Talk:Jeane Dixon

Effect

I'm not sure about moving Jeane Dixon effect. While they should be linked, a reference to Jeane Dixon effect gets lost in the page on Jeane Dixon. I did move it to a proper spelling, though, as I mispelled her name.

Fair use rationale for File:Dixon-from cnn.jpg

File:Dixon-from cnn.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggested further work

Other works might be checked. Ruth Montgomery wrote a biography of her, A Gift of Prophecy. [1] I recall that Skeptical Inquirer did a critical piece on her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.149.130 (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Year of birth

An editor had suggested 1904 as the year of birth instead of 1918. However, the CNN obituary said 1918 so I changed it back using the obituary as a citation. I will let others do more research about the correct year even day of birth provided they provide the citations, etc.-Thank you-RFD (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I reserted the CNN obituary;it was a good faith edit that should not had been deleted. On the other hand, I will not change the article of the year of Jeane Dixon's birth from 1904 to 1918. I hope the citation I just put in will stay in. I hope whoever make any changes will respond on the talk page. Thank you-RFD (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I ran through Jeane Dixon's name in the Social Security Death List and Jeane Dixon was probably born in 1904 not 1918. However, some sort of citation-footnote is needed as that the news media still has Mrs. Dixon as being born in 1918 and there would be some confusion.Thank you-RFD (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Her younger sister died earlier this year, age 98. Obviously, 1918 is not correct. see link[[2]]--CSvBibra (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried the Taylor County, Wisconsin historical society to see if they had any information about the Pinckert Family but had no luck. Also I came across a website about a museum concerning Jeane Dixon-but the museum was silent about her birth.Jeane Dixon had a brother Erny Pinckert who was born around 1907 or so.Thank you-RFD (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The State of Wisconsin probably has a birth certificate for Jeane Dixon. The next time I am at the La Crosse, Wisconsin public library, I will use the library subscription Ancestry.Com to try to locate her birth certificate.Thank you-RFD (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The later date just put back in is not correct. Previously, I linked the obituary of her younger sister from the Los Angeles Times. The article states that she was Jean's younger sister and gives her age at death. I agree that it should be referenced that is why I didn't mention earlier that I knew Jean Dixon's brother and am the brother-in-law of her nephew. --CSvBibra (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry we can't use sources for original research and inferences like that, nor can we use personal relationships and unpublished information. To change the birthdate we need a reliable secondary source that says directly that the 1918 date is wrong. Gamaliel (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Social Security Death Index stating 1904. [[3]]--CSvBibra (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not a published secondary source, that's a primary source and we have two problems with that. One is the prohibition on original research, the other is there's no assurance that it is the same person. This is a matter for professional historians and journalists, not amateur researchers like us. Gamaliel (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems nearly impossible that a person with 1) same first name 2) same middle initial 3) same last name 4) same birthday 5) same date of death and 6)same location of death exists. At some point, common sense has to take over. --CSvBibra (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is another link already in the article stating 1904 [[4]]--CSvBibra (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to an article that discusses that 1904 is correct and that the other date was false.[[5]]--CSvBibra (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now we're on to something! Let's track down those sources the article cites. Gamaliel (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Lydia Pinkert appears with her parents Frank and Emma in Medford, Wisconsin in the 1910 Federal Census as age 6, thus born circa 1904. She is found in the 1920 Federal Census as Lydia Pinckert in Santa Rosa, California, still living with her parents, at age 16. So the more nearly contemporaneous documents, as well as the late (SSDI) document, verify the 1904 date. - Nunh-huh 20:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've found a newspaper article that says she was born in 1904 but liked to say she was born in 1918 ("Displays lead you from Dixon's birth in Wisconsin in 1904 (she liked to say it was 1918)"). It's an article in Roanoke Times about "offbeat" attractions in Virginia and it has a section about the Jeane Dixon Museum and Library. I don't think the article is available on the web (I found it on Factiva) but I'm happy to send a copy to anyone who wants to see it themselves, just send me an email and I'll send it back to you (it's obviously copyright so can't be pasted here). So I'm going to change the year and use this as a citation. I noticed that later in the article under the death section, it says she was 93 when she died in 1997, which is obviously based on the 1904 date but it creates a conflict with the 1918 date currently in the intro so this really needs to be resolved. Sarah 01:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is long dead, but I just wanted to speak into the void from 2017 that I'm still not totally sure when Jeane was born. A lot of sources are still laying around calling it 1918, and the facts of her life (typically, marriage early 20s, lived into 70s, etc) match up with that, but Wikipedia and therefore Google say 1904 and there are also some sources above averring to that year. 100.36.56.178 (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

FDR confidante?

In her memoirs, she claimed that FDR depended heavily on her predictions in the last part of WW2, when he knew that his own death was imminent. If this is confirmed, it might be worth including in her impressive list of Presidential consultancies. Valetude (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It has never been confirmed and I would happily bet all my money on it not being true. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:F0CC:3764:FEB2:D9C0 (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I am wary of this article.

The reason why I am wary of this article which has a general trend of disparaging Jeane's predictions, is that most articles in wikipedia are disparaging of metaphysical subjects and psychic matters exhibited by persons. To illustrate this we bring up the wikipedia article on Dr Ian Stevenson and his lifelong collection of data to scientifically support the phenomenon of re-incarnation. A proficient and skeptical journalist, Tom Shroder followed him around and the testimony of Shroder clearly showed Stevenson to be a meticulous and thorough scientist that had collection thousands of interviews and testimony, much of it verified, and his book clearly indicates that Stevenson had collected data,which stated as follows in scientific terms" "Did not prove reincarnation but compared the data to all possible theories and it was found that 'Reincarnation was the best fit to the data.' Yet the Wikipedia article debunks Dr Ian Stevenson. yes.69.199.125.229 (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)R.A.S

Now hundreds of stories about correct predictions were reported by Montgomery in her biography on Jeane Dixon, and the general trend of the wikipedia article is that Dixon never predicted anything correctly except by chance. Good Lord, why would anyone like Dixon concoct and come up with hundreds of false stories in order to impress what and whom. That is why I view this article with wariness, and the chances of the article using the straw man tactic seem to be good. If I were the jury, in the jury trial I would go along with Montgomery.69.199.125.229 (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC) R.A.S

why would anyone like Dixon concoct and come up with hundreds of false stories Seriously? The is the MO of millions of psychic con artists through the ages. The oldest racket in the world. It pays, obviously. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:F0CC:3764:FEB2:D9C0 (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Jeane Dixon Misquoted on the Nixon Kennedy Prediction.

If you read the Montgomery Book you will see that Jeane claimed that Nixon would win the election only if he took intense precautions to avoid voter fraud by the Democratic party. Otherwise Kennedy would be declared the winner. Despite her warning to do this in a luncheon with the Nixon campaign chairman this was not done. After the election Nixon was advised to demand recounts and to challenge results of the Florida poll and other polls. He declined to do this. Jeane's prediction was that Nixon would win the election but that he could be cheated of it by fraud. So the statement in this article that Jean did not correctly predict the Nixon/Kennedy victory is a mistruth. What she claimed was that Nixon would win but would be denied victory unless he took precaution against voter fraud.69.199.125.229 (talk) R.A.S. — Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"democratic voter fraud" madness --- and then they complain wikipedia has a left-wing bias! there is no shortage of rightwing extremists here. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:F0CC:3764:FEB2:D9C0 (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Removing bias POV

      This article begins by stating:

• • "Jeane L. Dixon (January 5, 1904 [1][2] – January 25, 1997) was one of the best-known American astrologers and psychics of the 20th century, due to her syndicated newspaper astrology column, some well-publicized predictions, and a best-selling biography."
    

      I believe that making the claim that someone is (or was) a psychic is to imply that there really are "psychics'" and by extension that psychic phenomena are real.  This is a controversial and hotly debated subject, and I believe the editor who wrote this is in violation of Wikipedia's policy of always writing with a neutral point of view, stating a personal opinion on this controversial issue rather than stating an unbiased fact.  I believe the article should begin in a less biased way.  Perhaps something like this:

• • "Jeane L. Dixon (January 5, 1904 [1][2] – January 25, 1997) was one of the best-known American self proclaimed psychics and astrologers of the 20th century, due to her syndicated newspaper astrology column, some well-publicized predictions, and a best-selling biography"

      I am planning on making a change to the article within the next couple days or so.  I would appreciate hearing anyone's advice or suggestions.
Richard27182 (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE:  I waited almost a month before actually changing the article. If anyone following this article had any opinions to offer, they certainly had plenty of time to do it. If anyone intends to revert me, please at least first read WP:NPOV.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Father's name

A user updated the article to reflect the name of Dixon's biolgical father and cited access to the birth certificate. The article was updated in the past to make corrections based on family documents, I can see one took place in 2007, and I believe the biological father's name also was referenced as Frank awhile ago too. There appears to be some discrepency in regards to the name of the person that she referred to as her father. It seems there is a discrepency with the father being named, "Gerhard" vs "Frank" vs "Richard Franz(Frank)" vs "Richard Franz (Frank) Pinkert" I see this: http://www.geni.com/people/Richard-Pinckert/366379837300010854 The user that made the last edit (that was then immediately reverted by an ipaddress) specifically said they had access to the birth certificate.

I really don't know anything about Jeane Dixon's father. But I suspect the main reason the version of the article you refer to was immediately reverted was the fact that the wikicode the editor used was all wrong. In fact it was so wrong it actually generated an error message right in the article itself (as can be seen by bringing up that version using the "View history" tab).
Richard27182 (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jeane Dixon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050508174702/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7276868/site/newsweek/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7276868/site/newsweek

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

China

Has Jeane said something about Chinese future ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davi689 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. In My Life and Prophecies she predicted In the year 2025 Red China will have reached an economic and political stability sufficient to forge ahead and become the Great Conqueror. A war of conquest against Russia lasting until 2037. IAC-62 (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Confusing paragraph

"In her 1971 book The Call to Glory, Dixon predicted that an apocalyptic "war of Armageddon" would occur in 2020. That year passed without such a war occurring.[18] Despite this, in her 1969 book My Life and Prophecies, she apparently predicted a war between China and Russia would occur between 2025 and 2037, initiated and won by China.[19]" She died before 2020; 1971 comes after 1969. Both of these facts make the paragraph confusing.Kdammers (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Jeanne Dixon effect

This is more generally known as selection bias and has been known for ages. Here is Bacon writing in the 17th century:

Men mark when they hit, and never mark when they miss; as they do generally also of dreams.... probable conjectures, or obscure traditions, many times turn themselves into prophecies; while the nature of man, which coveteth divination, thinks it no peril to foretell that which indeed they do but collect... almost all of them, being infinite in number, have been impostures, and by idle and crafty brains merely contrived and feigned, after the event past.

2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:F0CC:3764:FEB2:D9C0 (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Kennedy's assassination

She didn't predicted that. Please correct this. What she actually predicted was "Parade magazine in 1956: "As for the 1960 election Mrs. Dixon thinks it will be dominated by labor and won by a Democrat. But he will be assassinated or die in office though not necessarily in his first term."

Jeane Dixon and the Jeane Dixon effect - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com 2A02:14F:178:17B8:3411:24F9:D470:D789 (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)