Jump to content

Talk:Political positions of John Edwards

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion at another article named "Political views of ......"

[edit]
-- Yellowdesk 06:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of Fox News bias

[edit]

In re this, I believe my response to the original edit remains applicable for the most part. That is, what compels him to provide specific examples? Why should we, Wikipedia, presume that he should be providing them? In any event, there's a whole article on the subject. Why, exactly, do you feel it is incumbent on Edwards to give specific examples, Arnabdas? Second, is it possible for us to include this information and adhere to NPOV? I postulate that we cannot, as including the phrase begs the questions I raised above. · jersyko talk 21:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, upon further reflection, I'm convinced that the edit has an OR problem, as well, as the source cited does not necessarily support the proposition without some additional legwork, i.e. original research. · jersyko talk 21:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added it because it is a slanderous remark by Senator Edwards if he does not cite an example as to why an entire network should be condemned. As a Senator who wishes to be President of the most powerful nation on Earth, we should understand what he stands for whether we may agree with it or not. I put it back in with an explanation in the history section so I did address this before.Arnabdas 19:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, so you're saying anyone who makes a public statement about a news source regarding its reporting bias without citing specific examples is slandering that news source? I can assure you that you have misread the law in this regard. As a rudimentary introduction, take a look at the slander article. Now scroll down to the defenses. Anyone who makes such a statement would obviously be protected under a number of those listed defenses. For example, Edwards could simply rely on the underlying truth of his statement or good faith, reasonable belief in its truth, among other things. In any event, let me assure you it is not slanderous. Given that, the only points that remain are regarding Wikipedia policy, which I have made above and which have not yet been addressed. · jersyko talk 20:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody believes that Fox News is not biased?Jhobson1 (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

labeling mistake

[edit]

in the LGBT section it talks about his viewpoints on LGBT issues but then suddenly is talking about human trafficing and immigration. an edit is perhaps needed here

I fixed this. Apparently it was an error with the code that caused the Immigration LGBT mixup. --Revolución hablar ver 18:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manditory service

[edit]

I once again removed what I see as an ad hominem. To discuss it, please see talk section Talk:John Edwards#Mandatory Service (be it Military or National) in the John Edwards article talk page. --waffle iron talk 13:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reference #4...

[edit]

seems to be broken. can someone fix it? Kingturtle 09:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stem cell research

[edit]

Don't know why this article doesn't have a section on John Edwards' support of federally funded stem cell research - I assume it's an oversight? I'll put something together later (don't have time now) unless someone else could do it. Tvoz |talk 00:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Cosponsoring the Iraq War

[edit]

How come this article mentions his vote, but doesn't mention the fact that he was one of the co-sponsors of the bills? That seems to be important information. I'll add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cylonian (talk • contribs)

I've added the info that he was the only 2008 Democratic presidential candidate to have co-sponsored the Iraq War bill. And I linked it to a neutral source, the Library of Congress's records online. It doesn't seem right that an article that talks about a presidential candidate's position on the war doesn't mention that he cosponsered the bill.Cylonian 01:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


More on Iraq

[edit]

Edwards plans to gradually withdraw all troops from Iraq in the first 10 months of his presidency. I am assuming the previous information is out-of-date considering the mention of the not-yet-released Petreaus report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.211.73 (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to Exclusive Views

[edit]

There should be some criticism of specific views that are unique to Edwards if they exist. For example, his proposed healthcare plan. I will add it in when I get a chance. Any criticism of him as a person or of liberal ideology is not warranted here. Criticism of him as a person should be on his personal page and criticism of liberalism should be on the page for that. Arnabdas (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article for responses to his political positions, it is simply to detail them. I've removed your addition to the Abortion section, and will remove other inappropriate content as it's added. I again encourage you to adhere to WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:SYN. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement here seems to contradict your actions on the Politics of Bill O'Reilly. There, you agreed that challenging his specific positions were ok, yet that is not the case here? Arnabdas (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stance on partial birth abortion is notable. I am putting that back in. In an effort to promote good faith, I will leave out the Doug Johnson response until it can be resolved. Arnabdas (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where to begin?
  1. Bill O'Reilly is not running for president. Beyond that, you're attempting to mischaracterize my actions on an unrelated article... I believe that your attempted changes were rejected by the community there as well. This is not the place for such irrelevancies.
  2. The pejorative term "partial birth abortion" is a controversial attempt to negatively label the IDX medical procedure.
  3. IDX accounts for only 0.17% of all abortions in the U.S. when it was legal.
  4. Edwards never voted on the issue.
Considering the pejorative moniker, the relative rarity of the occurance, and the fact that he never voted on the issue, I don't see the necessity to include it when he's clearly pro-choice. Given that you tried to inject a "response" to this minutae, I can't help but wonder why you're so anxious to include it. WP:AGF isn't a free pass... /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'd like to make it understood that Arnabdas asked me to comment here because he already knows my political views. I don't want to make it seem like I'm a meatpuppet. The more proper thing to do in this case would be to open an RFC or, since there's only 2 editors on the issue, a third opinion request.
That being said, I will offer my opinion for what it's worth. I support including the information, because it's relevant and passes WP:RS. I think it adds depth to the section with a supporting point, and I don't think the term Partial-Birth can be avoided here because it specifically mentions the act of congress that has the term in its title. Removing the reference to the bill would render the sentence meaningless. -- I. Pankonin Review me! 05:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your honesty regarding the canvassing ongoing by Arnabdas. I think that a firmly pro-choice politican would obviously be against the PBABA and it need not be detailed further, especially using pejorative language that in-and-of itself (ie the "branding" using non-medical terminology) is a controversial issue. I didn't mean avoid the phrase, I meant omit the whole sentence. It's redundant, irrelevant (he didn't vote for or against the PBABA), and it's using judgmental language. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edwards actually has voted against the partial-birth abortion act when it was introduced earlier, but the ban never materialized into law when he voted against it. He only didn't vote against the current law. One can be pro-choice and against partial-birth, as seen by the vote results. I was just making the distinction of Edwards' stance as there are many politicians whom are for one, but not the other. I have no problem in calling it "late term abortion" or whatever the positive spin the supporters of the act call it, but there should still be some sort of mention of it just to differentiate. Again, just because one is pro-choice doesn't mean one is for partial birth/late term abortion. Arnabdas (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still fail to grasp why you think it's so important to detail a position that:
  1. was not legislation he voted on or helped to pass.
  2. uses contentious language (although backing away from the other moniker is noted and appreciated)
  3. is already completely in line with his previously listed position.
  4. accounts for less than two-tenths of one percent of abortions (and now accounts for 0 of them).
I do appreciate the attempt at discussion. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. The reason why I think it is notable is to define the various views within the abortion spectrum. I once again point to many pro-choicers whom are against partial-birth. I believe (tho I may be wrong) that Barrack Obama is against partial-birth but would leave Roe v Wade intact. That is pretty notable to distinguish the difference between Democratic candidates on the issue after all. I also looked at the wiki link for partial-birth abortion ban and saw that the article itself was named this. I think it should be named by whatever the title of the wikipedia article is since it is linked. Arnabdas (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this discussion is stuck on this issue? I've taken a quick look and I'm wondering if we could talk about getting rid of some of the wiggle-words and uncited material or get cites for it so that this article complies with WP:NPOV and WP:V policies. If this issue is still a problem, maybe we could set it down and leave it alone for a little while and see if we can write the rest of the encyclopedia. Thoughts?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

moving environmental stuff here from main article

[edit]

This was pulled out of John Edwards where we use summary style. Perhaps some or all of it should be incorporated into this article - I am copying it here so it is easy to do so - I don't have time right now to see if it is needed, but encourage anyone else to do so. I'll look back later. Tvoz/talk 20:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


John Edwards has made several statements, and made several proposals concerning the environment while running for office. In March 2007 he was the first presidential candidate to make his campaign “carbon neutral.” He started buying carbon offsets to reduce his carbon emissions and having his offices buy recycled paper products. [1] He also said in a speech "Why has America not addressed global warming in a serious way? There's a very simple answer for that. Oil companies, power companies, gas companies and their lobbyists in Washington, D.C." [2] Most of his stances on the environment are very liberal. He has voted against drilling in the Arctic five times, and supports standard that would require renewable sources to be the source of 10 percent of America's electricity by 2020. On global warming, he has denounced the Bush administration for not signing the Kyoto treaty and he supports the McCain-Lieberman bill to establish a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. [3]
  1. ^ Grist Jan. 30, 2008 Retrieved May 1, 2008 http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/07/31/edwards_factsheet/
  2. ^ Friends of the Earth Sep. 16, 2007 retrieved May 1, 2008 http://action.foe.org/content.jsp?content_KEY=3354&t=FoE_Action_PAC.dwt
  3. ^ Salon July 20, 2004 retrieved May 1, 2008 http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/07/20/muckraker_edwards/index.html


I took care of this. Tvoz/talk 02:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Political positions of John Edwards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Political positions of John Edwards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_positions_of_John_Edwards&oldid=1201706182"