" 
 ==The accusations have profoundly effected his life, therefore are notable and deserve inclusion.== 
 The facts have moved past debating whether there really is a love affair or a love child, its on to how this is hurting John Edwards. I guess someone researching him would just have to wonder why his political career suddenly sputtered the summer of 2008, wiki won't mention what everyone else is writing long stories about. 

 Its probably ended his career in politics. Whether the story is true or false or not is debatable, and it doesn't matter if you don't like the original source, leftist wiki editors protecting Edwards: the story now is how the allegations are damaging him and have already probably lost him any chance at his best chance at furthering his career: the VP slot. Its an important story, its an important fact that his behaviour has caused a firestorm. Suppressing the story _completely_ is making wikipedia a laughing stock. Gawker, Mickey Kaus, countless bloggers are going on about it and pointing to it as proof of wiki's leftist bias. You aren't really hiding anything anyone doesn't know already, and you're making the site you claim to be protecting look stupid.  

 Its noteworthy, very much so. Its verifiable that the scandal, true or false, is affecting his career (many people have been hurt by scandals that turned out to be false, that doesn't make the news of the damage any less noteworthy). It has innumerable sources as to the effect on Edwards' career. Its time to lift the blackout and start debating on the wording of a section about it. You can't avoid it forever. Are you just trying to bluff it out until the election is over in hopes of minimizing any tangential damage you think it might cause Obama?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by     

 :Is it really a surprise that people are fighting to get the truth posted on Wikipedia? I recently had to deal with the Nazi admins on Wiki and let me tell you, I could honestly say they act like a bunch of kids in the movie ""Lord of the Flies"". The majority of them will not listen to reason and when you present them with facts they disregard them. There is also no one managing this site from the top who gives a crap about what is going on here. The only way the owners of Wikipedia will challenge a Nazi admin is when it involves legal action. Wikipedia is the anti-Christ of the internet. Also a majority of the Nazi admins are liberals and the only way to become an admin is to be voted in by another liberal Nazi admin. Once again, ""Lord of the Flies"". Just wait and see. I will be hounded by many of them for posting just this little snippet. Its pretty much a given. They will probably ban my IP or kick me off the site for a few days. If they dont like what you are saying, that is what they do. They pretty much do what they want. Pretty pathetic.    

 :: It is obvious that there is a calculated effort by the mainstream media (MSM) to suppress any information about this story. The MSM has jumped on stories with much less to go on than this Edwards story. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the MSM, and the liberal websites like Wikipedia, won’t talk about the bad things that happen in the Democrat party because it is the party and ideals that they personally believe in. It is human nature to not attack yourself and the Democrats will not attack themselves by talking about Edwards cheating on his wife who is dying of cancer. This is a silver bullet for the Democratic Party especially because there is a presidential race going on. Why do you think the MSM sits on stories until months or weeks before an actual election takes place? It is a new phenomena occurring in the MSM where they run a story with little facts in an effort to smear a person (typically a politician) then they let the people decide if they want to believe it. This usually occurs with little or if any facts to back it up. All the major networks do it all the time. A perfect example is the Dan Rather forged documents story about President Bush. They unleashed the story with little to no facts right before a Presidential election. It’s very sad that more of the American people don’t see what the MSM to trying to pull off right in front of their eyes. I am not an avid listener of Rush but I have caught him a few times and there is absolute truth to the term he uses when referring to the MSM, ""Drive-by Media"". The MSM is a business and they are putting out a product. What is very sad is the fact that the upper management in most of these news organizations don’t realize that they are putting out a product that most of the American people don’t c