Talk:Jeanne Phillips

POV
This does not look very neutral to me:


 * Her column is internationally syndicated and draws more readers than any other newspaper column in the world. (...)
 * Over the years, almost every subject the world has ever known has been addressed in Dear Abby. (...)'

--Edcolins 20:19, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

True. We should have some other viewpoints to balance that...


 * ''She is widely believed to be a man-hating caricature of her mother

Common applications of above rule:
 * ''The man is always at fault, and cannot change
 * ''Women are an unfair victim of circumstance and deserve a second chance
 * ''Snooping/spying is acceptable so long as it is conducted by a woman for a valid reason, i.e., suspicion of wrongdoing, curiosity, paranoia, boredom, etc.

Birthdate
Peoplefinders.com says she is 67. Also, it can be deduced that she is at least 67 from her mother's entry. The entry for Dear Abby says that when she approached the newspaper about becoming an advice columnist in January 1956, she was already the mother of two teenagers. Hence, Edda Jeanne could have been born no later than January 1943. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.39.162 (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Peoplefinders.com is not a reliable source so it cannot be used as a source on a biography of a living person. Also, her mother's entry cannot be used to deduce her age because Wikipedia articles cannot be used as a reliable source; it may be inaccurate due to vandalism. I believe that her birthdate is c. 1945-1946 because this article from Stars and Stripes, which was published on November 11, 2001, says "Phillips, 56, co-writes the Dear Abby column and shares the pen name Abigail Van Buren with her mother, Pauline Phillips, 83." Deducting 56 from 2001 returns the year 1945. 1944 is also a possible birthdate if Phillips' birthdate was after November 11. As a compromise, I have reworded the article to say that Phillips was born in the 1940s. Is that okay? I have also removed the name "Edda" from the article because I cannot find a source that says it is her first name. Can you find a source that verifies that Edda is part of her name? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources have confirmed that her birth year is 1942:
 * I have reworded the article to state that Phillips was born in 1942 rather than in the 1940s on the basis of these two reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reworded the article to state that Phillips was born in 1942 rather than in the 1940s on the basis of these two reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reworded the article to state that Phillips was born in 1942 rather than in the 1940s on the basis of these two reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Long-term vandalism by 68.94.xx.xx
The original section title was "Categories- TG writers?". I've retitled it to "Long-term vandalism by 68.94.xx.xx". Cunard (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused about the inclusion of categories in transexual and transgendered writers. Is that to imply Jeanne Phillips is a MTF transexual? If so shouldn't there be at least some elaboration in the article, or do we just have innuendo to guess about? Or is this just someone's idea of a joke, since a google search of jeanne phillips transexual reveals no hits which confirm this? Batvette (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

After comparing revisions I'm assuming its vandalism and reverting it. Maybe the page should be protected?Batvette (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Multiple requests for sources from the person who has added these categories have been met by silence. I agree that this has become a long-term problem with this article. Long-term vandalism 1. Category:Transgender and transsexual writers was first added to the article on 00:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC) ‎ by . I reverted it at 00:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC) with the edit summary "please provide a source for this category". 2. It was re-added 01:33, 20 June 2011‎ (UTC) by . I reverted the addition 01:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC) with the edit summary "revert per WP:BLP, a source is necessary if this category is to be added to the article". 3. The category was re-added 06:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC) by . I reverted the addition 00:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC) with the edit summary "undo as unsourced, Biographies of living persons says: 'Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified' as such". 4.  reverted my reversion at 17:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC) with the edit summary "this category has nothing to do with religion or sexual orientation". I reverted 07:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC) with the edit summary "rv. unsourced BLP violation; see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=prev&oldid=483653727 for discussion about WP:BLPCAT". That discussion is archived at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 33. 5. At 00:56, 30 April 2013  added Category:American centenarians, Category:Transgender and transsexual women, and Category:Transgender and transsexual writers to this article. I reverted the vandalism 14:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC) with the edit summary "rv. unsourced category additions per WP:BLPCAT". 6. The categories were restored by  at 20:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC) and reverted by  01:14, 10 June 2013 with the edit summary "undoing suspected vandalismn". 7. The categories were again restored by  at 05:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC) with the edit summary "not vandalism".  reverted again 17:29, 10 June 2013 with the edit summary "Please see talk page and respond before reverting".  Analysis The vandalism has been ongoing by dynamic IPs that start with 68.94.xx.xx since June 2011 with no source being provided to support the IPs' assertions. I have become less active so have not been able to keep the article free of this vandalism. The categories have sometimes remained on the article for nearly a month. There have been constructive IP edits such as these copyedits by  on 19 January 2013 and this addition by  on 17 January 2013, so I am reluctant to support semi-protection.  Resolution I can think of three possible options here: 1. Semi-protection is applied to the article although I am reluctant to support this because of the constructive IP edits. 2. Protection policy is applied to the article. Per Protection policy, it is used when there is "persistent vandalism, violations of the biographies of living persons policy, or copyright violations". 3. Neither semi-protection nor pending changes protection is applied, but the article needs more eyes to revert the vandalism. I think both 2 and 3 are good options and have asked administrator  to take a look. Cunard (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Cunard, you've been here longer than me (haven't you?), and I have no problem deferring to your judgment. Personally, I'd semi-protect it, but I'm an abusive trigger-happy admin, as you know. Something else: the last time I applied PC to an article I caused a shit storm, since apparently I did it when it was not OK to do so--is it OK now? I tried to follow that discussion a while ago and got seriously bored with it. If it is OK, I think that (2) would be my preferred option. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I took a look at Protection policy, and it looks the conclusion of PC2012/RfC 1 is that "Pending changes level 1" (which "[r]equire[s] review for revisions from new and unregistered users") is okay. But Pending changes level 2 (which "[r]equire[s] review for revisions from everyone except Reviewers") is not. So maybe you could apply PC1 to the article unless there's something I'm missing? If I'm wrong, that's okay too because I am a devout adherent to THIS policy which in my mind trumps all of Wikipedia's policies. It would delight me so much to see you raked over the coals because of my misdirection. But then you might no longer be willing to be at my beck and call any longer which would sadden me greatly. Oh well. :( Oops, why did I confess my ulterior motive to asking Drmies to look at this discussion?) Cunard (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cunard, even seeing your name already makes me feel guilty because I haven't closed any of your RfCs recently. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Consummatum est. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * FWIW I'd support semi-protection since you can't block this troublesome editor. While I understand that it's admirable to have access remain for anonymous editing, it's also anonymous editors that are the problem here. Batvette (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)