Talk:Joyce Brothers/Archives/2013

Gay Icon Project
In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Now I'm a sraight guy and don't profess to have a comprehensive knowledge of who is or what makes a gay icon. However, I have a very hard time believing that Joyce Brothers would qualify. Realkyhick 19:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't she one of the first psychologists to suggest that homosexuality isn't an illness? Cranston Lamont 20:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Birthday?
This page states that Joyce Brothers was born on October 20, 1928. There seem to be several other sources which give different dates. The Answers.com page gives both the 1927 and 1928 birth dates throughout the page. Also, the October 20 Wikipedia page doesn't list her birthday there, although the September 20 one does (under 1928). Could this please be verified? 124.191.65.50 11:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've come here to raise the same question. This astrological site has her born on October 20, 1928, at the rather precise time of 6:21 pm. Of course, that’s only as good as their source, which says: “Yoe Stein quotes Norma Lee Browning, "Sydney Omarr: Astrology and The Man," data from Omarr”.


 * October 20 in 1927 and 1929 also appear in ghits.


 * September 20 is a much more popular date, but the year still varies, usually 1927 or 1928, but also 1929.


 * This purports to be her own MySpace page, where she says she was born September 20, 1925.


 * For a third possible date, this Jewish source, which we have in the article, says she was born October 29, 1929, but that may be a typo for October 20.


 * So, how can we be certain she was born in either 1927 or on September 20? --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  23:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Cheating
I deleted a sentence in the article that Brothers had "cheated" during her appearance on The $64,000 Question. This is untrue. Moreover, most of the stories surrounding her appearance on the show reflect what is summarized at answers.com:
 * Though Dr. Joyce Brothers was disliked by Charles Revson, whose Revlon cosmetics firm was the sponsor of The $64,000 Question, and was therefore given difficult questions about boxing, she managed to answer without help and won legitimately against her coached opponent.

Please don't libel. 75.46.106.222 (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A website "Answers" citation as a reference is both bogus and unfactual, lacking in peer review, and totaly opinionated.

Nearly anyone can write such an "Answer": This does not make is factual. Use of such a statement is unsupported in references and the statement should be deleted. Further aggravating the hyperbole of the above statement with the emotional catchphrase "please dont libel" only supports shifting the libel from one party (if it ever existed) to another! Making Revson the scapegoat via an unsupported and opinionated website statement is so much worse that the original Wiki statement and the entire edit should be removed as being purely cosmetic.99.2.69.38 (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Laurelton?
I could have sworn she was born in Laurelton, Queens, a borough of New York City. I grew up there and she was our native born star. Bank robber Willie Sutton lived there once (our star - not so much) but she was a native. I could have sworn she even said on a TV show in the 70's that she was from Laurelton (or did I see it in a school film or something). Anyway, I'm supprised to see that now she was born in New York City, New York. I'm just saying. Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morefaith (talk • contribs) 20:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Game show exoneration: Verified vs Suggested
In the Career section, the term "verified" was used to describe Brother's knowledge of boxing in the game show scandle era regarding her claim of no proir knowledge of answers. A reference is cited to support the statement's verification, however the cited reference is both anecdotal and itself unsupported, lacking factual support, and is purely conversational.

In fact, Brother's non-involvement in the game show answers controversy was never "verified", however other sources (sources not cited in the article) do relate that she was later to answer questions of similiar difficulty during the course of investigations. In conjunction with the weak reference which the article cites, one may reasonably conclude that her lack of complicity is suggested and/or supported by the subsequent investigations, however no actual "verification" either ever exists or was ever reported to exist. Further, no "lie detection" or other such examinations (eg. pentothal, hypnosis, ekg testing) were ever given, no statements from producers in support, thus making the useage of the term "verification" inapropriate and overly zealous in its representation of Brother's innocence.

One may accept Brother's innocence based on her statements and ability to answer similiar questions but may not claim that the same innocence or non-complicity was somehow "verified". 99.2.69.38 (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Date of Birth
According to an L.A. Times article, she was born on October 29, 1927. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.34.211 (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement
--ThaddeusB (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Expand lead
 * 2) Fix the and make sure each paragraph has at leats 1 ref
 * 3) Do something about the massive list of TV credits. Perhaps mention the most important few (preferable with details) in text and move the rest to a "credits" list section, like is typical for actors' page
 * 4) More info on her legacy and/or non-$64,000 part of career. Right now it looks like that show was he main reason she is notable, which is obviously not true

Balance issues
I've tagged it with balance as right now there's not a single sniff of any criticism of what she did. Some sources that may help are:, ,. This is just a result of a few seconds of searching... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The above editor ahs done everything he can to prevent this article form appearing in the ITN/RD section. There's an incredible amount of bad faith here. The article was tagged by Rambling Man for almost every single sentence, often multiple times, for information readily available in almost every major source given.  Additions of sources have been reverted with hostile edit summaries "buggered" "buggered" "mess" "mess" "mess" "mess" "tag" "tag" "tag" "tag" "be careful" "be careful" "you wrecked the article, please be more careful and add citations with a suitable template (and without all the text and SHOUTING" (I left an extra space) that make absolutely no sense outside a very well documented personal animosity of Rambling Man towards myself.  Now we are to assume the good faith of an "unbalanced" tag for the article by an editor who has made 65 deletions or critical edits to an article whose nomination he opposes here?  No evidence of unbalanced edits has been given, the editor who has placed the tag is free to add criticism--the fact that no one else has is not a reason to tag the article or delay the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, many edits you made were really detrimental to the article, you introduced errors, template issues, badly formatted citations, unnecessary SHOUTING etc. I've done my best to fix all that, and I've mentioned on at least two occasions in the ITN nom that the article isn't balanced, it's basically a fan article telling us how brilliant and "pioneering" she was, it needs some serious balancing, especially considering that she was criticised throughout her career.  Sorry if this upsets anyone, but the article is not balanced, as I've provided evidence above.  Thanks! Also please note the amount of work I've done to fix all the errors Medeis added, all the sourcing, all the correctly formatted templates, all the corrections to poor grammar, to WP:MOS fails, etc.... but that obviously makes no difference to this particular editor...., I'm just asking for excellence in an article before we "main page" it.... Of course, the community can decide otherwise.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)