Talk:John Edwards

Name

Is Johnny his real name? Maybe in any case it would be better to begin the article with John Edwards and mention the full name later, as we've done with e.g. Tony Blair. John Stephenson 01:11, 10 November 2007 (CST)

Angry Crusading Style

I agree with the paragraph quoted below and am no fan of Edwards, but it's presented in a biased way, so it should be rephrased.

After leading in polls in Iowa for much of 2007, Edwards switched to an angry crusading style attacking lobbyists and power brokers in Washington, charging, "This corporate greed is killing the middle class, killing American jobs, and it is stealing your children's future."[1]

By January 2008 he was in a close three-way race in Iowa,

Firstly, "angry crusading style" is a rather negative way of phrasing it. Secondly, mentioning those facts in that order implies that Edwards's decline is due to the style shift. That's for historians to decide, not us. --Warren Schudy 21:46, 4 January 2008 (CST)

Angry crusading style is exactly accurate--it is neither for not against Edwards. The quote reflects the angry ("greed" "killing" "stealing") style (and was repeated by the news media). Many newsmen commented on the switch in style. As for historians, well I'm a historian of campaign techniques. :) see "Armied Admen and Crusaders"

I'm inclined to agree with Warren on this one; it's not really for us to decide if it was "angry" or not; if it was aggressive then why not say so, but "angry" I'm not so sure is the best word choice. --Robert W King 22:11, 4 January 2008 (CST)

Of course Warren and RWK are very, very obviously right. This is nothing other than bias being placed into an article, plain as day. Stephen Ewen 22:25, 4 January 2008 (CST)

Is it bias for or against Edwards? The major news media arereporting on his tone and rhetoric and there is no reason for CZ to ignore it. For example:

1. " Obama's optimistic change message trumped Edwards's angry, populist message." at [1]
2. Wolf Blitzer interviewing Edwards: "Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seem to be making the same point in criticizing you. They suggested yesterday — Hillary Clinton said it’s not something you have to do by yelling and screaming. They are talking about your being supposedly one angry man."
3. Rich Lowry (editor National Review): "The Hater: John Edwards, the crusader." "John Edwards is angry, and he wants people to know it." at [2]
4. Senator Dodd: "I am surprised at just how angry John has become. This is not the same John Edwards I once knew." at [3]
5. Roger Simon: "John Edwards has found a theme: He is angry and he is on your side." at [4]\
6. National Ledger: " So what is he so angry about? His speeches are filled with harsh attacks." at [5] Richard Jensen 22:54, 4 January 2008 (CST)

Richard, it doesn't matter how accurate the description is. Isn't that obvious by now? The fact of the matter is that in an encyclopedia article, the views expressed must be neutral, and as we have defined our policy, neutrality involves attributing controversial views to their adherents. So, quite obviously, we can't simply say that his style is an "angry crusading style" and simply leave it at that. What we can say is that political commentators have observed that his style has become "angry" (use quotations marks) and "crusading." This formulation is one that no one can complain about: it is a fact, and it is also an interesting and relevant fact. Of course, if Edwards or his defenders deny the description "angry" and "crusading," then that fact must also be reported in the article.

All, please do not spend any more of your valuable time on this minor point. Simply adopt some such language as I suggest and be done with it. --Larry Sanger 23:56, 4 January 2008 (CST)

The consensus of experts is that Edwards is angry, and it is NOT true that Edwards supporters deny the "angry" or "crusadings" themes. Edwards said: “It makes me angry. I feel outrage. I won’t let them get away with it.” The "crusading" theme is highlighted on his official website at [6] and [7] and [8] and [9] and [10]. We have rules here and the rule is that an opposed theory has to be given due attention, but there is no denial or opposed or alternative theory. CZ is to be bold and accurate, not wishy-washy and vague. As for "crusading" style people might want to read the scholarly literature on the subject; start with [11] Richard Jensen 01:47, 5 January 2008 (CST)

Edwards has clearly been attacked by characterising his campaign style as angry[12], so obviously Larry is right in that we should be careful. I found this interesting piece in The Nation, from January 2004, which characterised Kerry's campaign style as that of "the angry populist" while Edwards' was that of the "polite populist". [13]. Gareth Leng 04:58, 5 January 2008 (CST)

Gareth brings up an interesting point: as reporters have noticed, Edwards changed his style. He is angry now and was not 4 years ago. usually "angry" appears in the opening sentence of a news story, the best in-depth treatment is a NY Times story from Aug 2007 online. The reporter quoted Edwards at length: "At each stop, he let out the same battle cry: a populist attack on big oil, big pharmaceutical companies, big insurance companies and corporate lobbyists in Washington. These he described as being “powerful insiders” that had “rigged the system” against the ordinary working man, leaving him poorer, degrading the environment and blocking access to affordable health care. “I’ve been fighting these people all my entire life,” said Mr. Edwards, .... “I fought them in the courtroom, and I’ve beat them and beat them. We’ve got to stop being mealy-mouthed and careful. We’ve got to get rid of the robber barons. We need to have some guts.” As his voice rose, he continued: “It makes me angry. I feel outrage. I won’t let them get away with it.” The reporter says, "But as local polls show that his early lead here has diminished, putting him on par with Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, he has become more willing to use this confrontational approach, inside of Iowa and out." That is, it is not a one-time slip but a deliberate campaigning style. Edwards does not deny it. No expert denies it. (There has to be a denial to bring the CZ neutrality policy into play.) Richard Jensen 06:46, 5 January 2008 (CST)

I added a reference to the NY Times article Richard quoted in the main article. Are you sure Edwards doesn't deny it? This article seems to imply Edwards does not agree with that characterization.

The point that is being missed is that it is not our position to "take sides" and agree or disagree with what is being said; rather it is to inform WHAT is being said by WHOM, and there is simply a failure to do that. --Robert W King 10:22, 5 January 2008 (CST)

I think Richard is right that if "angry crusading" was well established and uncontroversial, then we could state it without saying who said it. However, the blog article I referred to suggests to me that it is sufficiently controversial that it's better to be explicit about who said what. Warren Schudy 10:29, 5 January 2008 (CST)

That isn't the point. As an encyclopedia we don't take sides; it simply is not appropriate to simply restate what is "well established" in cases of views. --Robert W King 10:33, 5 January 2008 (CST)

We are not taking sides. We are saying what happened. It's Edwards who said he was "angry"; all the media agree and that is not controversial. Was he "too angry" so that he turned off voters? Maybe, but it's too early to decide that and meanwhile CZ does not take a position on that debated point.Richard Jensen 10:49, 5 January 2008 (CST)

We are *not* the media, Richard. We are an encyclopedia. --Robert W King 10:53, 5 January 2008 (CST)

Yes, this encyclopedia has to be bold and tell what really happened. When Edwards says: "It made me mad," Edwards told an audience in South Carolina recently. "I mean, I was outraged. I think all of us should be outraged. This is just one of just millions of stories that I could feel inside of me. Enough is enough!" an unbiased encyclopedia says he's angry. There's a good analysis of the "anger" theme by the AP reporter at [14] Richard Jensen 10:57, 5 January 2008 (CST)

THen quote the source and say who said it; don't make the mistake of making it appear that CZ supports any kind of political position. --Robert W King 11:04, 5 January 2008 (CST)

This is a reply to RWK's comment of 10:33 today, but I don't want to count to 7 so I'm outdenting it. Doesn't your comment imply that we need to rephrase the beginning of biology as:

Joe Shmoe's An Introduction to Biology defines Biology as the science of life. According to that source, Biologists study all aspects of Earth's living things, including the dynamic processes within them that enable them to develop, survive, and reproduce.

Doing that to everything we say would totally destroy the narrative flows of our articles. If a view is well-established and uncontroversial, we call it a fact and state it directly in the article, optionally sourced with an endnote. Only if a view is of uncertain validity, or if the view sounds like it is of uncertain validity even if it isn't, does the reader need to know who said it.

It's clear from the discussion on this talk page that "angry crusading" is sufficiently controversial to justify an explicit sourcing within the text of the article, so a detailed discussion of where exactly to draw the line between view and fact is not relevant to addressing "angry crusading" IMHO. Warren Schudy 11:02, 5 January 2008 (CST)

Your argument is flawed; there are explicit "definitions" of words and political views. Do not confuse the two. --Robert W King 11:05, 5 January 2008 (CST)

Robert asks for definitions. OK, The Dictionary can help [from Webster's 3rd Unabridged]

" Although one may occasionally be inwardly and secretly ANGRY, the word commonly implies excited displeasure outwardly expressed *she wanted somebody to be angry with, somebody to abuse--George Meredith* Often but not always the word may imply a justifiable cause for displeasure *he hardly ever gets angry, doesn't half stand up for his rights-- Margaret Mead*. MAD is a close equivalent to ANGRY but lacks implications about expression *Old Rough and Ready was getting mad [because] no official thanks for the victories had reached him --Bernard De Voto." I suggest that Edwards clearly displays "excited displeasure outwardly expressed." Richard Jensen 11:07, 5 January 2008 (CST)

Richard, stop using an invalid argument to support your position. I did not ask for a definition. I want you to simply excercize greater neutrality in your contributions by not making it appear that CZ supports political positions. --Robert W King 11:09, 5 January 2008 (CST)

Perhaps the problem is not so much that "angry" is controversial, but that it looks like it should be controversial, so it hurts the article's credibility? Warren Schudy 11:15, 5 January 2008 (CST)

No, the problem is that it's written in a way that puts CZ in a position that it supports a political commentary/position about John Edward's campaigning style, when it should be written that "(people) have critized his campaigning style" including a source of who said it. --Robert W King 11:18, 5 January 2008 (CST)

This philosophical discussion was interesting for a while, but it's getting repetitive, so I'd like to point out something Larry said earlier today:

All, please do not spend any more of your valuable time on this minor point. Simply adopt some such language as I suggest and be done with it.

Warren Schudy 11:20, 5 January 2008 (CST)

In response to Robert: CZ is not criticizing Edwards. CZ uses analytical tertms to classify his campaign techniques. He's a crusader. That means he uses a standard campaign style that has been common since 1828 when Andrew Jackson denounced the "corrupt bargain." Crusading bothers some Democrats this year (they remember Dean in 2004), but the article does not get into that. It is Edwards' obvious anger that bothers these people, not the CZ report of his anger.Richard Jensen 11:25, 5 January 2008 (CST)

Richard, in order to maintain neutrality in an article, you need to declare WHO claims that they're being bothered and WHO says his style is bothering people; you can't simply say it does in the text because we are a universal project with a universal audience who will make up their own minds. It is our responsibility to document sources and positions, not to write the position as stated by other people as "accepted view". --Robert W King 11:43, 5 January 2008 (CST)

I think the current version clarifies it a lot, with ample quotations from Edwards so people can make up their own minds. In writing biography the focus is on Edwards, who is the actor; we should avoid making the media the subject of sentences. Richard Jensen 13:41, 5 January 2008 (CST)

If this article were up for approval, I would not be happy with "His response was to escalate the confrontational rhetoric, saying" without supporting evidence. However, given the drafty state of the article, I guess it's fine for now.

There's a certain irony that we are happy quoting the New York Times quoting a professor, but we aren't willing to accept statements from our own retired professor without support. Would it help if Richard quoted himself by name when making controversial claims? Warren Schudy 14:40, 5 January 2008 (CST)

No it would not help; that would violate our Neutrality Policy and our policy against self-promotion. --Robert W King 14:45, 5 January 2008 (CST)

It was the NY Times that reported his response was to escalate the confrontational rhetoric. I did not make any controversial claims--that is, controversial to national experts. Our discussion of this issue was very useful to me. It was polite and to the point and helped me to rethink not just the language but what happened in Iowa. I hope others found the discussion illuminating--I see it as a reward of being part of CZ. Richard Jensen 14:57, 5 January 2008 (CST)

I agree the discussion has been useful. The NYT wrote:

But as local polls show that his early lead here has diminished, putting him on par with Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, he has become more willing to use this confrontational approach, inside of Iowa and out.

That's subtly different from saying "His response was...", because the NYT wording allows the possibility of a coincidence. Warren Schudy 15:07, 5 January 2008 (CST)

did Edwards change?

Edwards changed radically in campaign style in 2008 campaign vs 2004. Here's the Washington Post analysis: "When he first ran for president, then-Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) was the fresh face in the Democratic Party, a perpetually buoyant campaigner who built his candidacy around his own biography....Fast-forward to today, and there is a new John Edwards on the campaign trail. His demeanor is more serious and his elbows far sharper than four years ago. .... His political positions also have more edge. An emphasis on biography has given way to a focus on issues, where there has been a demonstrable shift to the left -- on the Iraq war, health care and the federal budget deficit." from [15] Richard Jensen 10:27, 8 January 2008 (CST)

Again, this is perfectly simple. It is one thing to say that he changed his style radically, period. That is very obviously something that people can, rightly or wrongly, disagree about, and no doubt do. It is quite another thing to attribute this view explicitly (within the text of the article, not in a footnote) to some observer of Edwards. We must do the latter. Moreover, if Edwards (or a spokesman or prominent defender) has responded to that characterization, let's quote him/her. --Larry Sanger 12:11, 8 January 2008 (CST)

Observers do NOT disagree about his change in style. I added some more quotes as requested, the latest from Dan Balz the leading campaign expert at the Washington Post who concludes, "there is a new John Edwards on the campaign trail." Maybe I'm misreading the critique: is there anyone here at CZ who rejects Balz's analysis? Is there some outside expert who rejects it? If not, then there is no issue here.Richard Jensen 12:46, 8 January 2008 (CST)

For something potentially controversial like this, perhaps it's best to err on the side of neutrality at the expense of readability and state it as a quote regardless of whether or not it is actually controversial. Warren Schudy 13:00, 8 January 2008 (CST)

Exactly, Warren: if you want, call it "erring on the side of neutrality." I simply call it "neutrality."

The issue is that many readers, not familiar with the facts (if they were exactly as you report), might interpret the lines in question as our taking a negative stance toward Edwards. That is what I'm saying is perfectly simple. You can help them to understand that this is not merely our idiosyncratic, biased opinion, by attributing the observation to the Washington Post, or whatever. Anyway, I am quite sure that John Edwards himself, and his strongest proponents, would disagree with your claim that Edwards "reversed course" and "moved to left." --Larry Sanger 13:04, 8 January 2008 (CST)

I am, as editor-in-chief, requiring you to change the article in line with what I and others have said, above, if you wish to keep working on the article. --Larry Sanger 13:05, 8 January 2008 (CST)

yes, I DID just now change the article to add more quotes. The neutrality rule seems to have shifted rather dramatically from what is written in the CZ rulebook. Should we add these quotes too?

• "John Edwards: Compared with 2004, the former North Carolina senator has run as a more unabashed liberal this time." USA TODAY at [16]
• Asked about his changing style Edwards himself said, "Some of what is being characterized in that way is the result of me being strong and clear about where I stand and not being soft and muddy," at [17]
• Des Moines Register reporter: Four years ago he "defended his support for the Iraq war, prescribed a gradual approach to health care reform and told Iowa caucusgoers not to expect him to criticize his fellow Democrats running for president. Today, he calls his Iraq vote a mistake, embraces universal health care and regularly attacks party front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York." at [18] Richard Jensen 13:09, 8 January 2008 (CST)

No, it hasn't changed. Adding "according to a Washington Post analysis," as I just did, is precisely the sort of thing that the Neutrality Policy clearly requires. Now, the article has too much about this change in style, and not enough about more substantive matters. --Larry Sanger 20:15, 8 January 2008 (CST)

Of course, it being too much about the change in style is our fault, not Richard's. (I don't want to make Richard feel like we're sitting on the sidelines criticizing him right and left for his work.) Warren Schudy 20:27, 8 January 2008 (CST)

Anyway, I am quite sure that John Edwards himself, and his strongest proponents, would disagree with your claim that Edwards "reversed course" and "moved to left."

Hold on a minute Larry, have you been following the elections? Did you watch his speech after Iowa when he went on a long rant about his father and grandfather working on the mills, and how they dreamed of a better life for their children? He looked, sounded like and indeed was and is left wing. There is no shame in admitting that, it is the truth. Edwards has most certainly drifted to the left on this campaign, and saying that it might offend a few Edwards Supporters by mentioning this fact is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty. Denis Cavanagh 06:32, 9 January 2008 (CST)

Denis, what makes you think I was denying the claim or that there is some shame in admitting it? All I was insisting on is that "according to a Washington Post analysis" be added. So it was. End of story. --Larry Sanger 12:00, 9 January 2008 (CST)

You said that his strongest proponents would disagree with the idea that he has reversed course. Every major news outlet describes him as populist; He himself speaks like a working class hero. My point was that his supporters do not disagree with that characterisation, and even if they did, my point is that we shouldn't remove facts in case it may offend some people. That was all. Denis Cavanagh 06:10, 10 January 2008 (CST)