Talk:Dear Deidre

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Untitled[edit]

NPOV: "Problems are probably made up" seems a rather biased opinion. So, too, "semi-serious". This doesn't necessarily reflect consensus. 62.30.77.61 00:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't think the problems are made up. I might change it later. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 09:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the article a bit, and added my take on the genuineness of the letters sent in. I personally think they're almost all made up, I mean... if you were having sex with your sister why on earth would you write to The Sun asking for advice from Deidre? I certainly didn't. I assumed everyone was wise to this. Plus I know plenty of people who have written in with fictitious problems, a few of which have been published. --Hopex 20:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't read Dear Deidre, but I think claiming that the problems are mostly fake is a pretty serious allegation. Therefore, I am removing the majority of the second paragraph from the article. By the way, Wikipedia is based on facts, not personal opinion. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so it's your opinion that they're genuine... Pretty bold to delete the paragraph considering the fact that you don't even read the column. By the way. --Hopex 01:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold is a good thing. Original research is a bad thing. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google threw up this review site with the following:

"This page presents letters, supposedly sent in by public, revealing sexual secrets and problems that they would like Deidre to solve them. Many of them seem too extreme to be real..." Review 1
"the regular agony column, Dear Deidre (which are so obviously made up that it’s hilarious!!)" Review 2
"Dear Deidre page for all those letters about people that have the weirdest sex lives,do real people send these letters in,i have yet to meet any off these girls..lol.." Review 3

I think these 3 independent reviews, the article starter, and myself clearly demonstrate there is a group of people who are dubious about the veracity of the letters.

Considering you don't even read the column I find it amazing you have the audacity to delete other people's additions without consult.

Even your beloved rules don't trust The Sun! WP:V#Sources_of_dubious_reliability

It is impossible to tell what proportion of the letters sent in are genuine or not. But I am sure that a lot of people have at the very least serious doubts regarding their truthfulness. And as I said above, I know for a fact that a few letters published were phony. --Hopex 02:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least you tried to find sources. However, those reviews are still based on personal opinion. Saying that the problems are made up, without proper citations, is potentially libelous. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute and total rubbish. The claim is fair comment made against anonymous writers in, not the paper itself.

Without personal opinion you can go ahead and delete the entire wikipedia.

And how many times do I have to say it, I know FOR A FACT that some of the letters published have been fictitious.

"An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion." WP:RS#Some_definitions

Now revert your edit and we can move on. --Hopex 13:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you claim to know a fact is irrelevant. However, I'm willing to revert my edit (and reword as necessary) as you have provided a link to the Wikipedia definition of an opinion. By the way, reading today's problems doesn't make me think it's not entirely genuine... I hope this dispute is now resolved. Thanks for a great debate. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for that. I think your rewording has improved the POV. Interesting debate, I learnt a lot about WP policies :) --Hopex 19:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]