Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:01, 30 November 2007

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Karyn Kupcinet. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Karyn Kupcinet at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography United States: Texas This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas. Chicago This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. ...

Archives

August 2005 -

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages: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)

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Texas articles
• Unknown-importance Texas articles
• WikiProject Texas articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Unassessed Chicago articles
• Unknown-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles