Talk:John Edwards/Archive 1
Feel free to add any biographical information, or Presidential information.--TR
Re: My change to "narrowly defeated" from "soundly defeated":
I lived in North Carolina when the Edwards/Faircloth race was decided. Edwards edged out Faircloth by just four percentage points. In my political mind, 4% is pretty narrow. Compare that to the score Liddy Dole got against Erskine Bowles in 2002. It was 54% (for Dole) and 45% (for Bowles), a difference of nine percentage points.
Hope this helps.
--Hoshie
"On February 17 his campaign gained further momentum when he nearly defeated Kerry in the Wisconsin primary."
Please consider changing this to:
"On February 17 his campaign gained further momentum when he made a surprisingly strong second place finish to Kerry in the Wisconsin primary. This resulted in Howard Dean dropping out as an active Presidential candidate, thus apparently producing a two-person race between Kerry and Edwards."
True or false??
John Edwards will be Vice President on January 20, 2005, when John Kerry becomes the 44th President.
- Who knows at this point? :-) Jwrosenzweig 21:27, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wikifying parents
Does Anthony or anyone else have reason to believe that John's parents are worth wikifying? Have they done anything that causes us to believe they warrant an article or will someday have one? Jwrosenzweig 21:27, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Probably not. ugen64 21:28, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
- No. I think even Edwards would agree with dewikifying because he constantly emphasizes how his family is humble, blue-collar, and otherwise unremarkable besides being his family. --Hcheney 22:11, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, parents are definitely an important person in someone's life and should be wikied. Anthony DiPierro 02:42, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Anthony, am I right in remembering that you believe that any individual person is worthy of an encyclopedia article? Certainly this seems that way -- who knows how important his parents are to his life? Even if they were, we don't have articles on every notable person here -- that would be an immense number of articles that read essentially "X was Y's father. He had an impact on Y's life as a result." Unless there is something notable about his parents beyond their being his parents, I think community opinion and standard Wiki practice would dictate that we not have articles on his parents. Jwrosenzweig 18:40, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I don't understand your argument. We shouldn't have these linked, because we shouldn't have articles about them, and we shouldn't have articles about them, because we don't have articles about every notable person? There is no consensus that we should not have articles on these people. Until such consensus is formed, it's perfectly reasonable to link to them. Anthony DiPierro 19:13, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I think what he's saying, Anthony, is that his parents don't deserve articles themselves; they aren't well known, and the only notable things they did were be his parents. I agree, this gets kind of murky with pages like Buddy (dog), but in this case they don't deserve articles, so they shouldn't be wikied. Meelar 19:17, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- That's fine, but it's his opinion. There are a number of people who disagree that being notable should even be a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia, let alone that we should remove links to notable people who one person alleges are not notable for a sufficient reason. Anthony DiPierro 19:19, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- "There are a number of people who disagree that being notable should even be a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia" - no, that's pretty much only you. →Raul654 19:19, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Right. Me, and Jimbo, and Jamesday, and Catherine, and Jack Lynch, and Optim, and all the others who voted no on Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance, and even some of those who voted yes such as Daniel C. Boyer is pretty much only me. Anthony DiPierro 19:39, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- No, they disagree with the wording 'famous' and 'notable' - that doesn't mean they argee with you that every blade of grass and every tree should have its own article. Ask Jimbo if we should go through the phonebook and create articles on all the people there, and see what he says. →Raul654 19:45, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
- We aren't talking about blades of grass or trees. We are talking about two notable people. Anthony DiPierro 19:58, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Except that no thinks they are notable except you. →Raul654 19:59, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Meelar said "the only notable things they did were be his parents." So clearly he thinks they are notable. Anthony DiPierro 04:22, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I don't understand your argument. We shouldn't have these linked, because we shouldn't have articles about them, and we shouldn't have articles about them, because we don't have articles about every notable person? There is no consensus that we should not have articles on these people. Until such consensus is formed, it's perfectly reasonable to link to them. Anthony DiPierro 19:13, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Anthony, am I right in remembering that you believe that any individual person is worthy of an encyclopedia article? Certainly this seems that way -- who knows how important his parents are to his life? Even if they were, we don't have articles on every notable person here -- that would be an immense number of articles that read essentially "X was Y's father. He had an impact on Y's life as a result." Unless there is something notable about his parents beyond their being his parents, I think community opinion and standard Wiki practice would dictate that we not have articles on his parents. Jwrosenzweig 18:40, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I give up. You want to win this one, Anthony? Win it. Keep the links. But unless they've done something more important than conceiving John, I will oppose any creation of an article on either of them. Jwrosenzweig 19:44, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I highly doubt conceiving John is the most important thing they've done. Anthony DiPierro 19:58, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Then maybe you should consider writing a lengthy article of their many achievements in McFly? --Hcheney 20:01, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I will, and I'll write one in Wikipedia too. Anthony DiPierro 20:23, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Then maybe you should consider writing a lengthy article of their many achievements in McFly? --Hcheney 20:01, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Straw Poll on Wikifying Parents
Since Anthony feels that past prescedent favors his point of view, I figured we could have a poll to determine whether consensus favors wikifying John Edwards parents. --Hcheney 19:53, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I've already stated that I don't agree with this, so there clearly is not consensus. Anthony DiPierro 04:20, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- There is a consensus. 83% voted to oppose his parents being wikified. If 83% is not a consensus, please tell me what is. --Hcheney 04:28, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- 83% of those who decided to vote. On a poll question which wasn't even discussed beforehand, and wasn't advertised on current polls. Anthony DiPierro 04:45, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- It is now listed on Current polls. --Hcheney 04:53, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Seems like a waste when we could have answered a much bigger question, but OK. In the mean time I've still agreed not to revert this below, so I think the page protection should be lifted. Anthony DiPierro 05:53, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- It is now listed on Current polls. --Hcheney 04:53, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- 83% of those who decided to vote. On a poll question which wasn't even discussed beforehand, and wasn't advertised on current polls. Anthony DiPierro 04:45, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If your question is whether or not I will continue to revert this, I will not (barring the poll results swaying to less than 80% against me). However, I don't agree with it. And at the time when articles for these people are created, I will of course add the links once again. Anthony DiPierro 04:47, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The names of John Edwards' parents should be wikified.
Support:
- (Anthony implied from above comments)
Oppose:
- Oppose. See above comments. Hcheney 19:53, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Me too. Meelar 19:54, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose →Raul654 19:55, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Maximus Rex, 19:56, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- —Eloquence 04:24, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC) - no evidence presented for them deserving an encyclopedia article
- Agree with Eloquence. -- Cyan 04:39, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Wik 05:44, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)