Talk:Ask Ann Landers

${\displaystyle }$

Co-writer

Even before her death, the column had been taken over for the most part by her daughter, whose name I don't know could someone update this with the daughter's info? The article is about Ann Landers, which is a fictional name being used by more than one person, not by the real person Eppy Lederer.

Lederer owned the name (although she was the second columnist to use it), and the column is being discontinued in a few weeks (when the material she'd sent out before her death is used up). See http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Ann-Landers.html Vicki Rosenzweig, Monday, June 24, 2002

---

Well, heck, guess I'll have to change my last two entries. -- Zoe

Legal Advice

207.99.32.197 added: "( Who's checking these references? Ann Landers spelling checks - Cheques? No way. Community property is a state by state ruling)" to the article text. I deleted it and moved it here, since comments on the article itself belong here on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.232.145 (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Predecessor?

What do we know about the first Ann Landers? Was there ever a real person with that name? Who was Ann Landers until 1955? DS 14:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering the same thing, as the article implies the same name was used for the column before her. Pimlottc 14:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It's Ruth Crowley and there needs to be clarification between the fictional Ann Landers (whose identity it seems Esther Lederer took on during her life), the original 'Ann Landers' (Crowley), and the most currently-remembered Ann Landers (Lederer). Please see my proposal below.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 05:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

But to clarify: there was never any columnist whose real name was "Ann Landers". First there was Crowley, then there was Lederer. Correct / incorrect? DS (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Kathy Mitchell

Reference is confusing, since it is to a fictional character

Census Data - Biographical Info

I did some quick searching on census data. I found her family in the 1920 Sioux City, Woodberry County, Iowa census. This was taken Jan 2, 1920. Father and mother: Abe and Rebecca Friedman, age 32. Both came to U.S. from Russia in 1908 and were naturalized in 1916. They were Jewish. Abe was a grocer and had a store. Children: Hellen 8 years old, born in Iowa (all subsequent children born in Iowa), Dorothy 7, and Esther and Pauline age 3 and 6 months. (indicating they were born in July 1916) wrinehart 19 October 2006

Rice / Pigeon scare

I've heard that an Ann Landers collumn began the scare in which people believed Pigeons exploded when they ate rice (she urged people to throw rose petals instead of rice at weddings). Does anyone know if this is true? - 88.107.129.200 09:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

She certainly circulated the myth, but I highly doubt she originated it (or rather, that one of her correspondents originated it). Powers ^T 13:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Halloween candy scare

The text states that there are no documented cases of poisoning via trick or treating, this is not entirely true. Ronald O'Bryan murdered his own son by poisoning Halloween candy, making it appear that he had gotten the candy while trick or treating. Documentation includes this notation in an article on the death penalty in Texas, on the Web site of the Houston Chronicle. http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/01/penalty/dpgallery/obryan.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.205.89 (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

But then it is true. By your own admission, the kid was killed by his father, not while trick-or-treating. 24.6.66.193 04:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Toston, of Detroit, died at the age of five on November 2, 1970. It was initially believed that he had received heroin in his trick or treat bag. As it turned out, he had gotten into his uncle's heroin stash, ingested it, got sick, and died. In an effort to protect the uncle, the family sprinkled some heroin on Kevin's Halloween candy.

John Paul Parks (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)John Paul ParksJohn Paul Parks (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

For information on Kevin Toston, see Wikipedia article poisoned candy scare in the section entitled "Myths and Reality."

John Paul Parks (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)John Paul ParksJohn Paul Parks (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't Esther Lederer and Ruth Crowley need separate articles? Also no mention of column's actual name "Ask Ann Landers"

• I think this article should probably be divided into three separate articles, as it seems there needs to be a separate article for (and entitled) Ruth Crowley, and one for Esther Pauline Friedman Lederer (who is the only real person mentioned in the entire "Early Life" section of this "Ann Landers" article, whereas Ruth Crowley was apparently the first 'Ann Landers'. And anyway, this particular fictional character seems - from my research so far, anyway - not to have really had an Early Life. As opposed, for example, to a fictional character like Dame Edna.)
• I have just started to research this topic, but if anyone else knows about it, it would be great to get more specific info, i.e. was the column always called "Ask Ann Landers"? etc. Currently I'm using [1] as my main reference source, but also various websites.

--Tyranny Sue (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes; this article is -- or should be -- about Esther Lederer, because it is she who is best known as "Ann Landers". Ruth Crowley could have her own article, and it's conceivable one could write an article about the column itself as written by the two women. Powers ^T

I'm afraid it is not actually as self-evident as you seem to believe that the article "should be about" Esther Lederer. Do you not think the fact that Ruth Crowley created the Ann Landers name and column, and wrote it for nine years (until she died) makes it not exclusively "about Esther Lederer"? (Not to mention the fact that various other stand-ins wrote the article between Crowley's time and Lederer's.) It is very strange and unbalanced (as evidenced by the confusion mentioned by various people in 3 of the sections above) to give Esther Lederer 95% of the credit, and also confusing to present this article as if Ann Landers is an actual person. I can understand your misconception, given that Lederer so enthusiastically adopted the persona for 47 years (and over a range of media to which Crowley and the other Ann Landers writers didn't, of course, have access) but the simple facts is that at least three writers wrote under that name for the Chicago Sun. Perhaps it would help you to have a look at this reference , as the mythology of Ann Landers as embodied by Lederer has obviously been extremely pervasive. I am interested in making the article objective and balanced, and not in perpetuating a myth, which is what Wikipedia is about.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have created an article about Ruth Crowley. Eddie Blick (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Proposal: move this to " 'Ask Ann Landers' (advice column)" and make separate bio articles for the writers

I propose that Ruth Crowley and Esther Lederer get bio articles (under their own names, of course) which would be linked to an 'Ask Ann Landers (advice column)' article. As this article stands at the moment, there is too much confusion and subjectivity (stemming, it seems, from people's feelings about "who was the 'real' Ann Landers").
Looking at the article from the perspective of someone who didn't grow up with Ann Landers (& therefore has no emotional investment in the character) there is clearly an imbalance & lack of clarity in the article around (a) the fictitiousness of the 'Ann Landers' character (which it seems Esther Lederer took on to some extent in her real life) and (b) the role that Ruth Crowley played in *originating* the character/column.
--Tyranny Sue (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This article is in the right place. With minor revision, it makes a credible biographical article for Lederer. Your proposed article should be started from scratch, perhaps borrowing relevant content from this one. Powers ^T 13:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not totally clear what you're disagreeing with. Is it with the idea of renaming the article the more specific, relevant name of 'Ask Ann Landers (advice column)'? (Because I was actually proposing - as you, and I, wrote - to start an Esther Lederer article from scratch, and move the sections on her personal life, which don't belong in an article on the Ann Landers pen name/advice column, there.)

As it is, the article is very oddly constructed, with the two sections on Lederer's personal life (Early Life and Death and Legacy) on either side of the section about the actual column. The whole article should be about the column, because that's what 'Ann Landers', a fictional character, remember, was, in fact, all about.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the many comments on this page expressing confusion over who wrote the article (or who exactly was Ann Landers, and why is that image of just one of the writers used to illustrate this fictional character) attest to the unclearness of this article's previous structure and name. Since 'Ann Landers' was a pseudonym used by more than three writers (real people), using the name 'Ann Landers' as the title of the article, as if it was a real person's name, is very unhelpful. It seems much more helpful and clear to me to move it to "Ask Ann Landers (advice column)" and, in the absence of any good reason not to move it, and considering all the aforementioned confusion (see the rest of this page), I've decided to move it.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not how these things work, Sue. You asked for opinions on a proposal. I objected and gave reasons. For more than a month, you said nothing, then finally responded. Before giving me a chance to address your objections, you went ahead anyway. That's rude and not at all in the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. I strongly encourage you to reverse your actions until a clearer consensus can be reached. Powers ^T 17:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel that way, but could you please show where you think you "gave reasons"? You actually merely objected to unspecified parts of my proposal. (Your words were: "I disagree. This article is in the right place." - that is not "reasons". That is just a bald, unjustified objection.) As for my proposal to create a separate Lederer bio article, you agreed with that. I have done a lot of work to try and clear up the extensive confusion mentioned on this page (sections 1, 3 and 4), which you seem to be not wanting to consider. Why is that exactly?

Since I have put so much work in attempting to fix these obvious problems, I'd rather wait for a bit more feedback from others before I undo it all. --Tyranny Sue (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My reasons were mentioned in the previous section of this talk page. Under current article naming guidelines, articles should be at the name most commonly used to refer to them. Regardless of the fact that Lederer originate neither the column nor the byline, she is best known to the public as "Ann Landers", and so her article belongs there. Of course, it's possible that consensus would agree with you (although your chosen title for the article on Lederer is far too long), but no such consensus has been established as of yet. I suggest following the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves to garner a broader range of opinions. Powers ^T 19:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

1. (Numbered for ease of reference! (: ) Ok, first I'll say that I probably should've tried copying & pasting the article into my user page or something & working on it there instead first (though in a case like this especially that leaves one with major categorisation problems, but never mind...). So I'm really sorry if I got carried away a bit in my eagerness to raise the standard of an article that had obvious major clarity issues (mentioned, as I said, by several other users besides me) to try to clear up the extremely obvious confusion regarding Ann Landers's fictionality, and to give an accurate picture of as many as possible of the real people behind the Landers name.

2. I haven't yet heard any solid, specific argument against any of my changes (except for the naming of my Esther Lederer article, which, given the length of her name, I think it's pretty understandable that there's going to be some confusion as to what to call it - I honestly don't care in the least what version of her name is used, personally, and I would've welcomed, with open arms - kisses & hugs even - any suggestion from you, given that you obviously have much more knowledge than I do about that - as to what permutation of her five names to choose).

3. Now, to address your reply above (at subsection 8 ). The reason you originally gave for why a page called 'Ann Landers' should be "about Esther Lederer" (i.e. a real person, as opposed to being about Ann Landers, the pseudonymous fictional character, with no explanation in the article as to why the two were being conflated, or possibly even awareness that this was being done) was that that you thought that 'it is she [Lederer] who is best known as "Ann Landers" '. I am not trying to be sarcastic, but I actually didn't even register that at the time as being a credible reason. It is (with all due respect) such a subjective, unverifiable and unencyclopedic approach to structuring and determining the contents of a topic (especially in defiance of known, verifiable facts), and there was even confusion as to whether or not the problem was with the naming of this article, or the contents, or the creation of a new (bio article on) Lederer, that I actually didn't register (in all the excitement of planning how to fix the many problems here) that reason of yours. Apologies for that, I will now belatedly address it.

4. Your reason raises the obvious (to me, anyway) question: 'Best known to whom?'. Do you mean to people coming to this article wanting information on Ann Landers? Because it is impossible to guess what these people (and how broad are we talking? the majority of the English-speaking world population?) already know about Ann Landers (or Esther Lederer, etc).

5. You are absolutely correct that a certain section of the (mostly US) population (belonging to older generations, probably) does 'best know' Lederer as 'Ann Landers', but how can such a notion be taken (in defiance of known facts and in a way that confuses so many issues of fictionality vs real-person-hood) as a basis for structuring an encyclopedia article? Wikipedia is a place where such beliefs and myths are expected to be looked at in as objective and dispassionate a way as possible, and in a case where there is clearly a large number of characters involved (both fictional and real), I think it's hugely important to be as clear and factual and aware of what you are presenting as possible.

6. It is totally understandable that this has happened. Lederer did promote the idea that she was the 'first Landers' quite actively (please see ). I probably should have tried to take all this step by step, I guess I got a bit carried away with addressing such a range of complicated problems. I felt it was urgent to address problems like the presentation of the "Early Life" info (which was Lederer's personal early life, completely pre-dating her adoption of the Landers persona, appearing before the section where Crowley actually created the Landers character; and the photo of Esther Lederer appeared at the top of the page - originally captioned only as "Ann Landers" - obviously presenting Lederer as "THE" Landers) and addressing this seemed to involve addressing all the other related issues.

7. I'm sorry, but the problems with the article were so extremely deep-rooted and complicated, and you seemed completely unable to acknowledge (and therefore discuss) them, as well as the fact that you weren't really giving me any reasons that seemed credible (to me) to justify this screamingly obvious (not only to me but to others, judging from other comments on this page) lack of clarity.

8. I would really appreciate any specific objections you may have to the articles as they now stand. (It still concerns me to an extent, however, that you don't seem to see/acknowledge what I and other people have been talking about regarding the original confusion in the Ann Landers article, based on the identity issues.) --Tyranny Sue (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, perhaps things aren't as messed up as they seemed at first, with all of the moving and shuffling that was done. At this point, I would suggest moving the article on the advice column to Ask Ann Landers (with no disambiguation). Then move the article on Lederer (the full name of which I'm not going to type out now) to Ann Landers (the redirect to Ask Ann Landers (advice column) will need to be deleted first), with a hatnote pointing readers to Ask Ann Landers (This article is about the writer known under the pen name "Ann Landers". For the advice column itself, see Ask Ann Landers.) The Lederer article should begin: "Esther Pauline "Eppie" Lederer (née Friedman) (July 4 1918–June 22, 2002), better known by the pen name Ann Landers, was an advice columnist, etc. etc...." Those measures would go a long way toward cleaning these three articles up into a better state. Then we can re-evaluate and see what else needs to be done. Powers ^T 12:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear it's less of a disaster than you feared.

I understand why you want to apply the guideline where a (single, presumably) person should be listed under the name by which they were best known, but I think that guideline was intended for fairly simple cases. This case is quite a complicated one, and I really don't think that guideline can assist much here. (I wonder if there is an applicable guideline for cases of pseudonyms used by multiple people? Maybe this case is completely unique?! Or at least a rarity - how exciting.)

Also, regarding this, I doubt that guideline was envisaged to apply to a case where someone other than the last person to be known as the name actually created, and developed, the name/persona/'brand'.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the things that was really wrong with the 'Ann Landers' article before was that it read, and was structured and presented, like a simple bio article. A simple bio article is definitely something that any (full) 'Ann Landers' story is not (despite the many books that have been written about Lederer as if she was the only ‘Ann Landers’ – a list of which, by the way, should really be included in this article). We need to keep very clear about the facts that (1) the name is fictional, and (2) it was shared. The lack of clarity around that resulted in an oddness & confusingness (which was striking even – or perhaps especially - to readers coming to it with practically no previous ideas about 'Ann Landers').

At this point (and sorry if this is annoying, I hope it's not problematic) I wouldn't mind if you want to revert this article back to 'Ann Landers', because it has since become clear to me (based on research I've done since – material, by the way, that really needs to be included in this article - about Lederer/Landers's tv appearances, etc) that the character/name/persona only started as an advice column pen name but evolved into more of a multi-media persona (though unfortunately this wasn't included in the article). (I think this actually makes the full, true story much more interesting, as it spans so much time and technological/media/social development.) But the Landers article certainly should not include excessive bio information on Lederer, especially from her pre-'Landers' days. That stuff really doesn't belong in any Ann Landers article, for 3 reasons: 1, it is guaranteed to confuse readers (and the story) way too much, 2, it makes no chronological sense, and 3, for balance, including it requires that we include Ruth Crowley's entire life story as well.

So I can't agreee with the idea of the (new) Lederer bio article (the one I started) being moved (i.e. renamed, essentially, right?) to 'Ann Landers', for all these reasons (clarity, basically).

I would love to know what permutation of Lederer’s names you think would be an appropriate title for the Lederer bio article.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

p.s. Thank you for your suggestions regarding the Lederer article. I've incorporated them now.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thinking over this even more, I can actually now see how it could work having the Lederer bio information in an article called 'Ann Landers', due to the fact (which would need to be spelled out so as to show why the article is set up that way, and to reflect the Wikipedia guideline without obscuring the true facts behind the name) that neither Crowley nor any of the others were ever known as 'Ann Landers', as such, or at least not anywhere near to the extent that Lederer was. It's still a pretty complicated case, because the name 'Ann Landers' shouldn't be made to look as if it was the exclusive domain or 'property' (historically, anyway) of Lederer. Not sure it would still be a simple straight bio article, though.

I know it looks bad to go back on what I've done, but it's a really complicated story to get clear on. I shouldn't have gone ahead & renamed things before I got my brain around all the complexities, but what can I say, I have an empty miserable life otherwise & this is the only type of pathetic thrill I can afford (finanically & physiologically) :p Seriously, I get it now, but I hope you can see where I'm coming from & that I just really (probably obsessively) want(ed) the article(s) to be something(s) that reflected well on Wikipedia. Hell, if you want to get me suspended or something I wouldn't blame you.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 02:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

p.s. I should mention that I have a vision for whatever 'Ann Landers advice column' article we have, where we show more of the full history, hopefully with an image (I've contacted the Sun Times about this) of an early (non-Lederer) column. That'd be cool, wouldn't it?--Tyranny Sue (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, I'm not going to try to have you blocked for making changes that were obviously done in good faith. I believe we can make it perfectly clear that the Ann Landers article is about Eppie Lederer, and only she, without going through any extraordinary contortions. Powers ^T 13:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Right. Only problem now is that I don't really know how to delete a redirect or make a hatnote. But what's wrong with the "(advice column)" disambiguation for 'Ask Ann Landers'? (Also, when you say you want to make it perfectly clear that the Ann Landers article is about Lederer and only Lederer, you don't mean to remove the facts about Ruth Crowley inventing the name & writing the column for 9 years, do you?)--Tyranny Sue (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course not. I suggested removing the "(advice column)" phrasing because it's unnecessary; there are no other articles named "Ask Ann Landers", so there's no reason to distinguish between them. Powers ^T 11:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Image doesn't really apply to Ann Landers, as it is of only one of the two several writers who used the pen name, and not even the originator

Image should be moved to the more relevant location: Esther "Eppie" Pauline Friedman Lederer It is confusing and strange using it here because (1) "Ann Landers" was fictional, (2) Lederer was only the second writer to use the pen name, and wasn't the originator of it. Putting this image here shows a strange and unencyclopedic tendency/desire to put Crowley out of the picture (so to speak).--Tyranny Sue (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(I went ahead & did this, after reorganising the article to separate the Lederer years from the rest. Much more 'encyclopedic' now, I think.)--Tyranny Sue (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Anecdotally, it was always Ms. Lederer's picture that adorned the column throughout my childhood and younger adulthood. (editing from IP to my new username) --Dave Harmon (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Answer.com

Answers.com is not a reliable source and should be removed as a reference. The content there is taken from other sources as indicated on the site, please cite those instead. Hekerui (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Propose to move current two External Links

They both refer exclusively to Esther Lederer, so more properly belong at the end of her bio article.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Images (of Lederer)

Anyone adding images of Eppie Lederer, please do so under the Eppie Lederer section (or in the Eppie Lederer article) to prevent further confusion. Or at the very least please make it clear in the photo's caption that the original name of the person in the photo was Eppie Lederer.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Ann LandersRealPicture.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ann LandersRealPicture.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

What is with the pro-gay piece?

What is with the pro-gay part? So what if she changed her mind about homosexuality! Big deal! She bowed down to pressure is what it sounds like. I do not see why this has to be in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.52.105 (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Way to demonstrate your bias on the subject immediately. The heading is Controversies - Ann's writing contributed to the controversy of the subject throughout print journalism history. Just because you don't like what her ultimate conclusions were - when she grew up, and learned more about how human sexuality works - doesn't mean those statements/conclusion don't belong in an article about the writer/column.

And given her decades-long popularity, the fact that non-heterosexual orientations were treated with far less respect then, in comparison to now, and the fact that she was decidedly liberal in other important social ways (i.e. supporting legalization of prostitution and pro-choice) your argument that pressure was involved is without merit or foundation. She read people's stories, and realized that despite what her religion and society tried to claim, that these were just normal people, in loving and natural relationships, and they deserved to be treated with the same respect as anyone else. Plus I'm sure her researched included finding out that 1500 species on the planet engage in same-gender sexual behavior, and she realized the labels like "unnatural", a "sickness", and a "dysfunction" made her appear ignorant. CleverTitania (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Controversies: Pope John Paul II and Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr.

The articles I'm finding, where her apology is quoted, really don't support the statement "She issued a formal apology, but refused to comment further." Especially since she first issued a formal apology, and then wrote one that was was (at least to my perspective) very heartfelt and quite detailed on the nuances of the issue. And the reference link on that section appears to be a bad link.

Is the link below a sufficient replacement? The article does mention both the original apology, and the full text of the more detailed one. I'm not remotely an expert editor here, so I want to make sure I'm not using an unacceptable source. I also think the text should be rewritten, to reflect more specifically what she said, so it doesn't read like, "She said sorry and wouldn't say any more." Which is how I read that sentence. Plus, if we're going to quote what she said in the first place, I think it's worth quoting what she said in response to the controversy. Perhaps something like:

She initially issued a formal statement, apologizing for the use of a racial slur. A week later, a more detailed apology was published, stating, "My remark about the Holy Father was totally uncalled for. I regret what I said and am deeply sorry for the hurt and offense I caused." and, "I don't agree with him on some issues involving women in the church, but so what? That does not change my admiration and respect for him. It only means we disagree."

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-12-10/news/9512100449_1_syndicated-advice-columnist-apology-polish-origin

CleverTitania (talk) 03:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Controversies: Toilet paper rolls

There ought to be some way to work a mention of the infamous over/under debate into this article, despite that it has its own article. A casual web search turned up two of her own articles online (1989 1992) and a hotel-industry blogger, among many others discussing the matter. --Dave Harmon (talk) 05:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)|https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ask_Ann_Landers&action=edit†††††††††††