Talk:Karyn Kupcinet/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Talk archive, page 1

This murder was down the street from where I lived as a child with my aspiring actress mother. It was very scary for a 7 year old to deal with. West Hollywood was a quiet, nice place to live in those days. I am sorry it was never solved and the killer brought to justice.

Finality

I added the fact that Karyn's diary omits the names of all JFK conspirators (E. Howard Hunt, etc.) in order to justify the passage from the diary about Karyn not getting along with actress Gertrude Berg. The purpose of quoting the diary is to show that Karyn's circle of effect was entirely show business. We have no evidence that she ever met one of the JFK conspirators in Los Angeles. And she wasn't targeted by a hit man because the hit man would have killed her father, not her. He's the one who made a living revealing information and holding some of it back. Karyn made a living reciting lines from a screenwriter or TV writer. Her fellow actors, including Ms. Berg, had no motive to kill her. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.98.27 (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure mobsters from Chicago knew who Karyn Kupcinet was. Her father and she were more well known than the Mayor. I'll say it again. She did not have foreknowledge. I think mobster Paul "Red" Dorfman might have ordered the hit -- if it was a hit.71.122.233.246 19:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If Mr. Dorfman had done such a thing, he or someone acting on his behalf would have told Irv Kupcinet to shut up about the assassination. Mr. Kupcinet said that never happened. By telling young people today that it did happen, you are giving organized crime a victory over a silent, deceased young woman who never bothered those criminals. So what if Mr. Dorfman and Ms. Kupcinet were in Palm Springs at the same time during the assassination / funeral weekend ? So was Bing Crosby. He lived there. Almost 14 years later, he died suddenly while playing golf in Spain. It happened while the House Select Committee on Assassinations was investigating the Oswald / Ruby mystery. Who killed Mr. Crosby ? Penn Jones, Jr. never said he was murdered, but was Mr. Jones an omniscient, godlike figure ?

Very good paragraph above. This Jack Ruby theory is but one theory on how and by whom she died. On the Yahoo group listed in External Links, you will read a whole bunch of theories. Anyone in her circle -- Ed Rubin, Robert Hathaway, Andrew Prine, the late David Lange --all of these could have done it singly or in collusion. They all knew each other. All their alibis stunk. Even Vince Edwards was questoned. He was having a very public affair with Prine's wife, Sharon Farrell and Karyn served him with a subpoena and he had her thrown off the lot. He was powerful in those days, being Ben Casey. Now, I could go on in more detail but I know the webpage master does not want this.Kc440 19:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Quotes

The quotes in this article seem a bit excessive to me. The info is good, but it relies on the book far too much. It's hard to take things as fact when it's the stated opinion of an author. Plus, the quotes are a little confusing, especially towards the end.

I also changed the fact about there not being any E! THS on Karyn. She had one because I vividly remember watching it eons ago. Not too sure about the Mysteries & Scandals episode though. I can't find anything to back that up.

Unless someone objects, I'm going to reword the quotes and remove they Mysteries & Scandals info. Pinkadelica 10:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please leave the article the way it is as of Saturday, September 15, 2007. Thank you. James Ellroy's book is hardly the only source. Did you see the endnotes for Irv Kupcinet's newspaper columns ? And for the newspaper called New York Journal American ? They are in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.212.102.10 (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

False Link Between A 1963 Associated Press Report And Robert Kennedy's Schedule In 1968

Not only is it absurd that Karyn Kupcinet had anything to do with a 1963 Associated Press report of an Oxnard, California woman forewarning a telephone operator of the JFK assassination, but connecting this report to the political events of 1968 is also ridiculous.

Listen, I did not believe Karyn made the phone call. Some womsn did just that and the FBI said so. A lot of things are coming out about Bobby Kennedy. I think it's unlikely that he went to the phone company and then the legal practice to find the woman's name. But there are people who say it's true. Because "Penn Jones" allegedly put the call on Nov.22 at 10:10 am PT and it was an upset woman trying to place a person-to-person call to Chicago, I at first believed it. But Oxnard? I don't think so. But there are Dallas ties to that area in CA and I think the woman who made the call that they were going to kill Kennedy must have been murdered. It can't be Karyn, although she might have been in a state, if you know what I mean.Kc440 03:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

A claim that Robert Kennedy planned to visit this woman in Oxnard on the night of June 5, 1968 to ask her who shot his brother cannot be true. Sirhan Sirhan approached him with a gun at 12:16 a.m. in the small hours of June 5. They were inside the Ambassador Hotel near downtown Los Angeles at the time. Kennedy had been inside the hotel for several hours as he awaited returns from voting booths for the California primary. He rested in bed in his hotel room until he was ready to deliver his victory speech, walking with his entourage directly from their suite to the Embassy Ballroom where a podium, microphone and sound movie cameras were ready for him. He had spent the previous afternoon (June 4) with some of his children at the beachside Malibu home of movie director John Frankenheimer, which was not near Oxnard.

There is no way Bobby could have traveled from Frankenheimer's home to Oxnard, which was in the opposite direction from the Ambassador, without people reminiscing about such a thing decades later. Frankenheimer reminisced many times about driving Bobby from Malibu to the Ambassador Hotel, and he never mentioned an out-of-the-way trip to Oxnard. Every important thing that Bobby did that day was recalled in magazines, books and TV documentaries. His own family admitted that while on Frankenheimer's property, Bobby's son David, just a few days away from his thirteenth birthday, almost drowned in the ocean and then Bobby saved his life. David Kennedy and John Frankenheimer were traumatized by what would happen hours later (shortly after midnight) and became substance abusers. If you insinuate that they kept secrets about an unknown stranger in Oxnard and that they covered up her connection to a historical puzzle that millions of people wanted to solve, you're doing a terrible thing.

Even if you try to place a Kennedy visit to Oxnard yet another day earlier, June 3, you have a roadblock. We have color film of Bobby campaigning in front of poor Latino people in Los Angeles. He also campaigned in a hippie neighborhood of San Francisco during the busy schedule he kept between the Oregon primary, which he lost, and California, where things looked more optimistic. He couldn't very well campaign on June 4, when voters had to visit the polls quickly and then return to work or school. (It was not a holiday like the November election day.) So Bobby spent quality time with some of his ten children on the beach next to a friend's house, and the friend saved him the strain of driving on Los Angeles freeways during afternoon rush hour. It was a weekday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.81.203.13 (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding Gossip That Makes The Victim Look Bad

I deleted the stuff about Karyn and her "Mrs. G. Goes To College" castmate Gertrude Berg allegedly not getting along. Ms. Berg was more than an actress. She was one of the first women to develop a network radio series and then a network TV series. She fought several battles with advertisers over what "The Goldbergs" could put on the air. I'm not saying the stories about the two women are false. I'm asking, "Why bring them up now that both women have been dead for more than forty years ?"

We have a death to look at for "more than 40 years." Ellroy said Gertrude told her she wore too much make-up.71.122.233.246 19:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless you accuse Gertrude Berg of murder, then all you're doing is making a murder victim look like a ditzy, catfighting starlet who didn't care about the hard work it took to make a TV series. Karyn was a lot more than that. Bette Davis, hardly a dummy, deserves to be remembered for a lot more than her bad relationship with Joan Crawford. Gossipy people do a lot of damage to the dead on the Internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.98.26 (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What I know about Gertrude Berg and Karyn Kupcinet I learned from reading James Ellroy's Crime Wave, "The Glamour Jungle." It illustrates how unhappy she was in Hollywood. I'd even say in the whole profession. The Housekeeper in the Chicago Magazine piece said Karyn was "talked into" becoming an actress. Even her mother said she couldn't take rejection on True Hollywood Story.Kc440 04:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe she couldn't take rejection, but there is no evidence that Karyn didn't want to be an actress. Quite the contrary. You are inventing some of what she wrote in her diary as quoted by James Ellroy. All she said was "Gertrude impossible." She hinted that somebody on Berg's TV show didn't like her appearance, but that doesn't mean it was Berg. It takes hundreds of people to make a TV sitcom. Please don't put down Berg and Kupinet, both dead for more than 40 years, just for the sake of cutting people down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.81.222.92 (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Today I visited The Paley Center for Media where I saw the only evidence of Karyn Kupcinet that the center has. It has one episode of "Mrs. G Goes To College." You can see it by visiting this center either in New York City or Beverly Hills.

The copyright in the closing credits is 1961. Karyn has a small part. She is one of several young college students who attend a reception for an older poetess who is visiting the campus. Her visit makes Mrs. G and the students feel romantic when they learn that the poetess wants to visit with one of their college's professors, played by Cedric Hardwicke, forty years after they were an item. On two occasions, Karyn exclaims demurely, "Forty years!"

I can't say much else. She is several inches shorter than most of the other college students, including an actress who later became famous as "Helen" on The Andy Griffith Show. Yes, I know Karyn herself had acted on "Griffith" under another stage name. I also can say that she is so demure and so young that it is sickening that people link her death to an event that had nothing to do with her father according to what he said repeatedly over many years. I feel bad that before this "strange" Internet became popular, there were obsessive, rude people who met Irv Kupcinet in person and threw the conspiracy theory in his face even though he already had discredited it.

In the era before land lines had caller ID, which lasted until the early 1990s at Irv Kupcinet's office, the poor man may have gotten some phone calls from conspiracy people out of the blue asking him how to identify the JFK conspirators in Hollywood. As horrible as it is for someone as young as the lady I saw at the Paley Center to die at the hands of a psychopath, obsessive people just make it worse when they twist the truth and throw a weird fantasy in the face of the lady's father. He asks them to stop and they keep going like the Energizer village idiot. It is also sickening that this man lived to his 90s, yet Internet people just care about the fact that he's dead and they can do whatever they want to him. I hope you live to your 90s and I hope you give up this hurtful nonsense long before then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.81.222.92 (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

David Lange

David Lange died a year and a half ago. He was living in Connecticut with one of his sisters. Hope Lange, the actress and older sister of David's, predeceased him.

His career as a Hollywood producer was ruined due to the murder of Karyn Kupcinet. Lange moved in below Karyn Kupcinet's apartment in West Hollywood just days before Karyn was killed. He was a heavy drinker and womanizer. At the time he was seeing Natalie Wood. The Kupcinets believed he was the killer of their daughter, Karyn.Kc440 03:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What is your source on Lange's career getting ruined by it ? His name was never published in connection with Kupcinet until 1970, when a chapter of a book about Hollywood scandals linked him to the mystery. The Los Angeles newspaper accounts from 1963 didn't suggest in any way that Lange had anything to do with Karyn's death. And those newspapers never mentioned her name again after December 6 (Herald-Examiner) and 8 (Times). Her body was found just a week before that: November 30. The National Enquirer never accused Lange of anything.

If Irv Kupcinet believed David Lange was the killer, he never said so in his newspaper column. In 1988 he came out with his autobiography in which he said David knew a group of people who were responsible, but David himself didn't kill her. Irv said David was in bed with a girlfriend late Wednesday night when the girlfriend heard a commotion of people running up and down the stairs in the direction of Karyn's unit, but there were other units on her floor where young women lived. The girlfriend told sheriffs that someone knocked on David's door, he got out of bed to answer it and then returned to bed refusing to comment on it. Sheriffs questioned David Lange, and he said his girlfriend made up that story. By 1988, when Irv told his readers about this, nobody in Hollywood would have cared about it. Nobody in the entertainment business badmouths an obscure brother of a faded TV sitcom star based on hearsay from 25 years ago.

Even if Lange's girlfriend told the truth, how does it prove the commotion on the stairs had anything to do with Karyn Kupcinet's death ?

Irv Kupcinet described it in his book. The Goddards, some neighbors and finally the cops and coroner were making the commotion. Mark Goddard was running around, yelling, "Suicide, suicide, there's been a suicide." He said this on Karyn's True Hollywood Story.Kc440 03:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

How does that make Mark Goddard suspicious ? There is no evidence that he visited the apartment on the night Karyn died. She went to HIS house on Coldwater Canyon Avenue that night.

Maybe it was a bunch of Lange's drunken friends who didn't enjoy visiting their families for Thanksgiving and they were enjoying their day off from work -- if any of them had steady jobs.

Lange had dinner at his sister's house, Hope Lange.Kc440 03:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Karyn herself wasn't planning to travel to Illinois for Thanksgiving even though her mother had begged her to do that. And Karyn did her last known acting job two months earlier: "Perry Mason." It didn't get on the air until January, but that long delay was and is common for network series that have been getting high Nielsens for a long time. "Perry Mason" had been a hit for six years when Karyn had her gig on it. Raymond Burr, on whose good acting skills the show depended, traveled a lot, eventually going to Vietnam many times.

Every year, on Thanksgiving, Karyn would attend the dinner the Kupcinets threw for actors who were away from home. Karyn was in too deep a depression and was afraid it would show. Only a year before, on Thanksgiving, Prine kept calling her in Chicago and telling her he loved her. Now there would be no phonecalls. She was too despondent. She filmed the Perry Mason a few weeks before and told her mother she still had work to do on it (a lie) and that's why she couldn't come up for the holidays. She had a good-sized role on that.Kc440 03:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In summary, Karyn's own lifestyle and allowance from her parents suggest that other residents of her building -- besides her and David Lange -- could have been mooching off family, too. Mooching men tend to party together a lot more than a mooching rich girl who is in love with an actor who doesn't love her back. Irv and Essee had to have been helping their daughter at the end on account of her many taxicab rides and visits to hairdressers and Beverly Hills boutiques. Oh, and I find it very nasty to accuse Andrew Prine of the crime. At least the girl he dated on the night of the tragedy verified his story. He didn't go to Karyn's apartment that night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.212.102.10 (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Irv and Essee Kupcinet believed David Lange killed Karyn. In his book, Kup: A Man, an Era, a City, pg 186 -188 he names Lange as the killer.Kc440 03:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No, he doesn't. I'm looking at those pages. He says he and his wife both know who killed their daughter, but he doesn't say who. Two pages before that he says David Lange answered a knock on his door from a group that was making a commotion running up and down the stairs, then David returned to bed with his girlfriend and kept quiet. Irv implies that a person or persons in the group outside David's door killed Karyn, and David merely knew about it.

He describes Andrew Prine as not a desirable man, pg 190. There are no ifs, ands or buts as to what Irv believed.Kc440 03:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Irv never published anything about what he believed until the crime was 25 years old, which means none of the suspects could have had their careers ruined. When Irv came out with that book, it said David Lange knew the identity of an unknown person or persons who had killed his daughter Karyn. Irv said Andrew Prine was not the most desirable man Karyn could have dated, but that doesn't mean Irv suspected Andrew of a connection to the crime. By "not desirable" Irv could have meant that Andrew was not an actor whom actresses considered an ideal catch for a relationship or marriage. Maybe Irv heard through his Hollywood connections that Andrew Prine was not very good-looking or not very charming for a date. Andrew was divorced, but so what ? Many people in Los Angeles got divorced then.

David Lange came to California under his sister's aegis -- Hope Lange, the actress -- because he couldn't hold a job. Lange was a terrible alcoholic. In his autobiography, John Cheever told of this. Cheever was having an affair with Hope at the time.Kc440 03:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

John Cheever was also a violent alcoholic who associated with criminals and died by making a stupid mistake, so why should I believe him ?

At this early stage of life, Lange was a charming n'er do well. He was having a serious relationship with Natalie Wood. Natalie was also alcoholic.Kc440 03:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Natalie Wood was just 25 years old then, and a book written by her own sister says, "She was not an alcoholic by any stretch of the imagination" but she started to drink too much after the age of 40, dissatisfied with the parts and screenplays she was getting. Lana does not refer to any serious issues that Natalie may have had prior to a 1966 suicide attempt and resulting hospitalization. Also, all of her relationships that have been published were with other famous and/or wealthy men, such as a behind-the-scenes agent named Richard Gregson. There was a millionaire European named Vladimir Blatnik. But nothing has been published about her paying attention to a violent alcoholic nobody, and making this claim at this late date is an insult to Natalie's memory. Mart Crowley is alive, and he would be hurt by it.

On the night of the murder, he was there in the complex (Monterey Apts) parking lot, extremely drunk. He walked into a woman's apartment on Sunday without knocking and claimed he was the killer. He told this woman that he had been up at Karyn's apartment on Friday (after Thanksgiving). The door was unlocked, but he didn't look in. What stopped him from walking into Karyn's apartment, as he had this woman's?Kc440 03:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

How do we know he entered Karyn's apartment? Drinking doesn't make someone a killer. There was a lot of drinking in Hollywood then. Judy Garland lived in Los Angeles in late 1963 even though she preferred New York because she was doing her ill-fated CBS variety show. Although she had a house in Brentwood, she sometimes spent the night in Mel Torme's home, and at least once he had to drive her to a hospital emergency room because of stupid behavior. Many killers have been known to do other stupid things, so maybe Ms. Garland killed Karyn Kupcinet. There is a way you can find out how close Mel Torme's house was to Kupcinet's apartment.

As far as his career goes, what career? His brother-in-law, Alan Pakula, hired him as a gofer. He later had a screen credit as "co-producer" on Klute.Kc440 03:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that Mr. Lange did not have a full workload as producer of that movie? Filmed on location in New York City, it reflected the increasing crime rate in the Big Apple and the increasing use of hard drugs among rich white people.

You are deliberately distorting the facts about Karyn's life. I don't think people can take you seriously as you never sign what you've written.Kc440 03:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[Don't speak for "people." You are one person. If my identity makes a difference to you, then you have issues. If you were a New York literary agent, then I would understand. But you're not. I never met Karyn Kupcinet, therefore my identity is irrelevant. I am citing published sources almost everywhere I write.]

But your insight into these published sources is badly skewed. I almost think someone is pulling my leg. I know more about Karyn Kupcinet than you'll ever know, at the rate you're going. You're a vandal on this page. Stay away from here.04:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You're a McCarthyist troll the way you accuse Mark Goddard and Andrew Prine. Neither of them could have done the crime. I will not go away as long as you do what Joe McCarthy did. If you know so much about Karyn Kupcinet, please explain how she spent the three days between her return from Palm Springs and her taxicab ride to the Goddards for dinner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.81.203.13 (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC) We know on Monday she had prescriptions refilled. It was a National Day of Mourning for President Kennedy. He was being buried. Little 'John-John' saluted his father's coffin. It was a very sad day. Knowing her, Karyn might have slipped into a deeper depression. She informed the Goddards the night she died that she had seen a psychiatrist. By Wednesday, she was very upset and "hallucinating." There was a baby on her doorstep. She was taking methamphetamine. She argued on the phone with Andrew Prine {see Ellroy and newspaper accounts of Prine's alibi). I can see why the police considered Prine the main suspect. He could have killed her, as could the 2 male friends that visited her that night, or David Lange, driving drunk into the courtyard at the approx. time of death. Even Mark Goddard was under suspicion. But Irv called the Goddards good friends of Karyn's. Could someone have stalked her? Was she killed by a psycho? Was she killed by a hit man from Chicago at Paul Dorfman's request to stop Irv from investigating the Chicago angle of the Assassination? Did Irv's Zionism make her a victim?

You see, it's endless. I am not accusing someone, except I think the Chicago link has merit. As for the fellows, they all had rotten alibis. It was a circus.Kc440 19:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Only David Lange's alibi was "rotten." Nonetheless, your description of him being drunk in the building's "parking lot" suggests that you haven't visited the building, which is still there, or you've forgotten details. It has an underground parking garage. Unless the management converted some ground-floor units to a garage later in the 1960s or 1970s, then the parking lot to which you refer never existed. This is relevant because people familiar with heavy-drinking, lazy young white men can tell you that they are not likely to make commotions in an underground garage late at night. An outdoor lot that is even with the street, yes. But not underground.

Andrew Prine's alibi had nothing wrong with it. Anna Capri, with whom you might not be familiar, verified his story that they saw the film "A Streetcar Named Desire" at what was then called the New Yorker Theatre. It was popular with serious actors for its revival of classics and foreign films. To this day it operates with one screen only and still caters to smart people. The name is the New Beverly Cinema now. Even in 1963, It was NOT a place where a sexually aggressive, violent guy took his date so they could make love inside the theater without worrying about the vice squad. You want to avoid the vice squad, then go to a cinema that's showing a new American piece of crap like "Promises, Promises." You're not gonna go to the New Yorker Theatre.

Mark Goddard's alibi had nothing wrong with it, either. He and his wife Marcia were photographed looking shocked and very sad on Saturday night, Nov. 30 for the Los Angeles Times. You can find that photo on microfilm. Evidently you haven't.

There are major problems with your ignorant theory about Paul Dorfman. First, Irv Kupcinet would have told people about any threats or warnings he might have received from people. Of course, he wouldn't have told them to people outside his family when the events were fresh in the 1960s. But at some point during the writing of his 1988 book, or during the many years he kept working after that, he would have told people that Mr. Dorfman had targeted Karyn as a preemptive strike against Irv investigating JFK's murder. Yet another strike against your lunacy is that Irv wasn't the type of reporter who would investigate the crime, anyway. Have you ever read a single Xerox of a "Kup" column ? Ironically, a column that was similar to his in 1963 was Dorothy Kilgallen's Voice of Broadway, but you are ignoring her scoops on the assassination in order to focus on a 22-year-old rich girl whose father made a lot of money spilling every secret he knew. Irv Kupcinet was so interested in talking that even 35 years later he told James Ellroy that nobody had threatened his daughter in connection with investigating -- or not investagating -- Oswald. Or is James Ellroy part of the conspiracy ?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.98.26 (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC) No, Jack Ruby is a part of this theory. Jack Rubenstein from Chicago.

Firstly, I would like to say that we have to come to a concensus about Karyn Kucinet. Erasing my material is not the way to do this. I don't know who you are. There seems to me to be something personal about your attacks on my theories. Of course I'm going to theorize about her death. The page reads so crazy now. If I say something is a theory, it is what it is. Why should you erase it? Also, the next time my contributions are erased, I'm going to report it.--Kc440 02:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The next time you humiliate Jerry Kupcinet, I will accuse YOUR dead relatives of exposing the JFK conspiracy in their neighborhood community newsletter in 1963. Are any of them dead ? If yes, that means Paul Dorfman killed them in order to scare you into keeping quiet. If you erase anything I write, I'm going to report it to the Bush family.

There is a Yahoo group for Karyn. If you read through it, you'll see we went through every theory. But it's nice to know someone cares enough about this late actress to argue over her.

You don't care. If you did, you wouldn't humiliate her memory. You wouldn't humiliate her brother Jerry, who lives in California. He was the TV producer who made Richard Simmons' first TV show a big success in 1981. Isn't that great ?

I'm just worried about putting stress on the family. Even though Irv, himself, was a gossip columnist. But he considered himself a top-notch journalist, and I think he felt Ruby was the scoop of a lifetime. Thanks for caring and I hope there's nothing personal about it. It's strange on the Internet.--Kc440 17:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Irv Kupcinet did not consider himself an investigative reporter. You had to be an investigative reporter to dig into the Oswald / Ruby story. Everyone who could read a newspaper in 1963 knew that. Everyone, including Paul Dorfman, who was hardly an illiterate stupid wino, knew that "Kup's column" consisted entirely of short items separated by dots. Dorfman knew that Kup's column was the wrong place for explaining the president's murder. Dorfman did not threaten Kupcinet into staying away from Oswald / Ruby because he didn't have to. Kupcinet had to stay away from it in order to write his column every day. He was busy writing short items about entertainment gossip and short items about the latest touchdown scored by the Chicago Bears.

You have every right to be "worried about putting stress on the family." Stop spouting your nonsense about Mr. Dorfman threatening the Kupcinet family and then the stress disappears. If you really want me to keep your nonsense about Dorfman / Kupcinet on this page, then I will have to humiliate YOUR family by linking all YOUR dead relatives to a Mafia hit squad and the JFK conspiracy. I can find their names. I am worried about putting stress on your family. If I humiliate them, that takes away the stress. Right ?

Say what you want about my bizarre relatives. I am not into humiliating people. This woman was murdered. The Kupcinets wanted it resolved. And you haven't gone through all the theories yet about her death. I'm sorry, but Irv knew a good story when he saw one. He did consider himself a serious journalist.Kc440 03:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

She was probably murdered, but it had nothing to do with Lee Oswald or Jack Ruby or Paul Dorfman. Of course, the Kupcinets wanted it resolved, but they didn't work in the Los Angeles County Sheriffs' Office. They had to work for a living in Illinois. Irv Kupcinet told James Ellroy and people who watched Oliver Stone's JFK film that his daughter's death had nothing to do with Oswald or Ruby. That means her death had nothing to do with Oswald or Ruby. In Irv's memoir he said he talked to Paul Dorfman immediately after Ruby shot Oswald. That's it. Irv's daughter was alive at the time.

Dorfman never warned Irv Kupcinet away from investigating Oswald or Ruby. Nobody contacted Irv to suggest that his daughter's death was supposed to scare him into backing off from a story. He was in no position to investigate the story, anyway. He considered himself a serious journalist, but he was stuck with a column that consisted of short items about gossip, nightclubs and football. He was in no position to write long articles about the president's murder. Other reporters were, such as the nationally respected Theo Wilson of the New York Daily News. She visited Dallas to cover Jack Ruby's trial. She lived to be 77 years old in 1996. Her son is alive today. How come nobody killed him ? Or her ? Dorothy Kilgallen wrote full - length articles on Jack Ruby in addition to her gossip column. She had a private interview with Ruby. How come nobody says she was murdered ? Connecting Ruby to a 22-year-old actress who never met anyone from Dallas is an insult to women's intelligence. You're looking at the wrong woman.

Karyn Kupcinet was an actress who lived and worked in Los Angeles. Her father was a gossip columnist who was allowed to live for forty years after Ruby shot Oswald. The conspirators left him alone, and they left his actress / daughter alone. A serious journalist cannot moonlight as a Hollywood actress. Only a misogynistic kook would think a woman would do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.81.203.13 (talk) 03:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert

Apparently there has been some sort of argument going on here as my changes were reverted with the edit summary "This new version of the article is a compromise between two warring contributors to Wikipedia. Please leave it alone." I have no interest or stake in this argument but I must note that this was terribly inappropriate. While I am glad whenever two warring parties manage to forge a compromise, this does not mean that the article becomes frozen in place nor does it mean that the input of all other editors can be ignored. This was all the more inappropriate because of the nature of the material restore. You should not remove proper formatting like italics nor should you restore inappropriate citations that say "go look in a database" instead of referring to specific sources. The long rambling sections should not have been restored either; such speculation and commentary would be appropriate for an essay about the case, but not for a neutral encyclopedia article. Stick to the facts. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 01:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The non-JFK conspiracy passages don't ramble any more than the pro-JFK conspiracy ones. Claiming that the conspirators wanted to shut up Irv Kupcinet goes against what the man said many times. If you do it anyway, you are rambling.

I did NOT SAY, "Go look in a database." I referred to several Los Angeles Times articles that ruin the credibility of the doctor who autopsied Karyn Kupcinet. He put an innocent man in jail. It was reported more than once during 1966 and 1967 because it was an ongoing court case. Suppose I spent an hour at the Los Angeles City Library writing down dates and page numbers of the articles. Would you visit the downtown LA library to check them out on microfilm ? If the Times database is wrong, then maybe the people who run it are part of the JFK conspiracy ? How solid is YOUR research ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dooyar (talk • contribs)

I think you have confused me with someone who supports conspiracy. In fact, I've spent many, many hours battling conspiracy nuts here. You can't chalk every editing difference up to the tinfoil hat crowd. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 02:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright then, the passages you see as rambling are actually debunking all three ways that nuts approach this woman. Their three points are: #1 Karyn's father Irv knew the truth about Oswald and Ruby and he told his daughter. This makes no sense because "they" let him live for forty years. #2 "They" killed her as a warning to her father that he better back off from digging into the truth. This is wrong because he said "they" never told him that. #3 She associated with criminals in Los Angeles without telling her father, and one of them told her dangerous secrets. This makes no sense because she told every new friend she made that her father was a powerful journalist, and that revelation would drive "them" away from her.

There. The passages you don't like are debunking those three points. I can't say in the article what I just said in the preceding paragraph. I can't cite the three points because I don't know the identities of the anonymous people who make them here and elsewhere on the web, so I'm "rambling" as a preemptive strike against a rational person believing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dooyar (talk • contribs)

I think we both agree that the conspiracy claims are bullshit. We can work on finding some mutually acceptable way to say that, but please refrain from removing all changes, including corrections to formatting. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 02:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A proper citation does not refer to a database and a range of dates. A proper citation refers to a specific article or articles. If you can't refer to them all, then cite the most important ones. If you don't have the articles in front of you, then you shouldn't be using them to support your claims in the article, you should be using the sources you actually have. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 02:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You have to visit a branch of the Los Angeles City Library system to see that database. If you go to www.lapl.org on your home computer, it won't let you in there. I cannot visit the library again until Monday. Tomorrow is Sunday, and the only branch open then is the one downtown, and its Sunday time slots are usually booked the day before. I have somewhere to go tomorrow. I have a life, but I can tell you that I saw those Los Angeles Times articles with my own eyes. They say the man who autopsied Karyn Kupcinet in 1963 put an innocent man in jail three years later. He said the man's girlfriend was murdered by strangulation -- the manner in which Karyn allegedly died -- but it turned out that the alcoholic doctor broke her neck during the autopsy. James Ellroy, whom I cited in other footnotes, also said this doctor was "a juicehead."

Ellroy called Karyn "a hophead." I was nice enough to omit that from the article in order to spare Karyn's memory a disservice. Earlier this week I did a "revert" of my nemesis' inclusion of a feud between Karyn and one of her television co-stars, Gertrude Berg. Gertrude didn't like Karyn's hairdo or something like that ? That is totally unnecessary for this article considering that nobody ever cuts down Gertrude Berg, who died in 1966.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dooyar (talk • contribs)

I have no doubt that your research is accurate. There is no hurry for you to cite it properly. Speed is not essential here. The point is not that you must cite it immediately, but that you simply can't point people to the database and say "search 1963 (or whenever) for stuff about this case". You have to cite specific articles, but you can take your time doing so. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 02:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The person that wrote that, while well meaning, has still not bothered to learn how to edit here. She will end up banned very soon I predictBillyJoelFan 01:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what is wrong with the formatting of the article ? It has many footnotes. It has very few italics.

A dispute about the JFK conspiracy claims is no reason to remove all changes made by others. You should only edit the disupted material. There is no reason to remove changes to formatting or restore the inapproprate citation discussed above. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 02:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

See above. I can put the LA Times dates and page numbers here by the end of Monday. After you see them, either you take my word for it or you visit one of the Los Angeles City libraries. Don't live near Los Angeles ? Too bad. The Library of Congress in DC has the microfilm but not the database, so you would have to spend a couple hours there. Not including travel time. It's a good thing you don't agree with conspiracy theorists as I have heard them say that the Library of Congress is part of the conspiracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dooyar (talk • contribs)

And I've already said above, great, take your time with the citations, but stop removing all other changes. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 02:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

TV credits & Edits

Does anyone have any info about Karyn Kupcinet appearing in The Red Skelton Show, The U.S. Steel Hour, and The Donna Reed Show? I haven't found anything that says she was on these shows and IMDb says nothing about it.

This would require searching old TV Guides and newspaper listings on microfilm. Can't help you there. What I find relevant to the Wikipedia article is that even if you could document that Karyn appeared on those three TV shows, you probably won't see films or videos of them. I added the section at the end about what is easily available on cable / DVD and what you must watch at The Paley Center for Media.

But I own some of these shows. My eyes aren't lying to me about what I'm seeing, nor the credits. The NY Times mentioned these shows she played in.Kc440 03:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Does The Paley Center for Media have a listing of all available programs they have in their archives? If so, that would serve as a reference that could be included in the content you added. If not, I would consider that original research, and basically just one person telling the reader that those programs are there. If that information isn't published, I wouldn't include it in an article. Filmography credits can be easily checked: IMDb. If it's not on that site or any site resembling it, I fail to see how it can be verified for Wikipedia purposes. IMDb is very good at crediting all appearances by an actor, even if they were uncredited at the time, IMDb has it listed. If someone has to go out of their way to search on microfilm for a tv listing, there's no need to include that information here. If that information can't be properly cited, it makes the article sound like a fan site. That's like including a list of where to buy every Britney Spears record or cd on her article page. Yeah, it might be accurate and you might find that particular record there, but it doesn't make sense and it's not needed. Anyone who is interested in looking up any person's body of work can do that through the proper channels. Most people are aware of how to look up a particular dvd or to look up a certain tv show to see if it's on dvd. Advising a reader to go to such-in-such place to view a show that someone might be in isn't encyclopedic. A "regular" encyclopedia wouldn't have that information in it which is what should guide every editor. Pinkadelica 02:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, most people aren't going to visit that center or if they do, they will get tempted to watch other stuff, instead. The one in Beverly Hills has funny hours for viewing: noon to five p.m. Wednesday through Sunday. That includes the time the staff needs to get it ready and to correct technical glitches at your viewing station. When I wanted to watch Karyn in Mrs. G. Goes To College, the videocassette screwed up for several minutes, and a Paley Center employee stood next to me fiddling with it. Then it was alright for 15 minutes, but when I wanted to "rewind cue" one of Karyn's lines, it screwed up again. Most people don't want that trouble.

I also made some drastic edits because the intro paragraph was too long and contained information that was already in the article. I also removed the text that a user included which should have been posted on the talk page. Even though my edits were drastic, I attempted to leave all well written and sourced info on the page and re-organized it for a smoother read. Judging from the talk discussions, I understand that some people are incredibly passionate about this subject, but considering all the information and differing views that are questionable, it's nearly impossible to fit it all in and make it cohesive. The article was also filled with POV statements that basically made the whole thing sound like a trashy true crime novel. Pinkadelica 08:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the succinct details about Karyn's visibility on Perry Mason and Andy Griffith Show are hardly trashy. They focus on the TV shows she did that have strong followings so many years later. People talk about them today. Unfortunately, people don't care so much about The U.S. Steel Hour, and it is unlikely that a DVD nostalgia entrepreneur will dig up Karyn's episode and make it available to you. Digging through vaults costs money and requires permission, not to mention restoring it. Listing her Perry Mason and Andy Griffith information pays tribute to her life and work rather than leaving her as just a mysterious corpse.

Let me clarify, I never said anything about the TV credits sounding trashy nor did I say that anything having to do with her credits were trashy. I was referring to parts of the article in which people used words like "sloppy" and "boozy". Those are POV words. Unless someone is officially diagnosed as being a raging alcoholic and there is documented proof that these things effected one's work performance, it doesn't need to be mentioned. Someone being perceived as a drunk or even having a reputation of a drunk does not make it a fact. The opinion about someone having a less than desirable reputation can be mentioned if it is sourced which is why I left one reference about that in the article. I understand that some people find Karyn's story quite compelling and are going a bit overboard to protect her memory, but this article is out of control. It's conflicting, confusing, and very hard to read. Any attempts to clean it up and organize it are being hindered by people who want to add information that isn't relevant. If you guys have all this info, why not start a Karyn Kupcinet fan site? That makes a whole lot more sense than attempting to put information in a Wiki article that is suppose to remain neutral. From my observations, the two or three people battling over this article aren't really interested in presenting a factual article, they're more interested in being right and getting their own particular theory out there. In my opinion, that's more disrespectful to anyone's memory that putting out false info out there. I've written/edited articles on controversial people who have died mysterious deaths and I can tell you one thing, if I didn't have the info, I did NOT put it in the article. I also didn't include theories unless they were cited and I didn't dwell on them. If a death is ruled as something officially, like it or not, you have to provide that info and let it drop. Doing anything else is irresponsible and unethical. Wikipedia isn't a place for agendas. If you can't prove it with a reliable reference or if it's a "feeling", don't write it in. Pinkadelica 02:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The main bone of contention is whether Karyn's door was locked or unlocked. It was the latter. The Goddards said so and so did David Lange.Kc440 03:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said Karyn Kupcinet was "sloppy" or "boozy." Because of circumstances that were not her fault, she was autopsied by a Los Angeles coroner named Dr. Harold Kade. His sloppiness and drinking problem have at least three sources: acclaimed author James Ellroy, who interviewed LA county officials who worked with him, and at least two Los Angeles Times articles from 1966 - 1967. The articles indicate that an innocent man served some jail time because Dr. Kade falsely ruled his girlfriend's death as a murder by strangulation. Turns out that Dr. Kade was the one who broke the victim's hyoid bone during the autopsy. A broken hyoid also was a major result of Karyn Kupcinet's autopsy, and Dr. Kade was in charge of her body, too. Yes, there was also damage to the tongue and some other nearby areas, but Dr. Kade's problems make them hard to prove, too.

I know I have promised to cite article dates and page numbers from 1966 and 1967 and I will do that when I can. I already read them in the Times database that is available at all LA City public libraries. If you have "written/edited articles on controversial people" then you know how important financial compensation is to the writer. As there is no compensation here (and I wouldn't want it anyway), I will do it when I can. It may be that the Los Angeles Herald Examiner also reported Dr. Kade's downfall. That would require a trip to one branch of the library in particular where that newspaper's microfilm is kept. When you go all the way back to 1963, you can get a very few newspapers easily, such as the LA Times, NY Times and Washington Post, but others require a lot of your time and rush - hour travel. I know in advance I am going to cite this proof of Dr. Kade's professional sloppiness because I already read it with my own eyes. I hope that after it appears here, people will accept that none of the Kupcinet autopsy findings are reliable and that many things, including a household accident, could have happened to her. When an autopsy doctor is a sloppy alcoholic, a dead person's memory is *really* violated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.44.73 (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the autopsy doctor MAY have made a mistake is irrelevant and will not be listed hereFrater210 03:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If I go to the trouble of listing dates and page numbers that prove he actually made a mistake in 1966, putting an innocent man in prison, then please don't remove it. I already have cited a source on the autopsy doctor's drinking problem: James Ellroy. He got it from other coroners and sheriffs officials.

The truth hurts. One truth that people have trouble accepting is that many coroners and medical examiners in large cities did atrocious things in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. One was Dr. Michael Baden, whose Wikipedia article conveniently omits his act of hiding evidence in his car -- evidence from the 1983 autopsy of the African American graffiti writer Michael Stewart. The Wiki article on Stewart (headlined "graffiti writer") also omits what Dr. Baden did, which caused him to get fired from the NYC medical examiner's office and to become a professional commentator on CNN and Fox News. Why don't I cite dates and page numbers for newspaper coverage of Baden screwing up Stewart ? Self explanatory. Many New Yorkers remember the articles, but digging up dates and page numbers from microfilm takes time and rush-hour travelling. Look what people are planning to do to the dates and page numbers for the doctor who screwed up the Karyn Kupcinet case. They don't want to hear about a malfeasant doctor who did more than make "a mistake." Other crime buffs ignore a white doctor hiding evidence about a suspiciously dead black man. Americans think of doctors the way people in other countries think of religious figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.44.73 (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

A quick note: while most databases only go back a decade or so, the ProQuest database offers coverage of major newspapers like the New York times throught their entire existence. You might try checking with your local library to see if they offer this database so you could search from your home computer instead of bothering with the microfilm. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 04:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. ProQuest doesn't have the Los Angeles Herald Examiner from 1963. That was the only newspaper, besides the Los Angeles Times, that might have sent a reporter to investigate Kupcinet's death. The Orange County Register was too far away from the scene of her death. The Hollywood Reporter didn't investigate crimes.

People depend too much on ProQuest, thinking it will show them everything. It doesn't give you a ferociously angry letter that John Lennon and Yoko Ono published in the Village Voice in 1971 attacking an obscure London man who said Lennon had "monstrous delusions of grandeur." The London man was referring to the artsy films the couple made with large sums of money. In their reply, John and Yoko used the worst possible words to denote male and female sex organs, even hinting at physically harming the London man. But you won't find the letter -- or any portion of it -- in a single biography of Lennon, not even Albert Goldman's notorious book from 1988. Nor does ProQuest have it. That just goes to show you how naively many "researchers" approach the distant past, not realizing how dominant the print media was. With Kupcinet, Los Angeles crime reporters evidently dropped her story after they found out that she had scotch - taped threatening messages on the front door of her soon - to - be - ex - boyfriend, Andrew Prine. The truth hurts. ProQuest isn't operated by people who want the truth. They want to make a profit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.81.222.92 (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I never said they had the specific newspapers you were looking for, I made a suggestion that I thought would help you search the Los Angeles Times. There's no need for this rant in response to a simple suggestion. You really need to calm down. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 18:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If this is a rant, then what you're doing is denial. People who make trouble are everywhere, and they were everywhere forty years ago. Making trouble means you're doing a lot more than making a mistake. In the 1960s, a coroner named Dr. Harold Kade made trouble, not just "a mistake" as you suggest. If you want to remove newspaper citations that point to the trouble he made, fine. But I will post them first and you can remove them in denial if you want. I already searched the Los Angeles Times on their own database, not ProQuest. Didn't you see the portion of the Kupcinet article that says the Times never mentioned her name after December 8, 1963 ? That comes from the database. She was found dead November 30. The last thing they reported before dropping her story is that she, too, was a troublemaker. The truth hurts, and not all of it is retrievable with a computer keyboard. If it was, bookstores would go under next week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.81.222.92 (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, calm down. I made the suggestion to help you, not in an effort to trumpet "Database Uber Alles". I am fully aware of the limitations of the databases and you don't need to lecture me on the topic. I merely suggested them to perhaps save you a trip to the microfilm reader. But no good deed goes unpunished, apparently.

I removed your citations because they weren't proper citations. No other reason. Not denial, not because I have an opinion about a coroner I've never heard of and his work in the case of an obscure starlet I couldn't care less about. Simply because your citations were not citations, they were vague instructions to search a database. That is not how things are cited here, or anywhere else. See Wikipedia:Citing sources.

You appear to be very emotionally invested in this topic. Wikipedia needs writers who are passionate about things as it drives them to research and write about these topics. But that passion needs to be tempered with reason and civility. You need to calm down, you need to play by the rules, and you need to treat other users with respect. I would appreciate it if we didn't have to keep having these types of conversations on this page over and over again and could instead discuss improvements to the article. Why don't you try curbing your enthusiasm a little so we can get on with the latter? Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 18:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be very morally invested in a lot of topics. Wikipedia does not need writers who show their bias when judging a labor leader (Paul Dorfman) versus an educated coroner. If you're so interested in citations, why don't you cite any ? Your admonition of "calm down" is also moralistic and self - righteous. You need to * step * down from your pedestal and to stop trying to make "writers" better than other people. Everyone with an E-mail account is a "writer." I'm sick of these people who make up stories about the dead, put them in front of strangers and then they brag about their use of "alliteration" and other writers' techniques. Everyone with an E-mail account is a writer ! You can't E-mail yourself to a building in downtown Los Angeles to look at a roll of microfilm, but I hope to do that. And I won't be driving an Edsel. I try to live in the present, and I don't pass judgment on people who are many decades older than I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.81.222.92 (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine, since you didn't care for my comments above, let me be simple and blunt. You will not be permitted to act like this and to treat others like this indefinitely. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 19:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Who are the "others" besides you ? I didn't treat the conspiracy people any worse than they treated Irv Kupcinet, who lived to be 91 years old. You don't have to respect the elderly in the United States after the elderly become dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.81.222.92 (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In the future, I will be removing any off-topic posts such as this one by you or others. This is not a discussion forum and this page should only be used for discussion of improvements to the article. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you would consider it an improvement that I just added a time frame for the photograph of Karyn Kupcinet that is part of this article. It was taken in October of 1963. If you find the Los Angeles Times on microfilm from Tuesday, December 3, 1963 and you look at page 2, you will notice the full frame of this photograph. It is actually a two - shot of Kupcinet with her soon - to - be - ex - boyfriend Andrew Prine. The caption says the couple is "shown in October," meaning October of 1963. I put all this in a footnote. I even specified that it's in the microfilmed edition available at UCLA in case other libraries have different editions of the Times.

For example, at UCLA you will not find another photograph that shows Kupcinet with Prine and her father Irv. That's only in the Times edition that's in the downtown LA public library. It's not in the data base, either. I Xeroxed it, but I don't have the money to scan it and include it with this article even though it casts a lot of doubt on Prine's "guilt" in the murder. If he was planning to kill her, why would he go out in public with her and her powerful father ? In the picture they are all dressed up, and it was taken at night with a flash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.44.72 (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't this person above not signing her/his name? There's such confusion here. Whose idea was it to do an encyclopedic article on Karyn Kupcinet? All we can say then is she lived, she acted, she died mysteriously. And that's that. We can't give an opinion, we can't name the shows she was in, even though I have some of them. We can't speculate on who killed her and why. Yes, I support the Kennedy theory that she may have been killed on the order of Paul Dorfman to hurt Irv. These guys don't fool around. But I am also open to many other theories about her untimely death. But we're not allowed to theorize. It's like, I'll pick up an encyclopedia to read about President Kennedy's death and it will say he was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet a recent poll on TV said nearly 70% of Americans believe in a conspiracy.

I don't know how to resolve it. She lived, she acted, she died. Kc440 03:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No one said you can't name the shows she was in, but for accuracy, credits need to have a verifiable source, and there are plenty around to confirm film & tv credits. That's not too much to ask. If a person wasn't asked to cite certain claims, anyone could write anything in an article and not be made to prove it. Wiki is for information, not things people think or decide is correct. The reason theories can't be dwelled upon is pretty evident in this article battle. No one can agree on what is correct because a theory can't be proved. There are plenty of other resources and website that aren't held to a certain standard that cover those theories. If theories were allowed, article would be pages long and wouldn't serve any real informational purpose. Whether you agree with an official version of events is not the point. It's official, thus, it's what must be told in an encyclopedic article. Your last statement was correct; she lived, acted & died. Very basic and true. The rest is pure speculation and will only serve to confuse people who know nothing about the subject of the article. Pinkadelica 05:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said earlier, Bing Crosby was also in Palm Springs when Paul Dorfman and Karyn Kupcinet were there during the assassination weekend. Mr. Crosby died suddenly while playing golf during the U.S. Congress investigation into the assassination in 1977. If I add this speculation to his Wikipedia article, will you remove it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.81.222.92 (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Der Bingle, as the Germans called him. Who knows what he could have done? He was a secret alcoholic and a rabid Catholic. He used to beat his sons. And he warned his daughter, Mary, that she better stay a virgin until she married. Otherwise, he would thoroughly disown her. Although it's all true, I'm just kidding. I don't know if Karyn ever met Crosby. Certainly he didn't commit the murder. I get your point. But the men around her are suspicious.Kc440 19:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What are we going to do with this thing? We don't agree. Why do we need an encyclopedic page for Karyn Kupcinet? It's like forcing a square peg into a round hole. It still reads like a crazy, rambling text. I'm for giving up. There should be no conspiracy elements, if it has to be so dry. And wasn't I encouraged to "be bold" when I first got on? That went down the drain quick enough.Kc440 04:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Enter The Public Library And Its Microfilmed / Digitally Scanned Old Newspapers

Finally, I did it. I added to the article, as succinctly as I could, the downfall of Dr. Harold Kade, who did Karyn Kupcinet's autopsy. As of two years and four months after he probed her, he royally screwed up autopsies of two other young women. Like Karyn, they also were strangled -- or were they ? Despite the fact that a prominent white Los Angeles attorney defended publicly Dr. Kade, who was African American, Kade resigned under pressure in January of 1967. That was barely three years after Kupcinet died.

In the opening paragraph of the article, I summarized why the coroner is so important to the Kupcinet case, though I omitted his name there. I also added a quote from Karyn's father about the JFK link being "an atrocious outrage." If anyone resents what I have done today, please explain why on this page before you mess up my work. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dooyar (talk • contribs) 01:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The edit was not done out of "resentment". I reverted the edits because the lead paragraph is not suppose to be long (see: Lead section). Lead paragraphs are intended to be brief and basically summarize the article, not provide detailed information a person will read in the article itself. In other words, there's no need to state it more than once. If you include a quote, a citation is needed directly after the quote if possible. Any edits I do are not out of resentment. I stick to Wikipedia rules & policy. If you don't want your worked "messed up", I suggest not adding anything on Wiki. There's even a warning when you hit the edit button that states if you get personally offended by someone editing your work, don't add it because 9 times out of 10, it will be edited by someone, especially if no sources are provided or it doesn't comply with the way an article should be written. Pinkadelica 10:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I remember that the person in charge here said how important it is to sign in with your account when you're using a computer at a Los Angeles City library. I am signed in now, and I was signed in during the last two or three improvements I made to the Kupcinet article. But I must admit that I was NOT signed in during my first visit to this article today. It was my first time here in several days.

The reason I neglected to sign in that time is that I was operating under time pressure on a computer that was planning to cut me off a few minutes later, and I had Xeroxes from microfilm in front of me. Time was so tight that I could have been cut off in the middle of typing the text from a forty - year - old article. I did sign in the very next time I made a change, and every time thereafter, including now. Now you know that today I made all the changes here ! Finally I added the newspaper citations that I had promised. Thanking you in advance for your understanding. dooyar 10/18/2007 Dooyar 02:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I worked hard summarizing many newspapers about the downfall of the coroner who cut Karyn open. I restored it after someone removed it. I will do so again. I can keep this up as long as you can. You can fantasize all you want, but the truth is that the coroner ruined all opportunities to know how Karyn died. There are bad people everywhere, including in coroners' offices. In the 1960s politicians did little about coroners and medical examiners. Since the 1980s, politicians and the public have caught on. Coroners are regulated now. That doesn't do Karyn Kupcinet any good. The truth hurts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dooyar (talk • contribs) 23:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the truth does hurt. For the record, I did not erase the bits about the coronor. My stuff is always being erased. Someone erased in "Further Reading" the Chicago Mag story "The Lost World of Kup." This is a fascinating look at Karyn and her family. Why should anyone exclude it? I put it back.Kc440 02:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll just say this and be done with it because I'm fairly certain I've explained the correct way to add items to this article before. I was the one who reverted the page. That can be plainly seen on the history page of this article. I stand behind my edits and I'm not personally invested in any topic and if I am, I know to stay away from such topics unless I'm 100% sure I can remain unbiased and provide information that enriches the article, not to get my personal opinion out there for the world to read. I get that this topic is hotly debated by people and that's fine. What's not fine is adding a load of information that has already been stated or information that is irrelevant to an article. If you can use 2 words to explain something, don't use 10. If you research something, provide citations AFTER the information you provided. That is not too much to ask considering it's Wikipedia policy. This whole back & forth isn't about "truth", it's about following certain guidelines set up to keep article from getting out of control. That's exactly why this article is in its present state. A few people feel they know the real truth and are bound and determined to fight about it. Great, have a field day, just back up what you add, explain it clearly one time, and I can guarantee that it will stay in the article if it's written and cited properly.

The above statements spoke volumes about the agendas going on here. This page isn't the Karyn Kupcinet site. Some of the information provided is unneeded and long winded. If someone is that interested in the case, they can go to other sources to find additional information. That seems to be the point most are missing on this. Every aspect does not need to be explained. If something was removed in the entire revert I did and was properly cited, all apologies. I've gone back and double checked myself and, for the most part, what was removed wasn't needed or added behind something that either contradicted the sourced material or restated info. If it is in fact properly sourced and somehow adds to the article, add it back. A reader doesn't need to know why so and so were friends or who this person's parents were friends with. Most of the excuses as to why something isn't done properly seems to fall under some of us not wanting the truth to be told. In reality, you have no idea what I believe about this particular case, so with me, that tactic won't work. I'm not interested in agendas nor do I want to cover up something that has nothing to do with my life in general. I have absolutely no problem with someone asking me why I reverted an edit or changed a page significantly because I don't make drastic changes based on emotion or personal agendas. Instead of pretending a phantom editor reverted something, ask me why I made changes and I'll be more than happy to give you a very detailed reason why. By no means am I an expert editor, but I've worked on enough articles and participate in enough Wikipedia maintenance projects to know what will fly and what won't. I also don't have any "fantasies" about how or why someone died and I'm fully aware that there are bad people in positions of authority. I've been around long enough to know that just because I might not agree with something, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be said. If I were that childish or deluded, I sure wouldn't waste my time on site that is devoted to facts and education. Pinkadelica 10:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Pinkadelica, you don't work for Wikipedia. Gamaliel does. If you scroll up you will find an exchange I had with Gamaliel in which he/she promised to keep my stuff about the bad coroner as long as I sourced it. Several weeks ago the article had no footnotes for the bad coroner. Gamaliel said you can't say in a footnote "Look in a data base." Alright then, so I worked hard at the downtown LA public library to go way beyond "Look in a data base." I found several articles in two newspapers about the coroner's issues, which are very relevant to the Kupcinet case. He said two other young women were strangled when they weren't. He resigned under the threat of getting fired. Oh, and the coroner had a name, by the way. Have you even read enough of the article to know what his name was ?

After all my hard work, not to mention an unpleasant journey through a building that is filled with homeless people (some of whom throw temper tantrums and warrant police intervention), I am going to keep the "bad coroner stuff" in the article whether you like it or not. Every time you revert it, I will put it back.

I can keep this up as long as you can. You're probably going to reply that you do indeed work for Wikipedia. In that case you need to pay attention to your co-worker Gamaliel. Gamaliel says the bad coroner can stay. You can brag all you want about the editing you've done, but you're not Tina Brown and you're not Jann Wenner. You're just a vandal trying to destroy someone's hard work that he did for free near a lot of homeless people who aren't making much of a profit, either. I will not go away. What do I have to lose ? My "job ?" My privacy ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dooyar (talk • contribs) 20:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't personally attack you or call you names. I remained respectful despite being slightly irritated. Second of all, I never disputed your findings, I simply attempted to point you in the right direction on how to add them to the article properly so other people, aside from myself, wouldn't delete them because they didn't fit within the parameter of an encyclopedic article. To my knowledge, I didn't say I worked for Wikipedia nor did I ask you what lengths you went to to get your information. You chose to go to those great lengths and you chose to take a long time to add information. Again, read up on editing. If you can't take someone editing your work, don't add it. Never did I dispute your references or what you added, I disputed the WAY you added it and how you cited things. You seem to want to make this personal and since you're bound and determined to be correct and make personal attacks, there's no reasoning with you. That's a shame because actually you have some decent information, but you're unwillingly to work within the guidelines or listen to the suggestion of others. This isn't your personal article and people are entitled to disagree with the way you add things. Plenty of other people have made edits that I've never touched or disputed, whether I agreed with them or not. You're hung up on the content when I stated that is was the WAY things were added. Obviously, you're missing that point because you immediately went into attack mode when I suggested you read up on the right way to style this article. As much as you'd love an edit war, I won't give you one. I'm not personally invested in this article nor do I think Wikipedia, or the internet for that matter, is the place to start faux fights with people I don't know or care to know. I suggest you read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility just in case you run into someone in the future who doesn't take being called a vandal so lightly. Pinkadelica 03:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

<< Of course, you're not invested in this article. You haven't invested enough attention in it to know what a coroner is. When someone dies in an accident or homicide, the death must be handled either by a coroner or medical examiner. Depends on the locality. Los Angeles uses coroners. The dead person's personal physician cannot do anything in response to news of the sudden death. This is not nuclear physics. And I have been called a vandal, too. Learn to let it roll off your back. Or else stop deleting my stuff about the bad coroner. A brief reference to the bad coroner belongs in the first paragraph because it is very important. Bad doctors do enough damage to their patients who are alive. Obviously, if a doctor examines a dead person, the dead person can't tell the doctor, "You missed a spot." The deceased cannot sue, and the surviving relatives are so griefstricken they don't fight back when they should. >> 76.81.204.238 06:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC) dooyar

I was signed in when I wrote the above paragraph. Correcting that mistake. Dooyar 06:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC) dooyar

I'm going to be perfectly blunt because your lack of respect is irritating and frankly, you seemingly can't grasp the simplest of concepts. For the umpteenth time, I didn't dispute your findings and/or research. I don't care what you think about this case or anything else for that matter, that was never the issue. As long as the information you add is written clearly, not in a rambling and repetitive manner and is cited properly, add to your heart's content. You want to make this into a battle of me disagreeing with whatever series of events you think happened based on your research without me ever having said what I think about the subject. I could very well agree with you, but as long as you add info that is written and cited poorly, I'll have an issue with it and if I don't remove it, someone else will. That's obvious because someone else has already edited the page since you last added info. As far as me letting you call me vandal roll off my back, perhaps you should take your own advise. You take edits personally and you're making this personal by attempting to insult me by calling me names and insulting my intelligence. If I were so devastated by words on a screen, I'd think I would've been destroyed by life in general by now. I've been on this earth for a few years and in those few years, I've managed to stumble upon information. Life has a way of doing that. I actually do know what a coroner is and, surprisingly, I didn't have to look it up. Of course, that's not the issue, but if you feel like you have to make childish insults to feel intellectually superior, have a field day. That doesn't make it so, but as long as you can look in the mirror and feel ok with that, far be it from me to stop you from getting your kicks. The only thing I've been slightly stupid about is attempting to deal with you on an respectful, adult level. Silly me. I'll venture to say that the only reason you claim you're personally invested in this article is because all you care about is getting your way. That is exactly why I said I'm not personally invested, but naturally, you took that as me claiming total ignorance in basic knowledge. Imagine that! You jumping to conclusions and making rash assumptions. I never would've expected that! Oddly enough, some of us here only care about getting the best possible information on Wiki about a subject instead of our own agendas. You're not interested in speaking for the dead or getting the truth out. If you were, you'd want the best possible article available, whether you wrote it or not. It seems you have a difficult time dealing with living human beings in a decent manner so, perhaps you should work on being civil to living people first before you attempt to worry yourself about the death of someone else. We're the ones who have to live with you on this planet so, it's the least you can do. Because of your blatant disrespect, rudeness, and ulterior motives, I will not be dealing with you in the future. It's obvious that any attempts to deal with you on a respectful level is completely pointless as you don't read or comprehend anything and if you do, all of that falls to the wayside once you start banging on your keyboard. If you have huge issues with any edits I make, take it up with an administrator. Pinkadelica 09:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, now, everyone knows what a coroner is. We've all seen Quincy. :) No, seriously. I recently went through a similar issue in regard to Richard Speck, about the county employed psychiatrist who talked with him before he went to trial. He also was an instrumental figure in the pre-trial insanity hearing preparation. The problem was, this psychiatrist got Speck to sign a consent to write a book about him - even while he was still his patient. The doctor ended up quitting the county and wrote a book about Speck and made a fortune. Further investigation turned up information about him including that he lost his medical license and ability to practice because of unethical conflict. He was totally discredited. I kept trying to keep this in the Speck article but lost when another editor took it to Request for Comment. The reasoning was that there was no evidence that the doctor was being unethical with Speck from the documentation that is available - even if he was defrauding patients and misprescribing massive amounts of controlled drugs when he was Speck's doctor. Therefore it was not verifiable in Speck's case. That's the reasoning I used with the coroner information here. I wouldn't doubt that the coroner botched things, but, as you wrote, the newpapers made no mention of Kupcinet in regards to the coroner, so it's, essentially, hearsay. We can think it, but we can't report it in an encyclopedia. Remember Dragnet: Only the facts. Wildhartlivie 09:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

<< The reason newspapers didn't mention Karyn Kupcinet in their reports of the coroner's downfall is that she had been dead for three years at that point. The reporters were trying to stay current. During the hearings that led to the resignation of this coroner (Dr. Harold Kade), the focus was on two women who had died within the past 15 months. Dr. Kade gave a verdict of strangulation on each woman's death, and he turned out to be wrong on both counts. The boyfriend of one woman was jailed for five months, and he sued for six figures. >>

<< You will recall that the verdict from Karyn Kupcinet's autopsy was strangulation, but that also came from Dr. Kade. His tendency to say young women were strangled incorrectly puts a dent in all of the Kupcinet autopsy findings. It means we will never know for sure that she was murdered. Some law enforcement officials said she might not have been murdered. Therefore, Dr. Kade's professional downfall is relevant. >>

<< Finally, I totally understand the long paragraph written by Pinkadelica. It's much longer than anything I have written, and Pink says I write "poorly." Let's see, the gist of Pink's rant is: "Always count your chickens before they are hatched." I don't have to ramble further. I get it already. >> Dooyar 00:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC) dooyar

Basic Wikipedia housekeeping and clean-up

There are certain style guidelines that are fundamental to article writing. These aren't a matter of personal preference, they are a matter of guidelines. Adherence to the manual of style guidelines is basic and fundamental. When editing an article, the editor needs to familiarize him or herself with these basics:

• Don't refer to a person on whose biography you are writing in the first person. In this case, its proper to use "Kupcinet" and not "Karyn." If you have a problem with this, take it up with the manual of style.
• When a quote is included in text, it must have a reference. No discussion. If you have a problem with this, take it up with citations. If you are adding information that comes from an intermediate source (for example, a book that is being cited in a magazine article) you can only cite the source where you got it, not the orginal book. If you have a problem with this, take it up with citations.
• If an addition has a {{fact}} tag added to it, it requires a citation because the addition either is asserting a fact, a quote or something that could be controversial. Don't remove this tag without adding a citation. If you have a problem with this, take it up with citations.
• Section titles use only capitalization for the first word of the title and any proper names contained in the title. If you have a problem with this, take it up with the manual of style.

---

Wikipedia has certain policies that are sometimes difficult to comprehend or incorporate. There are three that are fundamental to writing and contributing to an article:

• One of these is neutral point of view. If you are unsure what constitutes neutral point of view, read WP:NPOV.

• The second of these is no original research. If you are unsure what constitutes original research, check at WP:NOR.

• The third of these is verifiability. If you are unsure what constitutes verifiability, check at WP:VERIFY.

Too much editing time is wasted going back over articles again and again because an editor either doesn't understand these fundamentals or opts to ignore them. If you don't violate these principles, then obviously, this note doesn't apply to you. If you aren't sure if its referring to you, then please re-acquaint yourself with these principles to be sure. If you know that this applies to you, then expect your contributions to be challenged, edited, moved and/or removed. Wildhartlivie 07:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If The Coroner Can Screw Up Two Other Cases Of Young Women Dying At Home From "Strangulation," Then His Verdict On Kupcinet Is Suspect. And He Got Fired The Same Day Jack Ruby Died. Far Out !

Wildhartlivie can be right about the Wikipedia rules of formatting and editing, but he/she does not have the right to erase everything about Dr. Harold Kade, the bad coroner. Wikipedia has hundreds of articles about dead people whose deaths were explained by coroners and medical examiners. Please show me anything in the Wikipedia guidelines about those coroners and medical examiners being irrelevant under all circumstances. Karyn Kupcinet had three important things in common with the dead people who provoked lawsuits against Dr. Kade and his resignation under the threat of firing. All were women under the age of forty, all died at home and all were said by Kade to be victims of strangulation. He was wrong about "strangulation" for two of them so that is relevant to Kupcinet. He made the mistakes within 2 - 1/2 years of his job on Kupcinet.

There is another source about "strangulation" possibly being the wrong verdict for Kupcinet, and I cited it. It was James Ellroy, who was told by sheriffs' homicide investigators that in the 1960s some of them thought she could have died in an accidental fall. She was a speed freak, and I said that, too, more politely than "speed freak." Also, another change you made destroyed a direct quote from Ellroy, and no, I don't have too many from him. I agreed to remove the long paragraph in which he called Kupcinet "a hophead." In the direct quote you changed, you prefer the word "constricted" over "pinned" to describe Karyn's eyes on the night she died. "Pinned" is the word Ellroy used, and he knows a lot more than you. He studied documents in the sheriffs' office, and he talked to sheriffs who worked the case in 1963. If you think I'm quoting him as if he's God meeting Moses at the burning bush, then please tell me how many other "long" direct quotes I took from his book. There aren't that many.

At least people are leaving alone the photograph of Kupcinet with the two favorite men in her life. That was a very recent addition to the middle of the article. As you can see, it is a Xerox from microfilm. You will never see a better copy of it. (I said as much in the application to upload it and in the "Edit Summary.") Alright then, if you leave alone that microfilm Xerox, then maybe I can add the banner headline DR. KADE QUITS. I will try to do it soon. It has a great bonus for that conspiracy theorist who used to mess up this article and then moved on to greener pastures. The user name is "Kc440." I will try to atone for my mean treatment of him/her, and I can bring him/her back. Here's how. He/she will be ecstatic to learn that Dr. Kade quit on the very same day that Jack Ruby died: January 3, 1967. And the Xerox I plan to add shows you the Kade headline just a few centimeters away from a photo of Jack's brother and two sisters sitting in a car outside the hospital where Jack died a few minutes ago. Ain't that neat ?

You can start speculating that the two events happened simultaneously because Jack Ruby and Harold Kade were puppets of "them." Remember "them ?" "They" forced Jack Ruby to shoot a man in front of 50 million witnesses, then "they" got scared that a gossip columnist in the large city where Jack used to live twenty years ago might identify "them," so "they" killed the gossip man's junkie daughter as a warning to him, but "they" forgot to tell him to mind his own business. "They" were so stressed out ! Then three years later "they" got scared that a bumbling medical doctor would expose "them" so "they" fired him and injected Ruby with cancer on the same day -- two thousand miles apart. Maybe "they" used Air Force fighter jets ! You can start having fun with all that pretty soon when I show you the front page of the Los Angeles Times from January 4, 1967. Isn't that great ? Coming soon to a screen near you. Kc440 -- you come back and see us now !

Oh well, at least I have one supporter for introducing Dr. Harold Kade in the first place. The user name "Gamaliel" said I could do it as long as the footnotes cite the newspaper articles exactly. It's wrong to say, "Look in a data base," but if you get the goods from the data base and show them to people, then you can tell people what they don't want to hear: a medical doctor ruined everyone's chance to solve the Kupcinet case. Or did "they" force him to mess it up, but "they" didn't kill him, "they" just fired him from his job, but "they" killed Jack Ruby on the same day in a different time zone ? You can call me a bad Wikipedia formatter, but you can't call me crazy. Dooyar 04:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC) dooyar

The quotes from Ellroy discussing Kade's supposed state on the night Kupcinet was discovered were not removed. However, everything extrapolated from Kade's leaving office and the two cases that were the problem well over two years later are totally and completely irrelevant to Kupcinet's autopsy. Even in your own self-researched text, you say that Kupcinet's death and autopsy were not examined, and was not mentioned. I refer you to a section in WP:NOR (No original research) which addresses the very thing you are trying to do with this article:

WP:SYN, which says

Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position: Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

In other words, even if you can bring a source that says Harold Kade did Kupcinet's autopsy (A), and you can bring a source that says Harold Kade screwed up autopsies 2 1/2 years later (B), you cannot put them together to say Harold Kade therefore must have screwed up Kupcinet's autopsy if he screwed up the other ones (C). Not unless you can come up with a verifiable PUBLISHED source that has examined this before. And that, you cannot do. I am quite certain, since I've read what Gamaliel wrote, that you did not get permission to write a new theory regarding this event. Suspect it all you want, you can't verify it as a fact.

I also want to direct your attention to WP:CIVIL. Because you are bordering on violating that again. Wildhartlivie 05:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't "put them together to say Harold Kade therefore must have screwed up Kupcinet's autopsy if he screwed up the other ones." What I'm doing is showing the strong possibility that therefore he screwed up Kupcinet. And another "therefore" exists. Kade's verdict was murder by strangulation, yet more than one law enforcement officer who worked on the case thought it was not a murder. I sourced that, too. Now think what those cops were doing. They were making Dr. Kade look totally clueless. The cops depended on Kade's verdict before they started a homicide investigation.

You've got a problem with the fact that nobody has published in a book or magazine that Kupcinet's autopsy doctor spouted gibberish about two other young women who died at home ? Alright then, that indicates you're missing something. Kupcinet's death became old news barely a week after it happened. Six months later Walter Winchell "investigated" it and blamed it on a cat, then six years passed without any digging, an author named John Austin gave it just one chapter in a book that soon went out of print, then 28 years passed with absolutely no digging until James Ellroy looked at it. No, he said nothing about Dr. Kade screwing up two other autopsies, but Ellroy, too, was giving Kupcinet just one chapter in a book about Los Angeles crimes. Ellroy couldn't do everything. He did publish eyewitness accounts of Kade being a sloppy alcoholic, a notion that people have removed from this article many times. If they doubt James Ellroy, then they're proving that putting a "fact" between hard covers does not make it so, so why can't I cite newspaper articles that, even without the allegations of sloppy alcoholic, show how Harold Kade was capable of making permanent confusion for thousands of people ? It's just a strong possibility that he screwed up Kupcinet. I never said it was a fact.

Even the fact that Kupcinet was murdered is not a fact. We know that she died in 1963. We know that nobody ever has written an entire book or investigative piece about her, so why is something that's not in a book or journal automatically false ? Go ahead and report me again. This time the arbitrator will have to listen to me. If Wikipedia guidelines can fit every human being who ever died mysteriously, then the arbitrator could do other things with his /her time. Obviously, the arbitrator does what he / she does for a reason. The reason is, human beings don't fit into cookie - cutter patterns. Harold Kade sure doesn't. Dooyar 06:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not our place on Wikipedia to put two sources together to either state a connection or show a strong possibility. In the absence of outside verification of those two sources having been put together by someone and published, we cannot make those connections. That falls under original research. We cannot publish original research on Wikipedia. If you want to make a case for this, you're going to have to do it somewhere besides in a NPOV (neutral point of view) article in an encyclopedia. That's part and parcel of the need for you to go read WP:NOR. What you are doing with these two things is directly in violation of that fundamental WP policy.

I most certainly have a problem with this connection that you are making to even suggest the possibility, insofar as it going into Wikipedia is concerned. I'm not missing anything. Frankly, it doesn't make any difference whether one of these facts is related to another UNLESS an outside source has explored, researched and published it. Something that's not in a book, article or journal may be true, but unless it's published, it's not verifiable. That's the principle of WP:VERIFY. This is an encyclopedia, it's not a conspiracy theory page, it's not an avenue for you to rant and show your temper as you did in the edits of the last day, and it's not a place for you to publish you theories. One of the section titles you keep reverting to is called "Autopsy findings and disputes." The trouble, there is no published source anywhere that disputes the validity of the autopsy findings. Police can gossip about what they think happened all they want. An author can write a book that calls the coroner a sloppy drunk and say he thinks she died another way all he wants. None of them initiated an inquiry into it, no outside person examined the autopsy findings, no one published an opinion or finding that disputes the results of the autopsy. You wrote that yourself. You are the only person who is disputing this and that is original research. This material doesn't belong here.

I outlined that and a number of fundamental Wikipedia policies above so that they would be where you could see them and I certainly hoped you might take the time to read them and try to write your material based on the policies of this site. When you make these massive reversions, you even revert very simple fundamental changes, such as the manual of style for biographies stating that a person is referred to by the last name, not the first. You also revert capitalization of titles, which are not supposed to be capitalized. You are well aware of this, the title of this section shows that you are aware of it. The reverts that you are doing are in direct violation of WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, and WP:MOSBIO. You don't even bother to see what it is that you are reverting, you just roll it back without a thought.

I would like to point you to these articles so that you know where this is going from here. First of all, I've tried different approaches with you. None of them seem to work. Other editors have tried on the same points and have had no success. There has an overall general consensus among the other editors on this talk page that this material is objectionable becaused it's POV and makes faulty assumptions. You are the only one who thinks it belongs, regardless of what it's being used to say. What you are doing at this point consists of disruptive and tendentious editing, which are problems. Please read WP:TE and WP:DE. It outlines steps to take with disruptive edits. Finally, please take time to revisit WP:CIVIL. Wildhartlivie 10:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Gossip at a police station ? Now YOU are pushing a weird point of view. Are we going to find out about John and Patsy Ramsey making love with celebrities ? First of all, those in the Kupcinet case were sheriffs, not police. The article says clearly that Kupcinet's case fell under the jurisdiction of the LA County Sheriff's Office. And they were not gossiping. The article says they occasionally reinterviewed at least two friends of Kupcinet's "throughout the 1960s." Want the exact dates in 1968 and 1969 ? James Ellroy provides them, but I omitted them because they led nowhere. He examined documents from the LA County Sheriffs' Office. I am not promoting a conspiracy theory about police gossiping about a drug - related accident. James Ellroy published it and I sourced it. He investigated the case in the 1990s, and the sheriffs investigated it in the 1960s. What is your source on their making everything up, Wildhartlivie ?

I changed the titles back to lower case long ago. And I removed the two other dead young women who were screwed up by Dr. Kade. I retained the part about him resigning in disgrace in 1967, but I added "nobody knows" if that undermines his verdict on Kupcinet in 1963. Just as Watergate undermines everything Richard Nixon ever did in his home country (as opposed to China), Harold Kade's resignation under the threat of getting fired at least deserves mention.

Pretty soon I can add the Jpegs of those banner headlines "DR. KADE QUITS." As they include photographs of Jack Ruby's three siblings, they might bring "Kc440" back. Remember when you used to revert all his / her edits ? I am hardly the only contributor you have reverted. You never demonstrate your "overall general consensus" that the premature end of Dr. Kade's career should be omitted entirely. The man was a medical doctor who was about to get fired. The resignation of a coroner is always relevant to all of his cases that remain mysterious. And it did remain mysterious. Ellroy documented that.

Show me an "overall general consensus" that people want Kade's resignation out of the picture and then I will obey. But you never identify anyone other than yourself. Please show names and the fact that Kade's downfall is specifically what they object to. Dooyar 17:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC) dooyar

I wasn't accusing law enforcement (police or sheriff dept.) of making things up. I commented on what you said, which was that they talked about it outside of the investigation and weren't even sure it was murder. Since it wasn't actually part of the investigation, it's gossiping, which doesn't have to be idle, incorrect or wrong. The fact is, I don't care whether this woman was murdered or fell in some sort of weird drug induced haze. I'm only interested in making this article conform to WP policy, which, when you cut away all the posturing, is what you are doing. Watergate, the Ramseys, none of that are at all relevant here.

For the record, I have never had an interaction with an editor called kc440. If you will check the article's history page, the first edit I made to this page was on Oct. 26, while the last edit made by kc400 was on Oct. 23, who hasn't been back on the site since. I haven't had editing issues with that editor. However, kc440, Pinkadelica, NomeKing, BillyJoelfan, and others have had editing issues over material in the article in the past, prior to Oct. 26. Reversion is rife prior to Oct. 26 in the history, none of which I did. You are mistaken when you accuse me of having "used to" revert his/her edits. In any case, the issue continues to be that the article must conform to WP policy regarding not only style, but content. It's not personal, Dooyar, despite what you think. The citation that you added about the Fecteau page isn't formatted properly, at least insofar as mentioning kc440 being in touch with the editor. Meanwhile, it doesn't address what the coroner did, or didn't, include in the autopsy findings. But yes, until the book itself is written, it can't be cited. Wildhartlivie 22:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said the sheriffs "talked about it outside of the investigation." I said they kept investigating Kupcinet occasionally for many years, returning to a few persons of interest again and again as late as 1969, and what they learned led some of them to doubt that it was murder. The fact that various officials disagreed does NOT constitute "gossip."

You are making a personal attack on law enforcement officials who are either dead or too old to participate here. When you overlook my sarcasm about Nixon and the Ramseys, you were trying to provoke me and bait me. That is a personal attack. A child could figure out that my sarcasm was addressing your foolish use of "gossip." You dismissed Dr. Kade as irrelevant when he had more to do with the Kupcinet case than any other official. If you remove him and his often - denigrated character from the article, you might as well remove Nixon's character from the decisions HE was involved with. My small daughter got that one.

As for you supposedly not being here before October 26, how do I know you don't use more than one screen name ? You manifest a personal stake in removing stuff that illustrates the "we'll never know" status of Kupcinet's death. Someone removed said stuff long before October 26. If sheriffs can gossip in your opinion, then you can lie and cheat people in my opinion. Now that I have contacted the arbitrator (Krakoa Katie) who fell for your lies and banned me, I have a voice. Please leave this entire Kupcinet page (including "discussion") alone until Katie acknowledges that I exist. Please get some counselling. That is not a personal attack. You need to do more than go to bed as you once said you were planning to do. You need some help. Dooyar 06:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: I have attempted to take this off of this article talk page to the user talk page per guidelines in WP dispute resolution. I will no longer attempt to debate with this editor on this topic due to escalation of behavior which has now become personal attacks here and elsewhere and I apologize to any passersby who stumble on to it. Because it's being done on this page, I am opening a RfC on this and requesting this page be protected until the issue is decided. Wildhartlivie 12:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Editor Assistance / Requests

A few moments ago I reported Wildhartlivie's alleged vandalism to the forum titled "Editor Assistance / Requests." Wildhartlivie constantly threatens to suspend me so I am making a preemptive strike against him / her doing it again. I kept my request short and sweet, but I was sure to include Wildhartlivie's outrageous ignorant claim that "police" who investigated the Kupcinet case indulged in "gossip." The article has two sources that indicate it was a county sheriffs' case, not a police case. And Wildhartlivie does not back up his / her claim that the "police" were gossiping as opposed to doing their jobs. Think twice before you believe everything Wildhartlivie says about the Karyn Kupcinet article. Don't let this unstable Wikipedia contributor revert your edits. After all the garbage spouted by this person, he / she and I could be the only people still reading this page. Let's see if anyone other than the two of us are still here. If this paragraph warrants a reply from Wildhartlivie and nobody else, that is a bad sign. Dooyar 18:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have not vandalized this page. I have not threatened to suspend this editor. I have reminded him of WP policy. Please see above. Wildhartlivie 22:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you have. You have removed statements made by sheriffs' officials who worked on the Kupcinet case for a long time. You dismissed what they said as "gossip." How do you know what was part of their investigation and what wasn't ? Not only have you threatened to suspend me, you actually did it once. YOU should be suspended. WP policy says you can't twist something that is attributed to a source. The sheriffs' statements about a possible death by accidental fall are sourced. They come from an official investigation, not gossip. Rather than discuss your other violations, I will close by saying I added some of my side of the story to the page of Krakoa Katie, who banned me once before at your request. Now I have a voice. You can't stifle it. The arbitrators are going to hear my side of the story. In the meantime, leave Karyn Kupcinet alone. Dooyar 06:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Dooyar has acted for months like they own the article and they control it. They refuse to listen to Wildhartlive and others who offer sound, sage advice. Dooyar should have a six month suspension to cool off.NomeKing 04:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I second that. As seen on this talk page, Dooyar has consistently been rude to other editors (myself included) and refuses to adhere to Wikipedia policy when adding to this article. He\she has made personal attacks on anyone who challenges his/her edits and as NomeKing stated, basically thinks the article belongs to them. A six month suspension might be too harsh, but the article needs a massive cleanup and needs to be left alone once and for all. Pinkadelica 05:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Two out of three isn't a very large majority. The person who said in their "Edit Summary" that Irv Kupcinet was super-famous and known to every American is showing POV. If his newspaper column was syndicated to 100 newspapers, as the person (Wildhartlivie) claimed, that's leaving out many cities and towns. I checked all three of the newspapers that existed in Washington, DC at the time Karyn died, and none of them carried "Kup's column." People in DC couldn't watch his TV talk show, either. It wasn't listed in the local TV guide. If a "celebrity" wasn't in Washington, DC in 1963, then he/she wasn't in a lot of places. Same goes for Raleigh, North Carolina. I checked the News & Observer in 1963. No Kup's column. Other good sources are people who were over the age of 18 living in DC and Raleigh in 1963. I've talked with them, and they say they never heard of Irv Kupcinet until I told them about Karyn's death.

I already named the Raleigh newspaper. If you insist DC people did indeed know about and care about Irv Kupcinet at the time his daughter died, then please name all three DC newspapers from that period.

If your majority is as sound as you claim, then let's hear from the contributor known as "Gamaliel." If you know so much about Wikipedia, then maybe you know what Gamaliel's position is. He/she has said that negative information about coroner Harold Kade is relevant as long as it is sourced. And it is. Dooyar 21:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Irv Kupcinet

First of all, I didn't say he was super famous and known by every American. Those would be your words. What the edit summary said was "Irv Kupcinet's column was in over 100 newspapers, he had an NBC network talk show & was on night time show that was a forerunner of Tonight Show, he was hardly little known." Besides the syndicated news column, Irv Kupcinet's talk show began on CBS as "At Random" and later moved to ABC as "Kup's Show." His other talk show began on ABC in 1953, carrying guests such as Carolyn Jones. He appeared on Ed Sullivan's "Toast of the Town" in 1951, was an announcer on "The Colgate Comedy Hour" in 1955, and "Tonight! America After Dark" in 1957. All of those were nationally broadcast television shows. He appeared in Otto Preminger’s films "Anatomy of a Murder" and "Advise and Consent." His obituary ran in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, Variety and was carried by CNN and FoxNews. There's really little point in debating such a minor point as the removal of the statement "relatively unknown outside Chicago," especially in context of all those things listed above.

Secondly, please be so good as to not start up again. I won't play games such as "name all three DC newspapers" or respond to baiting such as "if you know so much..." Irrelevant. In perusing the archived talk page, which someone tampered with in trying to remove negative statements that were made by blanking out a large portion of the archived text, Gamaliel didn't say anything specifically about Harold Kade or anyone else. The discussion was about citations. Gamaliel was asked to take a look at this talk page and apparently opted to not get involved in the last dispute, his response on November 5 was only to add the banners about heated discussions and staying calm as well as the banner that notes that this is not a forum for discussing Karyn Kupcinet, but for additions to the article. Meanwhile, your last edit on the page was to rollback the page over 14 intermediate edits by the other two editors most active on the page, on which she and I agree. Since there's no mandate for a large caucus or a requirement for a given percentage to constitute a consensus, the consensus of 2/3 of the editors on this page is that the version of the page as of edit id #170060334 at 04:33 on 8 November 2007 is is the version from which goes forward. Wildhartlivie 02:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've read over all of the last month's edits to the main page and to this one and I agree that whatever happened with Harold Kade 2 years after Kupcinet's death doesn't relate to her autopsy either, not without officials saying so specifically. If her autopsy wasn't brought into the controversy about Kade's leaving office and no doubt was cast on his findings in it, then trying to put it into this article is taking a whole lot of liberties with the information that's available. To suggest that he made a mistake in 1963 based on mistakes made later is conjecture and doesn't have a place in this article or any article about someone he worked on that wasn't brought up in his leaving the position. I think this article reads fairly neutral as it stands right now and doesn't need conspiracy theories added into it. It does a disservice to Karyn Kupcinet, just as much as those that tried to connect her to the JFK assassination. I vote to leave it be. AndToToToo 02:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You're showing signs of amnesia again. I keep trying to add to Karyn's article yet another source on Harold Kade screwing up the case of Karyn herself. It's James Ellroy's book Crime Wave. Though it contains just a chapter on Karyn, that chapter includes Ellroy saying that certain sheriffs doubted Kade's entire autopsy report. They believed Karyn's broken neck could have been broken by Dr. Kade. Wildhartlivie, who never investigated Karyn's case when it was fresh, likes to call what these lawmen said "gossip." What's going to happen next time I cite James Ellroy as a source ? Will someone call this talented writer, whose interest in murder began when his own mother was murdered, a gossip queen ? Dooyar (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: The talk page was reverted to an earlier edit in order to keep my post intact. From the history, I have copied the response by User:Dooyar to the broken up response into one posting below in order to keep his response on the page as well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

So ? I know somebody who got Carolyn Jones' autograph. That means he can't be little known, right ? Kupcinet's talk show was not a forerunner of The Tonight Show, which was invented by Steve Allen. When "Kup's Show" got on the ABC network, it only stayed there a short while. When a TV show disappears after a short while, people forget about it. A woman named Ilona Massey had a TV show on the DuMont Network in 1951, then the show disappeared, then the entire network went under and was forgotten. Massey said publicly she had relatives in Hungary who were murdered, so where are their Wikipedia articles ?Dooyar (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What's My Line? was also a "nationally broadcast television show." Why doesn't every person who ever appeared on it get a Wikipedia article ? Dooyar (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Those obituaries appeared forty years after his daughter died mysteriously. All of this is relevant to her Wiki article in that many people in Washington, DC, the Deep South, Texas and many other places read about Karyn Kupcinet's death in their local papers, then they forgot about it. They didn't recognize her last name. If her name was so potent all over the United States, then why did she use the name Tammy Windsor when she tried to crash Hollywood in 1960 ? That's in the article. If people in the Deep South were familiar with Irving Kupcinet in 1963, then why aren't you familiar with his daughter's Wikipedia article with all the technology available to you ? Dooyar (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said, there is so little to be gained by debating this, I believe you're arguing it just to be arguing. I outlined sufficient justification for removing the statement that he was little known outside of Chicago. Most of your response above is little more than rambling and doesn't merit a detailed response, beyond that it's a lot of rhetorical questions that mean nothing to the statement that was removed. Checking the history of the article will establish who is familiar with the article. Period. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Checking the history of Irving Kupcinet's career will establish who was familiar with him. I believe you are arguing just to be arguing.

Washington, DC might not have been a mecca for Hollywood movies in 1963, but it was a respectable newspaper market where Irving Kupcinet would have loved to gain more readers. But he didn't. His column never reached that city. All the way until he retired in 2001, very few people in the DC area gave a damn who he was or who his rich friends were. I was there. And I can prove Kup's column never was. If you don't want to be "little known" outside of Chicago, then you better make friends in DC. It's the Shakespeare capital of the Western Hemisphere because of all the pressure to succeed academically and in public service, but it still has migrants from Illinois -- the land of Kupcinet and his name dropping. Do you know how many people have to work for a congressman or a senator ? Know how many congressmen were from Illinois in 1963 ? Yet these Illinois people in DC could not read Kup's column when they got homesick. They couldn't introduce other DC people to Kup's column.

He was little known outside Chicago and Los Angeles, indeed. So he had something on a network for six months on which Carolyn Jones appeared ? That's nothing. In the 1950s the networks and cigarette companies were begging for commentators to go on live television, and they came and went without any impact. Live talk / variety shows were dirt cheap to put on the air. Carolyn Jones needed all the exposure she could get. Her career wasn't on the level of Audrey Hepburn's.

My addition to the article allows that Kupcinet was well - known in Chicago and Los Angeles. Elsewhere he was a ship passing in the night. News flash: there was no Internet when Karyn Kupcinet died.

A good comparison to Kupcinet is a man named Studs Terkel. Sure, he has a Wiki article today. But who in the Deep South knew him in 1963 ? And he had a network TV show in 1949. Oh, and it flopped like Kup's.

Let's see someone other than Wildhartlivie say Irving Kupcinet was well-known outside Chicago and Los Angeles. Wildhartlivie did a great job on the man's resume, but let's be realistic about who would have given a damn about his daughter's death a month after the last newspaper story on it. If you live 3,000 miles away from Karyn's apartment, then why would you think her killer is going to get you or your daughter ? This was before serial killers. Many cities didn't have jet planes in 1963. There were no interstate highways in Florida. Dooyar (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

So what? He was known. You are wasting time and effort over a sentence. He was known outside of Chicago and Los Angeles. All of your rhetorical rambling and pointless analogies are accomplishing nothing. It's so much not a huge point. I have one question for you. If no one gave a damn about his daughter's murder a month after the last newspaper story, then why are you beating your head against a wall over such an inconsequential sentence? At the 60th anniversary celebration of Irv Kupcinet's column in 2003, guests included Bill and Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Muhammad Ali, and Larry King. Tributes were given by Tony Bennett, Phyllis Diller, Bill Cosby, Kirk Douglas, Barbara Walters, Buddy Hackett, Sid Caesar and Ernest Borgnine. Kupcinet noted that his two favorite interviews ever conducted were with Frank Sinatra and President Harry S. Truman. He was known. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the time to get fully up to speed on the current debate, so forgive me if I misunderstand some aspect of the current disputes. There seems to be some dispute about the nature of Kupcinet's celebrity. When our interpretations of the facts differ, then we should turn to reliable sources instead of those interpretations. If we wish to assert that Kupcienet was or was not nationally known, we should quote a reliable source that makes this point, not rely on our personal interpretations. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The source of the information I listed above regarding the extent to which Irv Kupcinet was known and the range of high profile persons, including persons based in and working from Washington DC, who were involved in his anniversary celebration, can be found here.[1] It is an enormous waste of time and energy to have to debate to this extent every small bit of information which is either added or removed, especially when it is difficult to figure out what exactly the other position is. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Your source on Irv Kupcinet's 60th anniversary gala identifies some gala guests who had lived in Washington, DC -- and every single one of them was a president of the United States, a First Lady with ambitions to run for office herself, or a Secretary of Defense. Do you honestly believe they represent a good sampling of DC newspaper readers, thereby proving that Mr. Kupcinet was well-known in that city when his daughter died ? You also have cited his Washington Post obit. The man died forty years after his daughter's murder. By the time he died in 2003, DC people learned about him on the Internet. That was not the case in 1963. In 1963 all you had was your local newspaper and maybe the New York Times, which never ran "Kup's column."

So what if Irving Kupcinet said his two favorite interviews were with Sinatra and Truman ? Newsflash. Sinatra never lived in the DC area. He never lived in many places where "Kup" was invisible. And "Kup" interviewed Truman in Chicago in the 1950s when the former president and his wife often rode on a passenger train from their Missouri home to Chicago, where you had to change trains before jet planes became available in every airport. Kup explains this in his 1988 memoir. He states further in the book that "changing trains" was the reason he got a large majority of his interviews with politicians and Hollywood stars such as Sinatra in the pre - jet era. When Sinatra traveled from Hollywood to New York back then, he, too, changed trains in Chicago. Remember, Kup's column started in 1943 -- during a world war.

When jet plane travel became commonplace in the early 1960s, those celebrities didn't forget about the newspaper columnist who held court in The Pump Room, Chicago within walking distance of the trains. They kept confiding in him because he never betrayed their secrets. He was a lot nicer than Walter Winchell (whose name belongs in Karyn's Wiki article because he damaged the sheriffs' investigation.) Once the celebrities trust you, even the invention of the Space Shuttle doesn't change that. Maybe you know where Hillary Clinton spent her entire childhood and adolescence and where her high school teachers encouraged her to pursue politics. If you do, then you know why she, too, had a motive to visit "Kup" on her visits to the places she knew as a kid. And Bill is going to join her. When you set your sights on the presidency, you learn to visit your old high school, the townspeople and the nearby conduit to Hollywood whether you enjoy doing it or not.

Alright then, why am I "beating [my] head against a wall over such an inconsequential sentence ?" Because it's very consequential in the segment of Karyn Kupcinet's article that you keep changing about "Press Coverage." I made the point that for a few days, her murder was a big story in a large majority of American cities and towns where people did not recognize her last name. They did not know who her father was.

Los Angeles papers, of course, included the most details about the K.K. case, such as the home address of Mark and Marcia Goddard where Karyn seemed zonked out on her last day. Then, four days after the breaking stories, the LA papers published some unfavorable stuff on Karyn, such as evidence that she had put together the bizarre, vaguely threatening notes that had freaked out Andrew Prine, and evidence that Karyn had been busted for shoplifting a year earlier. Out of compassion, I always have omitted the shoplifting from the article. But newspapers outside of Los Angeles never published that unfortunate stuff. That's understandable. Why would they find it newsworthy ? Why would they print stuff implying that she's a spoiled brat when their readers cannot comprehend where her money and privilege came from ? This was a lot different from the Hollywood murder of Johnny Stompanato five years earlier because everyone knew who his girlfriend Lana Turner was. Her movies went everywhere.

I checked papers in DC, North Carolina and Florida, and they never ran stuff about Karyn's freaky notes or the shoplifting. Immediately after the LA papers gave those details to their readers, they dropped the Karyn Kupcinet story totally. They literally never mentioned her name again for several decades. That's what I tried several times to explain in the article, but I made the mistake of pointing out (with sources) that Karyn's father was invisible in many cities and towns. Am I going to find out next that Hillary Clinton's entire take on feminism and her application to Wellesley was inspired by her horrified reaction, when she was 16, to what those mean men did to the first feminist actress ?

Should I believe that the man who introduced Johnny Carson to the world had a daughter who changed Hollywood history, replaced the Black Dahlia and then set the course for the 2008 election ? You must forgive me for suggesting that the District of Columbia always has been home to many people who never meet the politicians, yet they read newspapers. The papers tell them about all sorts of black - tie galas filled with people unknown to the dentist in Georgetown or the grocer in Arlington, Virginia. Forgive me for getting near that concept. Oh, and we know that if DC newspapers never ran Kup's column, neither did a lot of cities or towns across the United States. And his TV talk show ? That never reached DC or many other television markets, either. It lasted into the era of CNN and MTV, but remember how the celebrities continued to trust Irv Kupcinet therefore he gets guests for the show every day, therefore the local advertisers in Chicago are happy and they keep buying time. But they don't care about a woman who was murdered 20 / 30 years ago or whenever it was. You must accept that the Karyn Kupcinet case never was the number one mystery of the 20th century. Far from it. Lots of people never got interested in it. Dooyar (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what your position is, it flips quite often, depending on what you're pushing. An editor is supposed to be objective and add factual information. An editor isn't supposed to withhold verifiable information out of compassion, then turn around and tell someone they "must accept" that the case was essentially inconsequential in the scheme of things. Actually, I'm only interested in it being a good article, I'm not in the least interested in all the coatracking you try to put into it. The diatribe about the Clintons and your opinion of them is irrelevant and inconsequential. I was asked for a source for his being known. I provided one. A source doesn't require that the citizens of Washington DC be polled to whether this man is personally known to them, or that for anything to be significant, the citizens of the Washington DC area need know who they are. This has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. The first feminist actress? Please. Irv Kupcinet won 15 Emmy Awards and a Peabody Award in 1966. He was known. It's been established to my satisfaction, as well to other editors who have contributed to the article. Let it go. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What my position is ? You're not supposed to take a position on the Kupcinet case here. Our article even includes the possibility that her death was not a murder. That angered someone who used to contribute here but stopped. I'm not supposed to withhold verifiable information out of compassion ? Alright then, you are welcome to add Karyn's shoplifting arrest and conviction if you please. I always omit it because it happened in Pomona, which was hard for Karyn to reach without a car, and it happened before she met Andrew Prine, so it will make the article more vague. If you enjoy acting without compassion for a dead person who is largely unknown today, please feel free to add it.

No, a source does not require a Gallup poll or any other poll of Washington, DC residents who never set foot in the White House. But these residents are human beings. Take away the Internet, which did not exist in 1963, and they have no supernatural way of getting to know Irv Kupcinet. It is a fact that his column was not printed in any DC newspaper. Another fact is that his TV talk show never reached the nation's capital.

I speculated about your strange elevation of Karyn and her father to nationwide superstar status. I did that because your use of Harry Truman and the Clintons to gauge Kupcinet's power makes no sense. Presidents have always known out-of-state people who are unknown to other DC residents. Truman passed through Chicago's Union Station many times as a matter of necessity after he lost access to Air Force One, and Irv Kupcinet often met him in a restaurant very close to the station. Hillary Clinton was born and raised in Rockford, Illinois -- a fact you refused to find in her Wiki article even though you use her to gauge Kupcinet's readership. I'm not going to explain how easy it was for Hillary to travel from Rockford to Chicago in the 1950s and 1960s. That's been published.

I changed the "Press Coverage" section to explain the remarkable fact that the Kupcinet murder story reached many places where people had never heard of the actress before. In that sense, she had something in common with millions of murder victims who become well-known in death only. You probably will revert the edit with your recurring flimsy argument that presidents and defense secretarys of the 1990s knew Irv Kupcinet, therefore everybody knew him in 1963. Let's see if anyone other than you chimes in on this. Do you mind biting your tongue until Gamaliel or another occasional contributor to this page reacts to your position ? Please wait. Thank you. Dooyar (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are withholding verifiable information from the article out of compassion, you're inflicting a POV stance into your editing and taking a position regarding the article, which isn't new. If she was arrested and it's relevant to her death, then by all means, put it in. But this time, give some solid reference for a fact. Gamaliel isn't your ally regarding this article. He's a dispassionate observer, which he should be as an administrator. When this came up two weeks ago, Gamaliel's only comment regarding this issue was "If we wish to assert that Kupcinet was or was not nationally known, we should quote a reliable source that makes this point, not rely on our personal interpretations." I did so. You cannot submit that there is no reference to give, thus he wasn't well known. The absence of verifiable citations to a statement does not constitute a fact. Calling up people you knew in DC, North Carolina and Virginia and discovering that they do know who he is does not constitute a fact. Relying on that information to insert a statement into an article is considered original research. Beyond that, you insist on inflating and aggrandizing everything related to establishing that fact completely out of proportion to its importance in this article. Stop it. And again, I repeat, Irv Kupcinet won 15 Emmy Awards and a Peabody Award in the 1950s and 1960s. He was well known. And again, I repeat, this has been established to everyone's satisfaction in your absence during the past week. It's settled. There are three regular contributors to this article. Two of us have agreed on these issues. You take the opposite position on any and everything we try to do with the article. Again, please stop it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

How do Irv Kupcinet's 15 Emmy Awards and a Peabody Award establish anything about people who never saw his TV shows ? Many people never saw them. They were never broadcast in Washington, DC or in many other cities. Joe Franklin won awards, but you had to be in the New York area to see his longrunning talk show.

You are misrepresenting the word "everyone" when you claim that Irv Kupcinet's superstardom "has been established to everyone's satisfaction." You admit that just one other person besides you and me still visits this page. Three Wikipedia contributors hardly constitute "everyone." I hereby propose the idea that you have frightened away other contributors.

Also, you are engaging in personal attacks. You have accused me of "calling up people [I] knew in DC, North Carolina and Virginia" to ask them about Kupcinet. I never have done that, nor have I claimed to. It would be telephone harassment. Now that you're making personal attacks on me, I will have to report you to see if you should be suspended. You did that to me when I suggested that you get some counselling, and that's hardly an attack mode. Dooyar (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Of the editors who have contributed at all to this page in the past, only three remain. Of the editors remaining (yourself, Pinkadelica and myself), two of us agreed on this. That is what I said above. In the context of this article, that is everyone.

There were only two regular editors when I came to this article. Two of the others turned out to be sock puppets of ColScott, namely BillyJoelFan and NomeKing, and were indefinitely banned some time ago. I don't know kc440, nor have I ever interacted with that person. You accused me before of coming in anonymously before I came to this page and running her off. I did not report you for personal attacks. What I did was request page protection while issues regarding another editor were resolved. I did not mention your name. The administrator who checked the request opted to take that action. When you returned I asked you nicely to please not start up again.

I refer you to your edit on this page on November 2007, wherein you say:

"Other good sources are people who were over the age of 18 living in DC and Raleigh in 1963. I've talked with them, and they say they never heard of Irv Kupcinet until I told them about Karyn's death."

I retract the reference to Virginia, however, you do say you talked to people in Washington DC and North Carolina. It still does not constitute a verifiable fact. This is a futile exercise, I have established sufficiently that Irv Kupcinet was known (please note that at no time have I used the word "superstar," nor have I inflated his standing beyond what the verifiable sources have said). Please stop making this personal and move on to more relevant issues regarding articles on Wikipedia. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You're twisting what I said. I never said I talked with them on the phone, and I never said I queried them specifically for an article on Kupcinet. The truth is I lived in those places in the 1960s, and I can say truthfully that the name "Kupcinet" was unknown in them. Dooyar (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It still does not constitute a verifiable fact. This is a futile exercise, I have established sufficiently that Irv Kupcinet was known (please note that at no time have I used the word "superstar," nor have I inflated his standing beyond what the verifiable sources have said). Please stop making this personal and move on to more relevant issues regarding articles on Wikipedia. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This article was fine the way it was. It needed a few additional references, but for the most part, it was much better than previous versions. Some of the newly added information in this article (which has subsequently been removed) was unneeded. If someone needs or wants to know the history of the New Beverly Theater, they can read that article. The same goes for A Streetcar Named Desire. The whole dispute of Irv Kupcinet's star status is moot point. Saying he was popular or little known is a POV statement anyway and shouldn't be included. Unless there's a poll done by a reputable third party and the article needs that information to prove some point, the statement has no place in the article. Two "regular" editors (Wildhartlivie and myself) have both edited this article repeatedly to bring it up to encyclopedic standards. Seeing as only three people edit this article and two of us have agreed on certain content while adhering to WP:NPOV and WP:MOS, I think that the informal consensus should be upheld. If a formal consensus involving established editors needs to be taken, so be it. Pinkadelica (talk) 05:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Like Wildhartlivie, you use the word "poll" to suggest how impossible it would be to gauge exactly how wide Irv Kupcinet's audience was at the time his daughter died.

But it is possible to gauge this, and you don't need any polls. All you need do is find where "Kup's column" was published and where it wasn't. Find where his TV talk show was broadcast and where it wasn't. And you know what ? The column was never published in many American cities and towns, and the TV show was never broadcast in them.

Please explain how anyone can recognize a strange name he / she has never read in print or heard on television.

And I never went into detail about the New Beverly "Theater" (actually the N.B. Cinema as the article says) or about the movie "A Streetcar Named Desire." All I said was the establishment wasn't a typical "movie house" in that era, and the movie was 12 years old. Anyone who reads this Wiki article for the first time trying to solve the mystery faces the obstacle that Andrew Prine does not seem like a stereotypical misogynist -- not that he did anything wrong at any time. We do know his first date with Anna Capri, who was an immigrant from Bavaria, was an unusual first date. Dooyar (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable material

Dooyar, unless you can provide specific citations that support your contention that "The breaking news story of Kupcinet's murder was picked up by many American newspapers to which her father's column was not syndicated, and their readers had never heard of her before" and "This result of the investigation was not published outside of Los Angeles" do not continue to return this material to the article. Each time you do this, you remove material that has references provided. This talk page is here to DISCUSS such issues. Practicing collaboration and cooperation in editing an article is not supposed to occur in edit summaries, but on the talk page. Pinkadelica and I concur that this material is not necessary in the article. That is a CONSENSUS of the editors who are working here. Please either work with us, or desist in engaging in these arbitrary and deliberate evasions of consensus. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Other regular Wikipedia contributors have said it is wrong to provide the type of citation I would need to back up the fact that new people discovered the Kupcinet family only after the murder. What I would need is to cite newspapers that never published "Kup's column" and TV stations that never aired his talk show. And you can't do that, according to RickDC and other Wikipedia contributors.

I can cite the breaking story of the murder as it appeared in the Washington Post edition of December 2, 1963. I have seen it and the photograph of Karyn that appeared in it. Haven't seen the photo anywhere else. But I can't say in the article that the Post never ran her father's column. I can't say the other DC papers never ran it, either. I can't say TV viewers in the nation's capital never saw the man's TV show. It's impossible to cite all the newspaper stories and TV shows that did appear in Washington, DC in order to prove that other entities did not. And you're not allowed to say in a footnote that you looked for such-and-such on microfilm and never found it. Dooyar (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow!

Pink, this revision is TERRIFIC!! It's quite NPOV, flows nicely, covers the important facts in the case, and doesn't ramble or entertain tangential information that confuses the story. Terrific!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Thanks alot of correcting the errors and renaming certain sections. Hopefully we're on our way to a decent and informative article. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Suicide

I've re-added the info about Ellroy theorizing that Kupcinet's death may have been an intentional or accidental suicide. This information is sourced and in fact, has TWO sources. I have included both for good measure. Both sources are third party and seemingly reliable. Even if one doesn't agree with the content, said content should not be removed if it is sourced and worded properly. I haven't quoted Ellroy as saying this because he was not quoted in either source, but seeing as two different publications have claimed he said (ones that I assume have fact checkers) and Kupcinet's niece verified Ellroy's theory of suicide and dismissed it, it's safe to say that at some point, he expressed these ideas. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

well first, "accidental suicide" made me laugh. There are accidents and you die and then there are suicides and you die. Second the next sentences hurt my head. You ASSUME checkers? I don't. Some writer is "theorizing"? Well this guy believed that George Hodel was the killer of the Black Dahlia. He has been humiliated for being wrong up and down the internets. So why not put down MY theory? Theone in which Martians killed her? Oh, right, because it is not relevantDefianceofTheGood (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have an issue with content, you should first discuss it on the talk page. Since this article has undergone numerous edits, two regular editor have come to a consensus that the material that was included was relevant and properly sourced. We're both attempting to get this article on the right track. Seeing as both sources are magazine articles and published words, I was begin facetious when I said assumed these articles were fact checked before going to press. I don't care about other theories regarding other cases. The reason the theories about her death are here is simply because she is connected to the JFK assassination. All theories need to be presented to balance out the article. Your opinion about her death has no place in the article. Whether you agree with it or not, her death was ruled a homicide and there is sourced material to back that up. The case is also unsolved which is also documented. As far as the obsessed fan comment which I gather was directed at me, I kindly point you to Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Etiquette. Also, if edits are reverted again, you will be in violation of the 3RR rule. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Defiance- this lady is CRAZY- she only edits Kupcinet, believes that the stupid chick was murdered and doesn't understand that whatever she writes will be changed the next day. Stay away from her. I'll get her Bannedadelicad behind the scenes. She drove Dooyar and Isotope22 and ColScott away with her violations of sanity. Up hers. -Ryan Buushbby from the road.66.77.102.10 22:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Newest changes

I left the following note on the talk page of the editor who made the lengthy changes to the article a few moments ago:

I haven't read over the changes you've made to this article yet, but that isn't necessary to ask the question I have. What I'm wondering, after everything that has has transpired with this page, and you knowing that there are two other editors who have worked quite diligently on it, is why you didn't at least bring up such an extensive rewrite on the talk page before you dived right in to it? That is what collaboration and cooperation in working on an article is all about. It's what Wikipedia asks of its editors. We've tried, over and over, to establish such an atmosphere on this page, but to no avail. After the rework last week, the other two of us were quite satisfied with what the page had to say. We had discussed depending so heavily on James Ellroy's book and hoping for outside sources besides his. If you'd looked on the talk page you would have seen that we had agreed that we were happy with it as it was until other sources could be found. By simply ignoring us and delving into this rework, you have again circumvented consensus on the progress of the page. What is it going to take to get you to work with us instead of instead of around us, behind us, and independently of any collaboration on this article? ?

Wildhartlivie 06:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, please read it before you change it back entirely to your version of last week. It does not depend more heavily on Ellroy's book than yours. After consolidating all the Ellroy footnotes into A, B, C, etc. the dependence might seem heavy, but you will note I left all the other sources intact save one that misquoted James Ellroy. In the section for "Accidental death," someone used a source other than Ellroy's book for his supposed claim that Karyn could have "clipped her hyoid bone on a coffee table." The primary source for Ellroy's claims is his book, and if you check it you find that he said "chair," not "coffee table."

Why didn't I "bring up such an extensive rewrite on the talk page before" I dove into it ? Because that's impossible. Someone planning to make several changes can't possibly announce, "I'm going to do this, this and this ..." As I said, the new version is not as radical a change as you seem to be implying. Please read it before you object. For example, I preserved the "Personal life" section but added a subheading of "Issues with relationships" above the paragraph on her obsession with Andrew Prine. Without that subheading, you have just the one subheading of "Drug abuse." One subheading looks bad. I changed "Drug abuse" to "Alleged eating disorder" because "Drug abuse" can imply narcotics, and no evidence exists that Karyn had a stoner mentality. Evidence, including the block quote I added from her 1962 Los Angeles Times interview, points more to her wanting to please everybody with a thin body. That's the classic litany of an "eating disordered actress" (as Ellroy called her on the first page of his chapter on her), but I made sure to say "Possible eating disorder."

Again, please read this version before you change it back entirely to your version of last week. Some of the edits were minor, such as my moving a comma from outside the end quotation mark to inside it, and my moving a period the same way.

Of course, you can collaborate. And again, I only changed one footnote because the source misquoted James Ellroy. If you're sick and tired of his book, you can't use a magazine article that misquotes him (a coffee table versus a chair). I did not remove a single sourced statement from your version of last week. I changed one source from another journalist's take on Ellroy's words to Ellroy's actual words in his book. Everything he ever said about Kupcinet can be found in his book and in an online interview with him from 2001 that someone removed from this article many edits ago, and I won't put that one back. (In the online interview he denounced the JFK connection.)

You will note that I studied your version of last week before I made changes to it. I have read everything except my own personal talk page. I'll read it now. Dooyar 11:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Dooyar, you cannot stick in statements in front of sourced items in an attempt to pass them off as sourced. For example, putting the name of Earl Holliman's girlfriend's name is not in the source I provided. If you know that information and have a source for it, great, include it. Otherwise, providing information that is not available at the reference citation is incorrect and will be removed by anyone checking for verifiability. You've also added information that is not sourced and removed citation tags without providing references. Also, why did you delete the entire section about drug abuse and Ellroy's suicide theory? I get that you don't feel Ellroy said this and you're relying on his book as your reference, but two different publications stated he said it. Kupcient's niece acknowledged the statement and dismissed it. Unless you're calling the Chicago Magazine's reliability into question, it should remain in the article. One cannot omit information because they personally don't like the way it makes the subject look. Both Wildhartlivie and I have agreed that the information is valid and sourced properly and that amounts to consensus, yet you keep removing it. As far as the coffee table versus a chair, the entire phrase can be omitted. It can simply state she fell, end of. I'm not going to change the page for now because I'm going to give you the opportunity to consult a neutral and established third party editor to assist you. Until that time, the edits on this page need to stop until an acceptable version can be agreed upon by the three editors involved. If you choose to keep adding and deleting sourced information from the page simply based on your personal feelings or because you feel if you didn't write it, it must be wrong, this will be escalated into mediation and we can go from there. This article has been the source of too many edits and way too much contention. Pinkadelica 02:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete the section titled "Drug abuse." I changed it to "Possible eating disorder" because "Drug abuse" suggests narcotics, while "Possible eating disorder" is a better match for the type of pharmaceutical drugs found in Karyn's apartment. I added an excerpt from a Los Angeles Times interview of Karyn in which all she wanted to talk about was food and weight gain, not the TV show she was promoting. The article appeared on a page of the newspaper about television and movies, not food. It ran on the day of the week Karyn's TV series aired on CBS prime-time. The article is a painful indicator of a young woman aiming to please as opposed to saying, "Screw you, I'm getting stoned."

I never omitted any information in order to spare Karyn from looking bad. During the many weeks I have contributed to this article, I have always known that Karyn was arrested and convicted of shoplifting in 1962. Ellroy provides detail, but he cannot explain why Karyn was arrested at a store in Pomona, California. Nobody can explain that. We have to include in the JFK section the fact that she could not drive, and that would just make the shoplifting story even more cryptic. Worse, Ellroy says Karyn traveled everywhere by taxicab, which would make an inclusion of the shoplifting episode even more mindboggling than her death. Rather than tease people with an imaginary scenario of Karyn taking an expensive taxicab ride to a store and then boosting stuff worth less than five dollars total, I am backing off from this information permanently. Other contributors have cited Ellroy's book as a source, which means they, too, know about the shoplifting. Or maybe they forgot it because of the mindboggling Pomona location.

Ellroy's thirty pages on Kupcinet in his book are very straightforward. He never speculates on why Karyn stole merchandise in Pomona instead of Los Angeles. Nothing in the chapter comes across as speculative. He seems to have interviewed many people. He is good at clarifying that Person A believed one thing, Person B believed something different. The last few pages have an excellent conclusion in which Ellroy gets everything off his chest. He dwells on the indications that Karyn was disoriented from the pills, but he never suggests suicide. Anyone who theorizes about suicide has to explain how Karyn could have done it, and Ellroy offers nothing like that. Because of his concise writing style and the tone of his chapter, I am doubting that in 2004 (six years after he wrote his Kupcinet chapter) Ellroy actually talked about a Kupcinet suicide. If Chicago magazine quoted him as saying that, it is much less reliable than a book published by a major company and credited entirely to one author.

If such a mistake in a magazine seems farfetched, consider that in my most recent edits I had to fix a mistake made by either Penn Jones, Jr. or someone who takes him seriously. Somewhere in the Kupcinet conspiracy theory that Jones originated, there is a reference to the "Toronto Star-Telegram" as Jones' source of an AP story about the Oxnard, California woman with foreknowledge of the assassination. Oops! Such a newspaper never existed. In truth, on the day of the assassination there was a Toronto Daily Star and a Toronto Evening Telegram. The Evening Telegram expired several years later. The Toronto Daily Star became the Toronto Star. Rather than speculate on which of the two papers ran the AP story on the Oxnard woman who knew too much, I changed our text so that the AP story "was published in Toronto and other cities." Who cares precisely which newspapers ran it? They didn't name Karyn Kupcinet as the phone caller.

It's fine with me if a mediator goes over all this stuff. Please tell the mediator that the "Toronto Star-Telegram" never existed. Whoever added this detail to our article copied it from his/her source correctly. It's Deja Vu for me, though I wish I could recall exactly where I saw it. I have seen this "Toronto Star-Telegram" in an assassination blog as the source on Jones' favorite telephone woman. I'm not saying the Associated Press never ran the story. I'm saying you have to get the newspaper right. Dooyar 11:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not even going to attempt to address everything you've said here. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. This is a concept which you persist in ignoring each and every time that you charge in and make wholesale changes to this article that circumvent the collabortive process and fly in the face of the consensus of the other editors of the page. We have asked you to discuss these sort of changes on the talk page before you undertake them, which you continue to ignore, and said as much above when you said you couldn't possibly announce you were going to make changes. That suggests that your edits are not well thought out, or you could discuss them first. You continue to make changes based on your personal perception of things, for example, your statements above regarding the use of the phrase "drug abuse." Drug abuse does not suggest narcotics, it suggests drug abuse. Instead, you changed the title completely and introduced an entirely new issue to the page in the guise of an eating disorder, then offered a huge block of text where she discusses her weight and the dieting methods she follows. Excess dieting and using weight control drugs does not an eating disorder make, and you offer no supporting documentation of any indication of an eating disorder. Compulsive dieting for a Hollywood actress is far from unusual and doesn't equate with eating disorders. And now suddenly, you've now thrown into this talk page discussion a totally unrelated shoplifting arrest that has no bearing on the matter of her death and means nothing to the development of the article, so why bring it up, if not to cloud the issue at hand. Finally, there is nothing gained by throwing little details about how many people agreed that someone seemed genuinely upset by the JFK assassination. The article only needs to touch upon it and include the denial of the father. Finally, please go take a look at WP:BIO regarding the layout and inclusion criteria for biographies. The way in which you changed the first couple of paragraphs to talk about Karyn Kupcinet's father without using her name (your words in the edit summary) isn't in compliance with the way in which biographies should be written. I've said this more than once and I'll say it again: If you want to write a detailed and rambling account about the theories and your thoughts on the life and death of Karyn Kupcinet, then write an essay, publish a book, or build a webpage, but please stop introducing them in this way to what is supposed to be a straightforward, cited and balanced article about it. The article is not about James Ellroy's thoughts and theories on her death. It must take into account all the sources available on it, which it has not been doing. It is time for someone to step in and arbitrate this issue, since we have bent over backwards, time and time again, in an attempt to get you to work with us, not around us, behind our backs, or in flagrant disregard for the consensus that has been drawn on the issues and inclusions on this article. Don't come in and change everything on the page and then tell us that you did it, and don't change it. That has gotten very old, very fast. Wildhartlivie 14:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I consider the following statement of yours to be a personal attack. "If you want to write a detailed and rambling account about the theories and your thoughts on the life and death of Karyn Kupcinet, then write an essay, publish a book, or build a webpage." A personal attack violates a Wikipedia rule. I never have called YOUR words on Kupcinet "rambling."

Also, you totally ignored the fact that the Toronto Star-Telegram never existed. Don't believe me ? Read the Wiki article for the Toronto Star. It gives you the whole history of the newspaper. Dooyar 04:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Newbie here! You're making points that I don't agree with! Saying this woman had a problem with drug abuse is just as speculative as saying she had an eating disorder. Why not keep it as possible eating disorder? And we're not putting her trouble with the law into the article! That's just here in discussion. Let's keep the two sentences about Cookie the little girl seeing her father move on up from the latest football game to a big column about all the celebrities. I, for one, think it's relevant that Cookie met all those people when she was so young and then she wanted people to pay attention to her,too. You are right about Coldwater Canyon Avenue. I'll take that out. My version will have a little of this and a little of that!Debbiesvoucher 21:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to Dooyar: Yes, you did erase most of the content I added and sourced to the page. Whatever your reasonings are for doing that have no bearing because you refuse to work in a collaborative effort with the two other main editors on this page or with anyone else for that matter. None of us own this page, but two of us are attempting to bring this article up to Wikipedia standards and we've both been hindered at every effort to do so. If you had an issue with the content I added, you could've easily pointed out what you felt were inaccuracies instead of deleting entire passages and sticking unsourced items in the article in front of citations I provided. A simple message on my talk page or this talk page could've solved all of this, but instead, you took it upon yourself to rewrite an already overwritten article to add what you think is correct. That is not a collaborative effort, that is you telling anyone who dares to edit this page that their research or sources aren't as valid as yours. Sometimes varying sources do not add up, sometimes people are misquoted, no one ever disputed that. What we are disputing is you taking it upon yourself to decide what information should be included and what sources are not reliable based on your personal opinion. Could it be possible that Ellroy made a statement about a possible overdose or intentional suicide after he wrote that book? I think that is quite possible, but that is something none of us ever discussed here because you deleted everything that wasn't in your sources. I find it quite odd that Kupcinet's niece acknowledged this suicide theory of Ellroy's and dismissed it yet you claim Ellroy never said it. Again, another thing that should have been discussed before changes were made. So many edits have been made that even a third party has trouble figuring out what the correct content is. That should never be an issue with any biography on Wikipedia. Pinkadelica 02:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Dooyar, first of all, are you familiar at all with the layout guidelines for talk pages? When you post a comment in response to another one in a section, you are supposed to add it at the bottom of that section, not between two earlier additions. Things manage to get lost. Secondly, it's regrettable you find my comment to be a personal attack. That's an easy accusation to make, but in fact, I said nothing negative about you, made no threat, did nothing harassing, nor did I misrepresent anything. It's fairly well established by now that I often find your additions hard to follow, that is an opinion, not an accusation or attack. Thirdly, you're right, I did ignore the Toronto Star-Telegram comment. I said I wasn't going to even attempt to address what you had written. It's futile. Fourth, please direct your attention to what is going on at the bottom of the talk page. We have asked for dispute resolution regarding the direction this page has been taking because both Pinkadelica and myself have had no success whatsoever with trying to have a civilized discussion and collaboration with you regarding it. You ignore it and charge on with no consideration for the points we make. So, we have asked an outside objective and unbiased editor to come in and try to hash some of this out. Please be so kind as to direct your attention to that at this point. That is why we asked for the page protection to prevent anonymous and newly registered editors from tampering with the article while we attempt to work these problems out like adults. Meanwhile, it really is in the best interest of the article to suspend wholesale editing to the page while this is on-going. Thank you. Wildhartlivie 07:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)