Talk:John Edward

But seriously

Isn't it a bit much to call him an entertainer or psychic medium? I mean, is exploitation an approved form of entertainment? And giving him credit as an actual psychic medium - seriously? --Riluve (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place to debate the right/wrong of Edward's work. He is by definition a television performer/entertainer, whose show revolves around his being a medium, a title he readily professes for himself. I think the current wording is fine. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That's like letting an article on Hitler entitle himself a "Social Engineer" because that is how he thought of himself. 50.224.24.38 (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Well quite obviously he isn't a "psychic medium". But he is an entertainer. He performs his show for ratings, his shows standing is based on ratings, he could have a boring show on late night public television but he chose to be an entertainer.

Thats not really up for discussion, that hes an entertainer. Thats...well, what he does. That he may also believe his own lies or have a certain reason for what he does would not remove the fact hes an entertainer. Even shock jockeys are entertainers. To each his own I guess, even if theirs is remarkably ignorant. 58.170.134.254 (talk) 12:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Harlequin

As "psychic mediums" do not really exist, and are on the face of it frauds, I do not have any problem with the way it is worded. Clearly, any rational individual who reads "psychic medium" knows that that is a fake thing anyway. He clearly entertains mindless drones who want to feel better....so he is an entertainer. I believe a prudent and rational person can read the things that he is, and take from that what each means.

Appearances in the media

John Edward appeared in an episode of South Park series (6x15) being nominated for the Biggest Douche In The Universe award.

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John Edward. 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130104233353/http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0%2C8599%2C100555%2C00.html to http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,100555,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100412161943/http://infinitequest.com/ to http://www.infinitequest.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100412161943/http://infinitequest.com/ to http://www.infinitequest.com/

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) 15:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

See also section

I removed a lot from the see also section. Most of it was not relevant to John Edward beyond his being a medium. Per MOS:SEEALSO, I think more of a connection is needed, as the section was too long and most of the entries would not be part of a comprehensive article on the biographical subject here. I kept two entries that were about TV shows, as the first description in the lead is "television personality". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: You are going way overboard on the medium articles you are removing material from - mostly in See also. The MOS states: "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article." I maintain that the bios of other mediums and articles covering the general topic are tangentially related and I am going to restore the material as is appropriate. RobP (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Some of those links have no relevance other than to implicitly disparage the article subject, which would be a violation of the WP:BLP policy against unsourced content. Why are you restoring those? Also, I don't see how the remaining links to other mediums are relevant enough to include. WP:SEEALSO says that "The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." How does a list of other mediums apply to that? Under your interpretation, any biography could have dozens of "see also" entries based purely on their profession. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You keep repeating the same part of the MOS that you like - how about the part I quoted: "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics..."

You're not even quoting the whole sentence, which goes on to say "One purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article" and then provides three conditions for what is considered relevant. Can you please explain how your interpretation would make sense if any biography could have dozens of "see also" entries based purely on their profession? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)