Talk:Esther Pauline Friedman

I think that this page should be returned to "Ann Landers." No one knows her by this name, while Ann Landers is easily recognized. It is the same discussion as the Linda Lovelace article. Danny
 * No, it is a totally different discussion to the one as there is only one real person behind that identity, whereas 'Ann Landers' was a pen name used by two more than three real people (and was created and originally established by Ruth Crowley). What's wrong with people looking up 'Ann Landers' and finding the link to a Esther Lederer bio article? The Lederer bio material currently at the Ann Landers article sits very oddly, as it shows a failure to distinguish between the real person Lederer and the fictional character Landers.


 * p.s. please include a date in your signatures.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 10:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * These articles are in a very confusing state, Sue. I wish you had not gone ahead with your reorganization without gaining a broader consensus for the changes.  I suggested on Talk:Ann Landers that it may not be the best path to take, but you went ahead anyway.  Now, the web of these articles is going to be very hard to untangle (for example, this is a talk page for a redirect to Ask Ann Landers (advice column).  What happens to this talk page if your incorrectly named Esther "Eppie" Pauline Friedman Lederer article is renamed to Esther Pauline Friedman?).  Powers T 17:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you feel I was premature in changing the name and if it causes some kind of mess. Could you please explain why you think the article Esther "Eppie" Pauline Friedman Lederer is incorrectly named?


 * At Talk:Ann Landers you simply said that you disagreed (and, as I replied there, it wasn't clear what specifically you were disagreeing with) and stated only "this page is in the right place" but gave no actual reason for not moving it to Ask Ann Landers (advice column). I'm not sure if you've read the rest of that talk page, but many other people had written that they found various aspects of the article confusing, reflecting a broad consensus that it did need extensive clarification (which was due to profound structural flaws in the article, as well as its name). I have tried to improve this situation, which meant creating a new Esther Lederer article. This was one part of my proposal that you seemed to agree with, but I didn't think to run by you every possible name for it, and you didn't volunteer one. Your reply seemed to express a desire to ignore that broad consensus. Therefore, there didn't seem to me to be any way to fix it, given that you didn't seem to understand my proposal and/or didn't seem to be registering this extensive confusion expressed by many people, except by 'being bold' and showing what I meant. The two current, separate articles are a vast improvement over the previously very confusing and unencyclopedic mess that was 'Ann Landers'. --Tyranny Sue (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)