Talk:John Edwards

hair cut

It's news. Keep your opinion out. Its has been mentioned both in the Democratic and Republican debates. Lets be objective now.

nothing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.62.95.59 (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Right, nothing. Not even worth a discussion, in my opinion. Tvoz |talk 05:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Adherence to recentism would support inclusion. Not much else. · j e r s y k o talk · 12:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That "Recentism" link is an opinion essay, not a Wikipedia guideline or policy. I would also suggest that the essay you link directly contradicts official guideline WP:NOTABILITY, which states that notability is generally permanent. If the haircut incident has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject, it is notable no matter what an opinion essay says. Italiavivi 22:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My link to the recentism essay was meant to demonstrate how wrong it would be to include the information. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that it would not be wrong if the haircut controversy can be established as notable per WP:NOTABILITY, regardless of what's written at the "Recentism" essay. I was told for months that Barack Obama's smoking cessation "wasn't notable" or "just recentism," despite it passing every possible test. I am trying to be as consistent as possible in applying notability guidelines, is all. Italiavivi 23:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, I obviously misinterpreted. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it deserves a mention at this point. Edwards was asked about it at the debate and has also started joking about it in speeches. While it may have been a good idea to hold off on including it at first, I think it's reached the point where it deserves inclusion. Maximusveritas 02:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't hear of the haircut until my civics teacher mentioned it. Apparently, the issue is that Edwards used donated campaign money to pay for the haircut, instead of paying out of his own pocket (like Clinton did with the infamous $200 haircut). Since the story broke, it was mentioned in some major news sources. [1] Brian Williams also asked Edwards about the haircut during the first 2008 Democrat champaign debate on MSNBC. [2] It's also been the subjects of some political cartoons [3] and talk shows. [4] However, I believe it'll be safer to hold off mentioning the haircut until it's mentioned again in major news sources. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 04:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fortress investments

Maybe more information regarding his specific involvement with Fortress Investment Group (FIG). Give equal weight to this as his other endeavors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newboundry (talk • contribs) 13:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, I think the conflict between Edwards' campaign for eliminating poverty and his personal lifestyle choices has become a major story (if not the story) of his campaign. This topic should be touched upon in the article. Maximusveritas 01:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an advertising service

John Edwards' Health Care section reads like an ad. That's his promise, not his biography. If the information is there it should be moved to a separate article for campaign promises. See this interesting thing I saw about Wikipedia not being an ad agency. [[5]]Pipermantolisopa 03:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think too much was removed - I reinstated the introduction, which gives an outline of the program. The details don't belong here, I agree, but it is common practice to have outlines of political positions in the main article, with details in the "political positions" article. Tvoz |talk 04:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Haircut

Why is there nothing mentioned about his $400 haircut scandal? It is constantly removed from the site, which challenges the neutrality of the article. Whether it is an important political determinant, in regards to pciking a president, it made news and should be part of his site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.146.203.159 (talk • contribs).

It is already mentioned in the 2008 Presidential Campaign section. I do think that section will need to be reorganized eventually into subsections since it is getting cluttered and hard to read. Maximusveritas 19:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The $800 Haircut

The $800 haircut needs to be part of the profile. If not, the objectivity of this article is questioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.104.170 (talk • contribs)

See above. It's already mentioned. --OnoremDil 17:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

uh, $800? Tvoz |talk 06:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The really expensive haircut is fact. However, it's more of a campaign news issue rather than a biography. You don't see how much Thomas Jefferson's haircut costs in his biography even though I suspect it was quite a bit. So it's inclusion in the campaign article is possibly ok but very gossipy to be in a biographical article.

photos

I was originally going to write, not about the hair, but how having 2 photos of John Edwards is distracting. One is obviously of him in his younger years as a Senator and one looks more recent. We should consider having only one of them so people don't get distracted. This is a very minor pointPipermantolisopa 04:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought - I don't see that this is a problem - one is clearly marked as his official Senate portrait which would be several years ago, and one is his current phonto. Lok t some of the other politicians' articles - it's pretty common practive. I'd leave them alone. Tvoz |talk 06:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)