Talk:Dear John letter

External link for discussion and third opinion

I have moved this link to the talk page: [removed] The link to a non-notable blog by an anonymous author is one I have removed before, but since it was recently added again, I have moved it to the talk page for discussion as a reliable source before making a request for a third opinion. Any comments? Flowanda 07:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flowanda I think the idea is that the link was given as a humor example of a Dear John letter. The point in posting the link is that it is an example of a Dear John letter, which is not given anywhere in this wiki entry. As to whether the site is non-notable I am not sure, but the link is on topic and does provide insight into a Dear John Letter.

Further I agree that there is a need for a Dear John entry here at wiki, but this category supplies little in the form of useful or referenced information. If we are going to talk about something let’s talk about the first sentence of the category. I think in most people’s minds the Dear John letter is gender neutral, and I believe that is why the Dear Jane letter entry just redirects to the Dear John entry. As for the link, I think it is useful as an example of a Dear John Letter. Davidgid 21:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have added references and quotes to the article with all external links. I believe the quote from Wendy Russ site is the most rigid in terms of citations from the dictionary, and there is nothing to add really. Plus I am adding a link a to page with a DIY form for "Dear John Letter". --Whitely3000 12:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes from Wendy Russ are only speculation and add nothing to the article. They should be removed. Just because she says that John is slang for certain words doesn't mean that the letters are called "Dear John" letters for that reason. Entbark (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole piece as it stands (16 June 2008) is an edited version of a piece written by me and available on my Web site at http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-dea5.htm. Parts of that piece are quoted verbatim without acknowledgement. Whilst I have no objection to my work being cited, it should be done according to best practice. I recommend that the article be substantially re-researched and rewritten. [Michael Quinion, editor World Wide Words]

Block Quote:

It strikes me that the block quote should not include the phrase, "...the letter began..." as the nature of a block quote includes the understanding of a quotation, rather than the inclusion of context. This should be removed.

Further, the phrasing of the introductory sentence, "This Dear John letter came from an experiment used to make a break-up better and not hurt as much." is somewhat ambiguous, I believe that it should read: The following Dear John letter came from an experiment in which the phrasing of the letter was modified to lessen the dramatic impact of its news.

Thoughts? Dolamite02 (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When Johnny Comes Marching Home Again

Do you guys think there's any connection to When Johnny Comes Marching Home? Hbomberman (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.25.154 (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need this external link?

It's funny but may add confusion. -- Karol qwerty (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a better source?

> It has been claimed that the Vietnam War inspired more Dear John letters than any other US conflict.

Claimed by who? The citation for this one is iffy. The direct quote from the provided source says, "I heard that Vietnam caused more 'Dear John' letters than any other war in our history." It doesn't seem very certain. --216.165.248.21 (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dear John letter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102204934/http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/former_denr_employee_leaves_her_job_with_a_blazing_dear_john_email to http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/former_denr_employee_leaves_her_job_with_a_blazing_dear_john_email

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]