Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dreadstar (talk | contribs) at 06:50, 23 February 2007 (→Mediation: thanks stevertigo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:RFMF

Biography B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

John Edward received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archives

January 2003 – November 2006 November 2006 - February 2007

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

Misplaced Pages: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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 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. 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 Misplaced Pages. Do you stand by what you have written? — BillC 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 ]. It's free to register and post.Wikidudeman 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 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 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

Wikidudeman 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 _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages: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 and not this. Also, Misplaced Pages: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 _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality tag?

What justification is there for keeping the neurality tag?Wikidudeman 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 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

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 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 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 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 _{(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 _{(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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 _{(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 _{(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...

This is really the only realistic way to word it to avoid POV or implying he actually is psychic.Wikidudeman 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 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 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 _{(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 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 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 _{(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 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 _{(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 _{(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 ]. 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. Misplaced Pages 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 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 _{(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)

• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics