet? |EBY| (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The last attempted archive was 100% of the talk page, which was too much. I suspect some select sections could be archived. Others are still useful. I think we should archive the following sections as they no longer have ongoing value for the discussion:

1. Tabloid scandal accusations - out of date
2. Now there is proof. - out of date
3. Early life, education, and family correction - fixed
4. Hotel confrontation confirmed by Fox News - out of date
5. Story Notable and Newsworthy, So Run It - nothing valuable therein
6. BLP noticeboard - nothing valuable therein
7. This pointless censorship is getting into Google News. Proud? - nothing valuable therein
8. Wikipedia now getting laughed at by Gawker.com and others over controversy omission - nothing valuable therein
9. Wikipedia is failing its users - nothing valuable therein
10. Wikipedia is not a tabloid - nothing valuable therein
11. Withdrawing - nothing valuable therein
12. Stupid question ... - nothing valuable therein
13. Separate Article - no longer valuable; see here for ongoing discussion of the issue
14. New Article Needed On Undernews - nothing valuable therein
15. I am a little lost - nothing valuable therein
16. New NE charges: $15,000 / mo.; baby's name is Frances - nothing valuable therein
17. John Edwards and the Haircuts - consensus for no change reached
18. Wikipedia gets good press -- film at eleven - nothing valuable therein
19. Background Information on IRS implications - nothing valuable therein
20. IP vandalism - no longer useful
21. Current event tag - consensus to not use tag reached

I think we can archive all that without removing anything of significant value to the ongoing conversation. If anyone disagrees, please use <s>text</s> to strike through whichever they think we still need. I'll probably archive sometime tomorrow whatever hasn't been struck. GRBerry 17:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

How about the bot archiving scheme used at Talk:Barack Obama? Say 200k/7 days? Kelly ^hi! 17:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The list I proposed above is done, since nobody objected. Until this stabilizes, I think we should use selective archiving instead of bot archiving. But the page is still 335KB long, so I'd appreciate if others can look for sections that are no longer needed. I think #Request for comments on alternatives is probably the most important section, but if #Publications Covering the Story and #Discussion of article context were being maintained they would be the most important. GRBerry 16:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more comfortable with archiving done by the calendar - x number of days after the last comment is made in a thread, the thread gets archived - rather than any of us making judgment calls about which topics should stick around and which can go. To be clear - I don't think anything wrong was done here at all, but I see a potential problem of subjectivity in deciding on what topics should stay, so I think an objective bot may be a better way to go. And I'd discourage all the sub-heads in threads too, so that whole threads can be handled as one. We can set a bot, or do it manually, to be even 7 days from the last comment (Obama is 3 days I think) - to allow for latecomers, and we can always reinstate a discussion thread if a topic comes up again - we've done that on Obama too. But using a bot or a bot-like objective standard may avoid problems. Tvoz/talk 21:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I found the use of the subjective term "nothing valuable therein" offensive and hurtful -- so much so that rather than lose my temper over it, i bit my tongue. I don't like fights, and it wasn't worth one, but, for the record, that's why this little duck did not comment. As for Tvoz's proposal to archive threads when they hit a predetermined expiry date, that i will agree with. Attention is a form of value that can be measured objectively, so let's do that, bot-wise, and avoid hurting people's feelings with other forms of value-judgement. cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for the offense; I had italicized ongoing in the intro because I wanted to emphasize it without repeating it every line. If time like is what is wanted, we can do it. But the current story is ongoing and attracting new editors, so I think a longer time frame is currently appropriate than would be in normal editing conditions. I've seen too many places where an old consensus was treated as just one editors opinion because the talk page discussion had archived. I suppose editors could add a "still useful <timestamp>" comment at the head of sections that document such consensuses, and just stop updating it when it no longer is useful. GRBerry 14:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree and will implement it now at the proposed 7 days. When the article quiets down the time should be lengthened to the more usual period of several weeks/months. -- SEWilco (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Archiving the talk page rather conveniently hides just how fervently some Wikipedia admins sought to muzzle good faith editors over the Edwards scandal. It was shameful, and it was right that it got some attention in the blogosphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.168.77 (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

New mainstream media article, expanded scope of allegations

• Mark Johnson (Aug 06, 2008). "Dems call on Edwards to address affair rumors". Charlotte Observer. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Included in the article is...

"With two weeks before their national convention, several prominent Democrats are saying Edwards must publicly address anonymously sourced National Enquirer stories that claim he had an affair with a campaign worker and fathered her baby."

This article is primarily about the implications on not only Edwards, but to the Democratic party and convention. This does seem relevant to the 2008 presidential campaign section. --Oakshade (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Oakshade, for bringing this MSM article to the talk page. As i predicted earlier, North Carolina newspapers and television stations would spend the most time on the story, because of the local angle. The point they make is well-founded, i think: it's time for the Democratic Party movers-and-shakers to get their ducks in a row, and it still remains to be seen where Edwards fits into the picture, so to speak. cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

But the affair and his love child are not inherently related to the campaign. This belongs under his main bio and personal life. It is even more relevant to his marriage. Obviously, it is going to be a factor in his future career in ANYTHING...law, politics, etc., but this is not related to the campaign or convention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.247.181 (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The topic of the affair either belongs in the main biography at the top of the page or within its own headed subsection. It does not belong under the 2008 Presidential Campaign. It has nothing to do with the presidential campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.247.181 (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Most certainly not. All the reliable coverage is in the context of the campaign: impacting VP potential, party distraction preconvention, etc. I won't speak to unreliable coverage, but none of us should anyway: please familiarize yourself with was this project is and isn't. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It most certainly does. So you're concerned with "reliable coverage", yet you refuse to include confirmed information, namely the hotel security guard who assisted Edwards? Regardless, the affair was published months ago. It is ironic that you are concerned with "reliable coverage" when wikipedia is notorious for being an unreliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.247.181 (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What is ironic is exactly your use of that word. I am concerned about "reliable coverage" precisely because wikipedia is notorious for being an unreliable source. I wish all editors were... Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

FAQs

I think we need to make a FAQs at the top of this page to deal with the current allegations of Edwards paternity so people can know what the policy is on this webpage without having to read all of the discussions. Check out the waterboarding talk page for an example. Remember (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable suggestion. Ronnotel (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please do this. I, unfortunately, don't have time to right now. Remember (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed

John Edwards repeatedly lied during his Presidential campaign about an extra-marital affair with a novice film-maker, the former Senator admitted to ABC News today.

By ABC News. He denies the child is his but "has not taken a paternity test." Oroso (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Of note, he also confirmed that he had visited Hunter at the Beverly Hills Hilton, as posited by the Enquirer, also. Bellis (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Placement of affair within article

Now that the affair has been confirmed by Edwards, perhaps it can be properly discussed how to handle the affair within the article. I'm thinking a section is a bit of overkill as it is going to be at most a paragraph or two in length. My thoughts are that a short paragraph detailing the revelation of the affair and subsequent denials/confirmation can be included in the family section and then another short paragraph detailing the rise and fall of his Vice Presidential chances could be included in the 2008 campaign section, in this paragraph would be a brief mention of the affair. Of course, we probably shouldn't say it's the end of his VP chances quite yet, but for now mention that the NE story caused speculation within the media about his chances (whatever that speculation might be). --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been off all day with a broken wireless router so haven't had a chance to see how it's been handled in the article, but this approach sounds reasonable to me. Tvoz/talk 21:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't say his VP chances are over until Obama has announced his VP candidate! Hello! WP:CRYSTAL anyone? Moncrief (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's notable at this time. Several years from now it can fade. I would also add that Tvoz fought an almost one man campaign to keep this info out of the page for several days and then when we voted on community opinion he was haning out by himself. HAven't seen anything to show that he has learned his lesson. Instead seems to be gaming the system as before. I don't have good faith in him...and his actions on this page show that. Someone should investigate his record opf bias and personal political poinions to see how they impact protecitng Democrats. Was he holding the fence down and protectiong Craig? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 21:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You think what is notable at this time? The affair? Of course it is! Crikey! Who disagrees with that now? Who are you communicating with? It isn't clear since you aren't using colons (:) before your post. Moncrief (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that TCO's personal attack was directed at me, and I'm hopeful that someone will warn him or her about such personal attacks. For the record, I've never fought a "one-man campaign" about anything, actually, and if one is capable of reading one will discover that my position - which I stand behind - was that we should not publish uncorroborated rumors from tabloid sources, until and unless they are confirmed by reliable sources. Without going back to check, I believe it is accurate to say that every time, or just about every time I commented here I used phrases like "at present" and "for now" and I cautioned against potential BLP problems in naming names without corroboration and counseled that we wait and see if the story developed. Unlike some partisan editors, I am not operating on a timetable here that is driven by the conventions or the election. There is no reason to rush a story into a biography before the facts are confirmed and we have some perspective on its actual place in the subject's whole life story. Indeed we don't know if Edwards was ever even close to being chosen for VP, so we can hardly state that it is confirmed that this revelation has ruined his chances. And Moncrief is right that we're not in the business of predicting the future, so we .... wait. I know how hard that is for some people here, but that's how we do it. As for my "gaming the system" - I am baffled at what that might mean in the context of this page. How did I game anything? I took a position and argued it, and then when consensus went otherwise I did not edit war, but instead worked within the consensus to keep the information accurate, well-sourced and proper. If that's gaming, well, fine. And finally, I stand behind my comment in this section - I think Bobblehead's suggestion makes sense, and would like to discuss it with fair-minded constructive editors. I'm waiting for an apology and for that personal attack to be removed from here. Tvoz/talk 22:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz was by no means alone in oposing any mention at all in the article by stonewalling and wikilawyering. There are a whole series of senior editors who have crowned themselves with shame on these sorry talk pages. The policy was crystal clear, this exact example was set out in WP:WELLKNOWN, so we knew what to do. Yet these editors through brute force simply ignored policy and ignored arguemnet not helpful to their positions accusing their oponents of all sorts of calumnies, how sensitive they can be themselves at the hint of an accusation of bias! I don't know what the motive was - maybe it was to protect the stricken EE. Ultimately though wiki policy persevered in the face of this stonewalling though the games continued without end. Some self-reflection and humility on the part of these editors about how they have damaged wikipedia's reputaion may be in order methinks.Bonobonobo (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that, Bonobonobo. Add also the removal of posts from the talk page. Add also the stubborn insistence that Rielle Hunter neither be named nor have a wiki page, even though she came up in 170,000 google pages on August 3, 2008 and on 190,000 google pages on August 7, 2008. Today, August 8, her name brings up 201,000 google pages and she does have a bio page -- but also as of today, on Talk:Rielle Hunter, there is still talk of deleting the Rielle Hunter article in favour of making it redirect to the John Edwards extramarital affair article -- even though Rielle Hunter -- and not the Edwards affair -- is the star of one roman a clef novel and is mentioned in two other novels. Quiet self-reflection is in order, like you said, and perhaps a calming cup of tea. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

cat - don't know if you noticed, but I haven't said anything here or anywhere about whether I think there should be an article on Rielle Hunter, and the last time I removed her name from this page was on July 27 - a lifetime ago for this fast-moving story - for BLP reasons as you'll recall. I can't say what Google showed then, but you acknowledged why I believed it was potentially a BLP problem at that time to name names, here - there were, at that time, no reliable sources for her name to be included. So I'm not feeling in need of self-reflection, but I'll take the cup of tea. Tvoz/talk 00:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think: (1) The attack on Tvoz is unfair, even though I disagreed with the position he/she took. (2) An apology is owed to the National Enquirer. (3) All this Talk can now be archived. (4) John Edwards is a turd. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

WKING's comment's totally redacted - WP:BLP ======

The editors had no problem jumping on the allegations about Palin and her daughters. They have the integrity of the New York Times, which has proven to have less integrity than the National Enquirer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.104.73 (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The editors who objected to inclusion of tabloid allegations in his biography had substantial reasons for doing so. I myself believed that we should not give this undue weight unless the mainstream press have corroborates this. Now that it has, I gladly retract my previous position. I, and many others who had held similar views, have nothing to apologise for. We were simply following Wikipedia's guidelines. Ethereal (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

He paid for it. That's what the consulting contract was for. And the "somebody else might be paying as well, but I don't know about it. (bizarre.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 00:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so afraid to put your signature after your comment? What you want to make a snarky comment, but not be man enough to put your name on it? Rielle Hunter is no hooker like's Vitter's girl and Craig's undercover cop. Vitter and Craig went looking for sex, John Edwards didn't. Had he not ran for President he never would have met Rielle Hunter. Vitter went seeking sex and paid for it, no middle man. Which is even more stupid. Larry Craig well his attempt to buy sex wasn't as successful. And of course Mark Foley he tried to used candy and video games instead of money. --MrKing84 (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If I was afraid, I would use an IP. I'm well aware that the sine bot will append my sig. I'm just too lazy to do the 4 tildes cause it makes no sense given the computer can already put the sig there anyhow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 06:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Right.--MrKing84 (talk) 08:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Boy clicking that signature button was very exhausting. --MrKing84 (talk) 08:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...maybe he doesn't know about the one-stroke button above the edit screen. (HINT: It looks like a ... signature. Just to the right of the no-wiki button.) And it even adds those nifty dashes. But lazy is as lazy does. --Tvoz/talk 08:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What I find interesting is he accused you of bias and trying to protect John Edwards. But if you look at his edit history he's done the same thing for Donald Rumsfeld. I didn't investigate your record like he suggested, but I did investigate his for "record opf bias and personal political poinions." He's tried to protect Donald Rumsfeld and seems to be concerned about who in Hollywood is or is not a liberal. Plus he's admitted he's one of the many "red staters" in this country. I have a feeling if this were Mitt Romney's or Mike Huckabee's talk page, he'd be singing different tune. Somebody should remind him that those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. --MrKing84 (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Larry Craig was paying for sex or offering to do so. That's not how sex in mens' rooms works. He was just looking for a d*ick to suck. I agree that Edwards's conduct is not in the same category as those cases (to which Spitzer also belongs). Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Eliot Spitzer does indeed belong along side the Vitter case and to a lesser extent the Craig case. Men and even women on both political sides of the aisle are guilty of adultry. John Edwards is just the latest case but sadly not the last case. --MrKing84 (talk) 04:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

<-- Please, for the love of God, let's leave our political opinions out of this, stop sniping, and concentrate on producing a good Wikipedia article. Kelly ^hi! 01:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

<-- Why not just make a post-2008 presidential campaign section for this article and then make a sub-section for his affair? Sort of like how he has a section for a 2004 campaign, with a sub-section for his selection as Kerry's running mate. Alphabravo11 (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's please refrain from attacking each other. It's an election year so it's understandable that people feel strongly about this, so let's try to be more civil, and to be more forgiving when editors are a little bit impolite. As for the article: this sex scandal hasn't had as much of a negative impact on Edwards as past sex scandals (Bill Clinton, Larry Craig, Gary Hart, etc) What I mean by that is that while he's still politically active, he's not actually in public office anymore, and he's no longer running for office, so these revelations are not as disruptive to his party as they would have been 4 years ago, or 6 months ago. For these reasons I agree with Bobblehead: 2 paragraphs is enough to convey the important facts of the story. DiggyG (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

To Tvoz: I could not be sure from your post above, but it seems like you thought i was singling you out for an attack, when i wasn't. When i said "Amen" to Bonobonobo, i was not attacking you, nor holding you solely responsible for sny unpleasantness here. I was seconding Bonobonobo's statement that there had been "stonewalling and wikilawyering" and that it was time to self-examine before moving on. I had no intention of seeming to add to a chorus of comments about you -- or any one person here.

For the record, since folks are letting their political hair down a bit, now that the pressure is off, i am a registered Democrat of the far-left variety. Some folks allow political allegiences to trump spiritual ad moral good sense; for me the sorting order is reversed. I don't care if a user, abuser, liar, cheater, adulterer, con artist, or fiscal criminal is a Democrat or a Republican, a male or a female, or straight or gay: i just want him or her identified and eliminated from the meme pool as soon as possible. Damaging levels of narcissism persist in society because otherwise rational people often condone the activities of moral criminals based on thir good looks / voting record / artistic talents / musical ability / monetary worth. I believe that exposing hypocricy puts an end to its power. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 04:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That's all fine, cat, but my personal opinion of Edwards' behavior (which you do not know), and yours, should have nothing to do with how we edit this article. The issue was one of reliability and verifiability of sources, undue weight, and BLP problems, and I would present the same arguments again in the same situation. You can call it wikilawyering all you want, but policies and guidelines exist for a reason, and I don't think there was anything in this story that warranted ignoring them. Ethereal has it right. Tvoz/talk 06:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, look. I've been out of this discussion, but I've read through the talk page thus far, and at this point, it seems like we need to be discussing how Edwards' affair should be put into the article, not how we feel about his affair. I, for one, agree with Alphabravo1 in the idea of having a post-2008 campaign section and having this be a subsection, because he's probably going to be out of public life for a while. This really won't affect him very much in the long run. It's not as damaging as Foley, Clinton, or Craig simply because he's out of office and probably going to be out of the public eye. He's not running for anything except MAYBE VP, again. Plus, if we're going to make a seperate article, we could just put a link to it IN that subsection. 75.72.123.149 (talk) 06:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Haircut thing

Coming perhaps 4 years too late, user Grundle2600 added the following:

with the justification: "Since the article on John McCain has the thing about him not knowing how many houses he own, this needs to be here for balance." Presented as written, without putting it in any sort of context it clearly violates NPOV: "balance" is about more than just tit-for-tat coverage of political attacks. DiggyG (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Addendum:I've removed Grundle2600's edit, and placed it here in case someone wants to try a more neutral wording. It seems to me that it's not notable enough for inclusion, but maybe I'm misremembering the last US election. DiggyG (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the criticism is relevant at this point. The lack of context, and the tit-for-tat snippy manner in which it was added, doesn't make me think the contributor had much good faith with regard to WP:NPOV. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant, because the article already quotes Edwards saying that there are "two Americas," so the article should also let the reader know which of these "two Americas" Edwards is a part of. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Locked?

Shouldn't there be a little lock icon at the upper right hand corner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.24.244 (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've added it. Terraxos (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Notable Quotes

I think the John Edwards quotation: "Your children learn not only from what you say, but from what you do" is worthy of inclusion in the extramarital section. I found it reported here: http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.retirement/2008-08/msg01555.html referring to a Worldnet Aug. 4 2008 story And here with video: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71460. I know some people may not be thrilled about the source, but the statement is a quote from a father of the year award ceremony, and it's Edwards own words. I think it belong in the article without any editorial content as notable, verifiable and interesting. I gave the short version, the full quote has "It is true," at the beginning.

The other quote I think is notable is from one of the DVDs he made and put up on his website.

Edwards says, "'What America really wants in their next president is to be able to trust their president'," Edwards says in the six-minute video. 'In order for that to be true, they want to feel like ... the president is a good and decent and honest human being who's trying to do what's right'."

It's from an AP story and at the bottom of this page: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8NM9S8O2&show_article=1

Thanks. (BaldKojak (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC))

Picture

I apologize if this is not related to the article itself, but what badge is Edwards wearing in his official Senate picture? --193.203.139.214 (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)