Talk:Dear Abby

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dear Abby article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discussion

Hi...I am assuming that you are planning to add something to this page now that you moved the redirect. I will put this on watch as I am honestly quite curious. Kukini 05:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops...there it is. Sorry. Kukini 05:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the section "The Column's Popularity" is almost nearly identical to the website listed as its source. Maybe someone could change it up a bit? 216.73.233.248 (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical info

I'd hate to slash this stub so drastically when it's such an important subject, but most of the text here now is about the columnists, not the column. But the columnists already have their own pages, so I think this page should just be about the column. --Allen 02:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The penultimate paragraph has Pauline both dying and surviving.

Hi I just gave my partner songs about fathers, daddys and our daughter Abby, as I found about half a dozen 'Dear Abby' songs on itunes I was intrigued to find out who abby was.

The songs inspired by the column are:

Dear Abby - John Prine

Dear Abby - Dead Kennedys

Dear Abby - Antiseen

Dear Abby - Wendy Gelsanliter

Dear Abby - Amplafire

Mum, UK.

Merge

I'd like to suggest that Abigail Van Buren, the pen name for both columnists, be merged into the main Dear Abby article (since the pen name is intimately related to the column), and separate articles for the individual columnists be kept. This would help reduce duplication. -- phoebe/(talk) 00:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the column survived her and continues with a different columnist, I'd say they should remain separate, with enough cross-linking to minimize duplication. Gene Nygaard 22:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See below regarding this issue. The original columnist was not named Abigail Van Buren, it was the pen name given to the author of the column. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Van Buren being merged with dear Abby page

Search on either Dear Abby or Abigail Van Buren would be benefitial for some who do not know two are the same. 198.103.184.76 13:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No don't merge 71.226.60.137 06:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Abby is Not Everything that Abigail Van Buren accomplished in her life

Had Abigail Van Buren been the only writer working under the title of Dear Abby, then I would agree that a merge would be something likely to succeed. She is but one author working under the name.

I would also stress that Abigail's life and personal accomplishments merit her own article.

One my pet beefs about Wikipedia is that community members are sometime too eager to merge articles, and often time suggest doing so because on the surface it makes sense to do "something".

Dear Abby is not Abigail Van Buren and vis versa.In this case merging the two is a prime example of those who can not see trees, but rather see nothing but forest. 24.210.140.87 21:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Dear Abby is Abigail Van Buren. The person who wrote the column, and accomplished other things in her life, was named Pauline Phillips and has her own article. There is no reason why the two articles shouldn't be merged, as they are exact copies of one another. All that needs done is redirect the other page to this one and remove the duplicated information. Let's not make it so difficult without researching the facts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I have redirected the Abigail Van Buren page to this one. That page contained no unique information that isn't covered under the "Name" section on the main page here. Because it is a pseudonym, there is no rationale for keeping a separate page duplicating information. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the Intro and Biography sections, this article seems to be more an article about Pauline Phillips than about the column, which would make it or the Pauline Phillips article redundant. If this article is about the column, then it should reflect that. Otherwise, the two should be merged. Nightscream (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More information needed

Uh. Even as someone who rarely read Dear Abby...this article needs, not just expansion, but very considerable expansion. Especially in describing the tone of the column, and the social effect.

24.130.19.192 (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But who did/does she write for?

All this information is fascinating, but you don't see an article about Stan Lee without mention of Marvel Comics, so why is there no mention of the paper or publication which puts out Dear Abby? What, is a secret or something? Thetrellan (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes section added for propaganda purposes

The "Quotes" section was obviously added in 2015 to further the gay activist propaganda that has been spread across Wikipedia pages in the past couple years, thinly disguised as content. I suggest removing this section completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.194.21 (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]