[edit] 27 Sep 2006
Wow, it's really unbelievable able how biased this article is, and actually how biased all articles on psychics by Wikipedia. Who are the people who write these? I mean, it's clearly out to prove some of his own agenda - ie anti-psychic or pro-Christian or whatever. It's also clear they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Im guessing the authors of this article watched a show or two with John Edawrd, didn’t like what they saw, googled for some articles with "proof" debunking what John Edward does and just copied and pasted it on Wikipedia. It's almost pathetic, as a source of information comparing itself to be somewhat "encyclopedic".
Perhaps, as to not discredit this article as a complete sham and insult to everyone’s intelligence, both sides could be presented accurately and forthright. Perhaps even testimonials of those who have been read by John Edward.
Until then, please remove this joke, or put a disclaimer at the top listing this as an “editorial”. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.163.65.56 (talk • contribs) 15:22, September 27, 2006 (UTC).
- For reference, the version of the page discussed above is here. — Elembis 18:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] B-class as of 22 Dec 2006
I think
the current article satisfies several
criteria for good articles. In particular, it's reasonably well-written, well-sourced, and neutral. While it'd be nice to have an image of Edward holding a microphone in one of his shows, the article's main problem is in broadness of coverage — actual biographical details on Edward's family and early life are sparse. —
Elembis 07:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
(edit)
