Talk:Karyn Kupcinet/Archive 2

Untitled

I was an early contributer to this page till I couldn't stand it anymore. I'm putting this up here because I made a major mistake, though verified on IMdB. In 1960, Karyn Kupcinet appeared on Hawaiian Eye uncredited. I mistakenly thought she played "The Clerk." That woman's name was Tammy Windsor. Tammy Windsor and Karyn Kupcinet are not the same person, even though IMdB says they are. Someone made the same mistake I did. I saw Tammy Windsor on an Andy Griffith DVD -- and she certainly wasn't Karyn Kupcinet. I found this out yesterday and am posting this here to correct the error -- it's a major one. Sorry.Kc440 (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I've been asked to take a look at the edit dispute on this article. I've had a few looks at the article, at the edits, and at the comments that have been made here on the talkpage and on users' talk pages. It doesn't strike me immediately that the edit differences are huge - it appears that those involved are familiar with the subject and wish to present the material in slightly different ways, but those involved are not as far apart as they think they might be. I would also say that, given the fraught nature of Wiki editing when people have differences of opinion, that the discussions have been fairly reasonable. So my first observation is that this dispute is between people who clearly are intelligent, knowledgeable, can write well, and have an interest in making this article as fine as possible. Now, for the sake of moving this on as quickly as possible, I would suggest we actually move quite slowly at first. There have been at times some big and complex edits which it can be hard to follow, and the disputes go back a long way and involve several users. Months of edit and counter-edit are not going to be sorted out in one session! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Death or murder?

One dispute that stands out for me, has been around for a while, and which appears in the lead section, is the exact wording of Kupcinet's death. We've had various: "died mysteriously", "murdered in a case that remains unsolved", "Karyn Kupcinet's murder", and "Kupcinet's death, which the coroner ruled a homicide".

The two versions that are currently leap-frogging are "Karyn Kupcinet's murder" and "Kupcinet's death, which the coroner ruled a homicide". I'd like to hear explanations as to why one version is better than the other. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look and attempting to sort this out. The reason there are different wordings is one reason; too many edits. A few anonymous editors who came and went disputed that she was murdered despite her death being ruled a homicide. At some point, the content was changed to reflect whatever that editor thought to be true. There's sourced information that states her official cause of death and at one point, that was included. It's the old too many cooks adage. Pinkadelica 01:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for looking in on this. The issues are really a bit complex at times. My issue with the wording "Kupcinet's death, which the coroner ruled a homicide" is that it is simply a weaselly way of alluding to an old issue, which is whether the coroner's findings were accurate and valid.

Her death was recorded as murder, it was investigated as a murder, and it is an open case that is unsolved. The way the coroner is mentioned in the opening makes it read as if it is a disclaimer ("that's what the CORONER said") and the problem is that it goes back to the other editor's desire to incorporate material into the article regarding problems that came up 2 1/2 years after Kupcinet's death, and were unrelated to it, regarding the coroner, his drinking and errors in his findings in other strangulation cases.

We have argued that point to exhaustion. When the coroner was investigated for those errors, there was nothing mentioned in regard to Kupcinet's autopsy, nothing that alleges that he made an error or that called Kupcinet's autopsy into question. This issue was raised by one author, James Ellroy, who wrote about the case. (I have other issues with Ellroy, but those are reserved for a later debate.) There are no references out there that establish that the coroner's findings for Kupcinet were incorrect or the autopsy was flawed, although at one time, we had a heated discussion over whether it was original research to add material that said a) the coroner said she was strangled, b) 2 1/2 years later the same coroner lost his job over another case where the finding was strangulation when it was not and c) if you add these two issues together does it then imply that he made the same error earlier, in the absence of any official investigation into his work on the Kupcinet case. We arrived at a consensus where we left mention of allegations over the coroner's drinking problem at the time of Kupcinet's death, without putting in the speculation that he made errors in the autopsy.

Suddenly, in the last couple of days, the other editor comes up with a "quote" - from the same Ellroy source that has been used all along - where the coroner supposedly said "At least I didn't break the hyoid bone on this one!" When I removed that statement, I said that I would have to see that source in writing before I would accept it, since it suddenly has cropped up after nearly two months from the same book the other editor has used religiously since the beginning. Both Pinkdelica and I are attempting to find a copy of the Ellroy book in order to check things for ourselves. The article has a horrid tendency to get carried off into tangents as it is. In short, (and why didn't I do that to start?) saying that the coroner ruled it a homicide is a mealy way of implying he was wrong without explicitly saying so. The finding was murder, it was unsolved. It doesn't need each point to have qualifications added. (Editor #1). Wildhartlivie 02:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Here I am at the bottom of the page just like you requested. I'll get back to the Toronto Star-Telegram a little later.

Since you're already suspended from changing the article, maybe you can hold your tongue on this "Discussion" page, too, until you have the Ellroy book in front of you. Many libraries have it. When you get it, turn to the bottom of page 92 (trade paperback edition, which seems to be the only format) and ... voila! Coroner Harold Kade is quoted as saying, following an autopsy he did after Karyn Kupcinet's, "At least I didn't break the hyoid bone on this one!"

It is precisely because of James Ellroy's alleged domination of the article that I went to all that trouble to cite the newspaper coverage of Dr. Kade's fall from grace in late 1966 / early 1967. Those articles in the Los Angeles Times and the Herald-Examiner cited two autopsies of young women performed by Dr. Kade. He said they, too, had been strangled. Then he got busted. Then he was asked to resign. By the time he resigned, the Kupcinet case was three years old and her parents, who lived in Illinois, might not have known about the Kade scandal. It might not have gotten published in Illinois. That could be why nobody held Kupcinet against Dr. Kade when he was down. Yet the fact remains that the mistakes he was accused of making were very similar to a mistake James Ellroy suggested he could have made on Kupcinet.

Why didn't I just cite page 92 in the Ellroy book long ago, considering that it suggests specifically that Dr. Kade screwed up Kupcinet's autopsy ? I didn't do it because people were complaining even then that Ellroy dominated the entire article. You know what ? He is one of just two published sources on Kupcinet right now. Chicago magazine is the other, and I'd like to know eventually if Chicago magazine mentions Dr. Harold Kade. If you rule out that Los Angeles newspaper coverage of Dr. Kade's downfall on the basis that it never mentions Kupcinet, then you are stuck with two sources. Or else you can wait for Dr. Paul Fecteau and Kari Kupcinet to finish their book. At least someone has the decency to leave the reference to their book project in our article. Appropriately, it is the last sentence in the text. I Emailed both of them (their Email addresses are on the Washburn University web site referenced in our article) asking them if they are aware of Dr. Kade's fall from grace in 1966 / 1967, but they did not reply.

Oh, and the Toronto Star-Telegram never existed. It's that simple. Never existed. On November 22, 1963 there was a Toronto Daily Star and a Toronto Evening Telegram. You can get that at the Wiki article for Toronto Star. Unless you can prove that the Associated Press article on the hysterical woman in Oxnard, Califonia was published in one of those two newspapers, then you are citing an unreliable source. If you can prove that the story reached Toronto, then please cite which of the papers ran it. Did you ever consider that once we come to an agreement on this article, people in Toronto could read it ? Some of them will be old enough to know that there never was a Toronto Star Telegram. Think what that problem can do to the credibility of Wikipedia, which solicits donations. Dooyar 22:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, NO ONE is suspended from editing the article. The article was placed under protection on MY request. In other words, I specifically requested this article be locked because of the anonymous IP and new editors who have decided to jump into an ongoing disagreement regarding content. Since one of those new editors decided to rollback the page several edits removing the protection template, the administrator decided to put the page on full protection (ie no one can edit it). That was a wise move because evidently, even a protection template will not stop some people from changing the page. Now, the matter at hand. If you stop and READ what Wildhartlivie and I write, you would see that once and for all, we are not disputing your source, what we are and have been disputing for the longest time is the manner in which you add information and your disregard at any one else's attempts to add to this article, no matter what the source. As I stated before and as you obviously ignored before, no one said anything about that Toronto newspaper being real or if you were wrong. If you had brought the mistake to my attention, I would have happily edited it out. Instead, you remove the information and proceed to go into a long explanation about the history of the newspaper and point out the mistake repeatedly. That helps nothing. Secondly, you have repeatedly stated that the source I provided (a telephone interview with Kari Kupcinet) is wrong because Ellroy supposedly did not state that he felt Kupcinet's death was an overdose, yet you yourself have used the source repeatedly for other statements. It has been brought to my attention that you attempted to add a quote from that article allegedly made by the coroner. The very same quote that is in the exact same paragraph with the overdose theory. You have never tried to add that quote before, yet when I found that source and added it, suddenly, that quote was added. If the whole article is wrong or contains misinformation, why would you want to include that quote from that article? I find it odd that that article also contains the page number to the quote from Ellroy's book (page 92) which you have tried to include. If you've had the book all along, you would've added that quote before, and to my knowledge, the quote only became a source of debate once I brought that source into play. You can't pick and choose what facts you want to use from a source and which ones you don't agree with. Either the source is wrong (which I don't feel it is seeing as it's recent research from 2006) and it can't be used or it's right. If that is the case, the overdose theory belongs in the article whether your books states it or not. As I said before, it is quite possible that Ellroy formed this theory after he wrote the book. Believe it or not, that one book is not the end all be all of sources. Since I assume you're not Ellroy, you can't possibly know what the man thinks at any given moment and opinions change. The book was written in 1999, the article is from 2006, that's quite a bit of time. Sometimes people change their mind. Now, I will ask that you not go on a tangent and bring up information that does not pertain to the current discussion. None of us need or care to know the history of a newspaper (which you have repeated twice). If it's wrong, say so and move on (you have done that so, move on). This page isn't yours and like it or not, others are allowed to add information to this page without having to wonder exactly when you're going to remove it and replace it with unsourced material. Your one source does not trump everyone else's sources. Ellroy is not the authority on this case. There are other opinions and sources out there besides his and if it doesn't agree with his, that certainly doesn't make it wrong. If you're that much of a fan of his or feel that only his work is valid, I would suggest that is a conflict of interest and perhaps you should think twice about dealing with this topic. That being said, please address the current issues at hand so the three of us can finally get this article edited and up to Wikipedia standards. If you continue to dodge direct questions or go off topic, I will assume you do not want to be a part of this discussion and Wildhartlivie and I will proceed to write this article. This is our attempt to work with you, Dooyar. Before you get indignant and claim we can't do that, yes, we can. The talk page is full of evidence indicating that we have attempted to work with you on multiple occasions. We have also dealt with phantom & anonymous editors, and I have been personally attacked on this talk page. That is way too much crap to deal with because of one article, and no article should be debated this much and turned into a personal war. I have not requested mediation regarding this because frankly, I think it's an issue that can be worked through and I would like to think the parties involved are adults and somewhat mature. If that's not the case, I have no problem taking this to mediation and, if need be, arbitration. Pinkadelica 23:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Dooyar, please be so good as to adhere to the topics as the mediator raises them. And please, as you've been asked many times before, adhere to WP:CIVIL. Your comment of "Since you're already suspended from changing the article, maybe you can hold your tongue on this "Discussion" page, too" is rude and borders on incivility. No one has been targeted as being suspended from editing, the article is locked to allow for dispute resolution. Allow that process to occur, please. Wildhartlivie 00:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is why I withheld (until a few days ago) Ellroy's quote of Dr. Harold Kade suggesting he broke Karyn's hyoid bone.

I never have owned the Ellroy book. In September I checked it out of the public library. I became the first person to add citations from it to the Kupcinet article. Shortly after I added some Ellroy citations (including the book that recommended dancing in the nude and Marcia Goddard's memory that Karyn looked stoned at the dinner table), another contributor complained that the article had too many citations from the same author. I tried explaining that the Ellroy book is one of three books that each has a chapter on Kupcinet. I said a book devoted entirely to Kupcinet never existed. (Fecteau / Kari Kupcinet will publish the first one.) The other contributor didn't care. So I backed off from including, "At least I didn't break the hyoid bone" and then I had to return the book to the library.

I continued to learn more about other people mentioned in the article, including Irv Kupcinet, Walter Winchell (whose power was in decline by 1963 as I said in the article) and Dr. Harold Kade. I returned to another branch of the public library that did not have the Ellroy book, but it had the Los Angeles Times data base going back to the 19th Century. I typed in "harold kade" and I found all that bad news about him in the fall of 1966 and early 1967. Noticing that he was accused of screwing up the autopsies of two other young women whom he said had been "strangled," I tried to summarize that and add it to the article. I was hoping I did not have to return to the other branch of the library and check out Ellroy again. Turns out I did.

One more thing. I notice that Wikipedia depends on donations. Suppose the final version of the article says Penn Jones, Jr. read that Associated Press story (about the omniscient woman in Oxnard, California) in the "Toronto Star - Telegram." Seeing as how that newspaper never existed, how will such a glaring error encourage people in Toronto to donate to Wikipedia ? All it will do is promote a dubious conspiracy theory, and you can kiss certain donors goodbye. You still can say Penn Jones thought Karyn Kupcinet was the anonymous woman in Oxnard. Why do you have to say where the Associated Press story was published ? If the AP has an interesting story about the assassination of a president, then obviously more than one newspaper wants to run it.

While I have never seen a Xerox of the AP story, I know an easy way to find it. Either pay 20 dollars on www.NewspaperArchive.com or you can access it for free at any of the LA City Public Libraries. I can do that. Do a keyword search of "Oxnard telephone president" and limit the dates to November 22 and 23, 1963. If that doesn't work, switch the words around.

You will never know the newspaper in which Penn Jones read it. We know he lived in Texas in 1963, and we know he is dead now. I am trying not to pick on him for the errors that permeate his claims that various people were murdered. He claimed that the "medical examiner was never able to determine the cause of death" of Florence Pritchett Smith. The problem with that is, her death was handled by her personal physician, not a medical examiner, and the personal physician said she had leukemia. Fortunately, she does not have a Wikipedia article. Only her husband Earl T. Smith does.

Having said that, I must remind everyone that it is possible to find that November 23, 1963 AP story. You will never know why somebody imagined that it appeared in a newspaper that never existed. Maybe we can just call it an Associated Press story ? Dooyar 09:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for responding. I gather from the comments that the choice between "Karyn Kupcinet's murder", and "Kupcinet's death, which the coroner ruled a homicide" is, as far as you guys are concerned, related to the Ellroy book. As an outsider and general reader I don't see that clearly. I simply see a statement which is stating that the death was a murder, and another statement which is saying that the death has been ruled a murder by a coroner. Readings into the second statement by itself that the ruling is questionable are unsound - though I can see implications for that statement when followed up later in the article. Both statements are as neutral as they can be in the circumstances, it is only in the light of extra knowledge that a weighting can be attributed to them. That the death was ruled a homicide by a coroner is a matter of fact. That such a wording should be used instead of the simple and cleaner "murder" is down to questions about the cause of death. Now, as far as I can see, the notability and interest in this case is down to such questions. The article lead makes clear the controversy: "It has been theorized that her death was connected to the assassination or was the result of an accidental fall". An accidental fall wouldn't be a murder. Therefore by using a definite statement that her death was murder can be read that a choice is being made by the Wiki editors that the death was by murder. Wording it so that it is clear who is saying it is murder and who is saying it might be accidental would be the sensible and responsible approach. Disputes about the coroner's verdict can be left to later in the article. I would support at this stage the wording "Kupcinet's death, which the coroner ruled a homicide" as being the most neutral statement. I'm also persuaded by this wording "No one has ever been charged in Karyn’s death, and though the coroner ruled it a death by strangulation, citing a broken hyoid bone in her throat, even that finding of murder is uncertain." which appeared in a June 2004 article in Chicago magazine, which does support the view that a finding of murder is uncertain. As independent Wiki editors we must always strive to reflect the sourced views that are out there, regardless of how daft we feel those views are.

Would you folks signify if you will accept or reject "Kupcinet's death, which the coroner ruled a homicide". SilkTork *SilkyTalk 10:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's already been established that the reference to the Toronto newspaper will be removed if it's a mistake. Either way, simply stating an AP story should suffice. As far as the wording of her death, I believe that stating "Kupcinet's death, which the coroner ruled a homicide, has never been solved" would be fine. Something to that effect anyway. I think with that wording, a reader will probably understand why the theories have popped up to begin with. The theories themselves can be dealt with later in the article along with the issue of the coroner's alleged mistakes and questionable reputation. Pinkadelica 11:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. And I'm comfortable with "Kupcinet's death, which the coroner ruled a homicide, has never been solved" as it appears to be factual. A source for the coroner's report would be helpful. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 16:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never found the coroner's report online and there's not that many books about this topic. There are two sources which state the coroner's official ruling which can be found here (top of the page) and here (4). Those are the sources that are in the current article. Pinkadelica 19:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that wording, though I still have reservations regarding how the coroner's alleged inaccuracies will be treated later. I have read a more detailed autopsy finding somewhere, at some point since I began working on this article. Unfortunately, at this point, I can't remember where, but it went into more depth regarding soft tissue and other damage to neck and throat structures than the "clipped the hyoid bone" which is the Ellroy Bible verse being used here. At some point, I'll find it. The Chicago magazine article in Pinkadelica's note above is the same text as the reference SilkTork noted, except that it isn't a pdf file, for readers with slow connections. (Side note: Until I started working on this article the last 2-3 months, I had never heard of Karyn Kupcinet or her death.) Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Irv Kupcinet

How much background information about Kupcinet's father is necessary? On some edit versions there are several sentences explaining the importance of his column. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No more than is absolutely necessary to establish that he was a noted columnist. Irv Kupcinet has an article of his own where these things can be expanded upon to the moon. I feel its absolutely unnecessary to discuss precisely how well known he was, who he interviewed, speculation on whether every person on the street in Washington DC read his column, speculation on whether or not she grew up meeting celebrities (no substantiation of her background in this area). All of this has been added and then removed in recent days. The gross expansion of information about his column and speculation about its influence on Karyn's career desires occurred because I took exception to a sentence put into the lead. The sentence was "Irv Kupcinet was relatively unknown outside Chicago, Illinois and Los Angeles..." I removed it with this reason: "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." He won a Peabody Award and 15 Emmy Awards. Suddenly, it was taken to the extreme with detailed discussion of his career, which veered into not mentioning Karyn Kupcinet by her name, instead calling her "Irv and Essee's little girl." What is in the current revision is quite sufficient to establish notability regarding the importance of Karyn Kupcinet's death. The article also later covers, in brief, the conspiracy theory which sprang up about her death & its connection to the JFK assassination & her father's reaction to that. At best, we should include a wikilink to his article for further information. It's a fine line to walk, but this article is about Karyn Kupcinet, not "Karyn Kupcinet & her father's column," or "Karyn Kupcinet and the JFK assassination." Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

So would this sentence: "Roberta Lynn Kupcinet was born on 6 March 1941 in Chicago, Illinois to Irv Kupcinet, a sportswriter for the Chicago Daily Times, and his wife, Esther "Essee" Solomon Kupcinet." be acceptable? And to remove this sentence: "When she was seven, a merger created the Chicago Sun-Times and her father's column helped launch the newspaper." as not directly related to Kupcinet. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 11:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I think it should say. And yes, that not directly related to her. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That sentence would be fine. Irv Kupcinet has his own article, no need to get into his career on in his daughter's article unless something needs to be explained for a reason. Pinkadelica (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I told Silk Tork on my talk page that the article should retain the detail about Karyn's father working as a sportswriter for the Chicago Daily Times at the time she was born. I told Silk Tork the article also should retain the fact that when Karyn was seven, a merger of two newspapers gave her father an important position in the new Chicago Sun-Times. That's important because the new publication featured his daily gossip column prominently, and within a short time Irv became close with many politicians and entertainers, including at least one who helped Karyn's career years later: Jerry Lewis. We have another problem, and it's coming up very soon chronologically in our examination. It warrants a new heading here. Dooyar (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no definitive citation saying that the only reason Karyn Kupcinet obtained parts in Hollywood was because her father knew people, or that he pulled strings for her. The article makes mention of Irv Kupcinet's column and I see no point in outlining the progress of his career or belabor his position. The sentence is about her birth. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wildhartlivie. I think the fact should be mentioned that her father was who he was, but there is no need to get into the timeline of his career. That is covered in his article and there's no need to explain it further. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand what Dooyar is saying. If Irv Kupcinet and his occupation had an influence on her life and her death then it would be appropriate to mention that impact. I'm not convinced, however, that this section is the place to mention it - it would be better coming later in the article when the influence is relevant, and perhaps we can discuss that more fully when we get there. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 13:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Penn Jones, Jr.

The wording to describe Penn Jones, Jr. varies - we have "author" and we have "conspiracy theorist". I've had a look and "researcher" seems to be a term used to describe him which is fairly neutral. Are people OK with "researcher"? SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 11:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me, I'm not sure I know where conspiracy theorist came from (though in looking at materials, he seems to have been one of the first regarding JFK). What comes next has been hotly debated, though. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Researcher is fine, but author is more spot on. He basically just theorized something in a book, I'm not sure if he's ever been considered a professional conspiracy theorist (if there is such a thing) or theorized about other events. I have no idea how that phrase even came to be since I added the reference to Penn Jones, Jr. Researcher is neutral and would probably serve to satisfy anyone who wants to refer to him as a conspiracy theorist. Pinkadelica (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Personal comments

I am taking no sides. I have left the same message on the talkpage of the three editors most closely involved in this dispute strongly urging that the focus of discussion should be on the article and not on the attitudes or behaviour of the other editors. I am ignoring personal comments for now as I feel that the comments have arisen out of frustration rather than malice. I am assuming that everyone here wants the same thing - to make a decent article on the subject of Karyn Kupcinet - and that nobody is a vandal. What we have is a difference of opinion - but nothing more serious or sinister than that. I don't expect you guys to love each other, simply to refrain from personal comments while we get the article sorted. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 10:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

---

You know how our article, under the heading "Alleged connection to JFK," says Penn Jones, Jr. connected Kupcinet to an Associated Press story that ran in the Toronto Star-Telegram ?

Here is a succinct update on that part of the mystery. I got it for free today at a branch of the Los Angeles City library system. You can get it online by paying with your credit card at this site.

www.NewspaperArchive.com

This newspaper archive covers the papers in small towns only, not a big city like Toronto or Dallas. At least two small newspapers ran that AP item. So far, in the keyword search I did after some brainstorming, I got hits in two small California papers: the Long Beach Independent (later merged with another paper) and Daily Review in Hayward, which has the same name today. Here are the first three paragraphs. Do any contributors want more ? We won't put it in the article, but maybe it would help to know which Associated Press article you are citing in it.

Caller Predicted Slaying

OXNARD (AP) -- A telephone company executive said Friday that 20 minutes before President Kennedy was assassinated a woman caller was overheard whispering:

"The President is going to be killed."

Ray Sheehan said the woman "seemed to be a little bit disturbed." Besides predicting the President's death, he said, she "mumbled several incoherent things." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dooyar (talk • contribs) 00:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If anyone here has an ounce of compassion, and by that I mean just one ounce of compassion, maybe they won't pick on me for forgetting to put those four squiggly lines after my last message here. I was very busy retyping something from a web site that costs money for all of you. I have to get it for free at a library, and my time on the library's computer will end in a few seconds. Thank you. Dooyar (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No one is going to chastize you for forgetting to sign your post, but you might note the part just below the edit box that says Sign your username:, all you have to do is click on that.

I'm not sure I know why you are beating this Toronto Star-Telegram horse. Pinkadelica said several days ago if someone had pointed out that it was an error, she would have corrected it. However, if the article is referring to Penn Jones, then perhaps what should be checked is his sources for the material. If HE says he got it from an AP story in that paper specifically, then it was his research (or reporting) that is faulty. We can't guess what he meant and it's not our job to play detective to find out where he read the article, it's our job to report what he printed. I appreciate the fact that you want to solve that particular mystery, however I won't be paying to see an article from NewspaperArchive. (Besides, we can't include a source that requires membership or payment to access the material.) What is of importance right now, and will be until the dispute resolution is finished, is to address the matter at hand above. SilkTork is trying to go through the article and address the matters under dispute, but at this rate, it will never get done unless every answers his queries. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, you don't necessarily have to pay any money to see www.NewspaperArchive.com. Any branch of the Los Angeles City public library system gives it to you for free. I live there so that's how I know. Many other public libraries across the United States easily could have it. You'll never know until you ask your local librarian. If she can't find it via the "www" address listed above, try "Access Newspaper Archive." You said you were trying to find a copy of James Ellroy's book, right ?

According to the WorldCat database, no library in the world can help you find "Forgive My Grief II." Ebay is selling a copy of it. That's the particular book by Penn Jones -- it was one of many that he vanity published -- in which he devotes several sentences to Karyn. Here is the Ebay offer.

Rare Opportunity To Read "Forgive My Grief II," which is not listed on WorldCat as belonging to any libraries.

If you're going to include the fictitious "Toronto Star - Telegram" in the article, at least get in order your source in which Jones claimed to have read the AP story in this "newspaper." A page number in "Forgive My Grief II" would boost its credibility. This is not detective work. Millions of people who live in Toronto know the names of their newspapers. They don't do detective work in order to read Ann Landers. It was the same in 1963: no detective work was necessary to read a paper with which you were familiar. And some of those 1963 Toronto residents could read Karyn's Wiki article in 2008. Dooyar (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Dooyar, try to understand this. We are not currently debating this issue. This article is locked from editing until the entire dispute is resolved. Is there some reason why you are refusing to participate in this? You have twice ignored the ONLY question that is being addressed under this dispute at this time. If you want to discuss the Toronto newspaper issue, then wait until we get to it. Meanwhile, answer SilkTork's question. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought this topic was closed as well. Dooyar, we all agreed that if that one reference to the newspaper was incorrect, it would be removed. To keep bringing it up gets us nowhere. I admitted it was a mistake on my part or the source is incorrect, either way, it has been acknowledged. When that part of the article comes up for discussion, you can bring your evidence to our attention again. Having a incorrect newspaper name in an article is hardly going to misinform anyone considering the state the article is currently in. There are other things that need our attention at the moment. Please weigh in on the discussion about the context we are attempting to agree on. So far, you have not given your opinion or answered any of the questions SilkTork has raised. Pinkadelica (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Tammy Windsor -- A Different Person ?

If Silk Tork, or any other contributor, looks carefully through edits made in September and October, he/she will find that the article's inclusion of "Tammy Windsor" came entirely from one contributor. It's the same contributor who strayed very far from Wikipedia guidelines to include these lines in the article: "No one stole (no pun intended) the mink." "I don't think she killed herself!"

Our close examination of the article will bring us to Tammy very soon because that contributor claimed Karyn used that name in film and television as far back as 1959, and it remains in the article. Unfortunately, Paul Fecteau, whom you all will remember from the very end of the article, says "Tammy Windsor" was a different person. He Emailed me this after I initiated Email correspondence with him within the last ten days. Paul is working on a book with Karyn's niece, who has been very interested in Karyn since the early 1990s.

Paul says the Kupcinet family never heard of "Tammy Windsor," and they believe Karyn always used the name "Karyn" professionally. In fact, their loved one, who was born "Roberta," concocted "Karyn" herself. The easiest way to try to establish this would be to watch the 1960 episode of The Andy Griffith Show that features "Tammy" prominently. Would anyone like Paul Fecteau's Email address ? Even though we have a few sentences to go before we reach Tammy, consider that Paul might need a few days to reply. This could be a serious problem. Dooyar (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Any one of us can contact Mr. Fecteau, but none of our findings can be included in the article as that would be original research which, of course, cannot be included. Since the Tammy Windsor statement is unsourced and I personally have never been able to find any information to support the claim to begin with, it will be removed from the article. I've seen the TAGS episode with Tammy Windsor and, in all honesty, it looks nothing like the pictures of Karyn Kupcinet that I've seen and I doubted the claim. Since that is my observation and again, original research, I left the information in and tagged it. At some point, the tag was removed even though a source was not added. No matter, the information can and will be removed unless a source can be found.

There's no need to point fingers at who included what and what information was wrong. If that individual isn't here to defend their contributions, or any other off the cuff remarks, saying it is questionable and unsourced will suffice. Pinkadelica (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is doubt about the Tammy Windsor connection, and you are all agreed that the information is spurious, then that should be removed from the article. IMDB is not generally regarded as a 100% reliable source, though it can be and is used for information. IMDB as a reference source needs to be used with care. There was once a proposal about using it: Wikipedia talk:Citing IMDb, though the proposal was rejected. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 13:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This is something I defer to the persons watching the episodes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

IMDb never actually stated Tammy Windsor and Karyn Kupcinet were the same person. Strangely enough, they were two separate entries that didn't connect one to the other and at some point, they were merged. My guess is someone emailed IMDb and claimed they were the same person and IMDb merged the two. Regardless, the statement is always something that bugged me and I agree that it should be removed once we get to that section. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Early career

I'm reading the section on Personal life, and checking the references. One good reference - Lost World of Kup - does explicitly mention the influence of Kupcinet's parents on her career. She was talked into becoming an actor by her mother, and through her father's contacts was able to meet producers, etc. It would be appropriate for some mention of that to be made in the Early career section.

As agreed, the references to Tammy Windsor are being left out, so the Early career section could read:

Kupcinet was encouraged into acting by her mother, and was given access to producers through the reputation of her father and his Kup's Column in the Chicago Sun-Times. In 1961, Jerry Lewis offered Kupcinet a role in the film The Ladies Man, where she appeared in a bit part as one of dozens of young ladies in a Hollywood boardinghouse. In 1962, she appeared in the role of Annie Sullivan in a Laguna Beach summer theater production of The Miracle Worker.[2] She appeared in guest roles on television including The Donna Reed Show, The Wide Country, G.E. True, and Going My Way. In addition to guest spots, Kupcinet had a regular role in the prime time series Mrs. G. Goes To College (retitled The Gertrude Berg Show during its short run).[3]

Kupcinet's last onscreen appearance was in an episode of Perry Mason entitled, "The Case of the Capering Camera." The episode aired on 16 January, 1964, nearly two months after her death.[3]

How do people feel? SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 11:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That is fine with me. My concern with it was to keep the article from being a runaway "Irv Kupcinet" second article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Pinkadelica (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal life

The are two subsections in Personal life, though no introduction. There is mention in the Lost World source to Kupcinet being arrested for shoplifting, which might be mentioned as part of an introduction, though care taken not to draw inferences from it as to her state of mind. There is also mention of her "abusing diet pills and other prescription drugs", which is in the sub-section on Issues with weight. I am wondering if we need to have the sub-sections, and if the main details of her personal life can be dealt with in the one section. In looking at the versions of the Personal life section the part regarding Kupcinet attaching messages to Prine's front door appears to be unsourced - the sources mention that she mailed the messages - I can't find anything else.

Suggestion:

By 1962 Kupcinet was living in Hollywood, had a relationship with actor Andrew Prine, and was getting positive reviews for her acting. However, the relationship was problematic, Kupcinet was concerned with her weight, she was abusing diet pills along with other prescription drugs, and she had been arrested for shoplifting.

The problems with the relationship were mainly due to Prine's objections to making the relationship exclusive. After the actress underwent an illegal abortion in July of 1963, the relationship cooled and Prine began dating other women. In turn, Kupcinet began spying on Prine and his new girlfriend.[2] It was later determined that Kupcinet had sent threatening and profane messages, consisting of words and letters she had cut out of magazines, to Prine and herself.[2]

The weight problems had started in high school when Kupcinet began taking diet pills. Her weight remained an issue while at Pine Manor College. The pressure to stay thin intensified after Kupcinet arrived in Hollywood, and she soon began abusing diet pills along with other prescription drugs.[2]

A Los Angeles Times interviewer, assigned to help the actress promote The Gertrude Berg Show, noted her talking exclusively about her weight.[4]

To look at Karyn Kupcinet today, you would never think that when in college she was called "Miss Five-by-Five." "There were all those starches available and I was hungry, and before I knew it my clothes were too tight and I had gained 24 lb. in one semester," Karyn explained between scenes of The Gertrude Berg Show.

"I put myself on 1,000 calories a day. In five weeks I had dropped 10 lb. They went faster than the next 10 did, but I didn't weaken. I stayed off starches and sweets, and I stretched my 1,000 calories with hard-boiled eggs, cottage cheese, green salads, apple, lean meat. But when I saw something that was high in calories and that I liked very much, I had to keep reminding myself, 'a moment on the lips, a lifetime on the hips.' "

"I carried a bouillon cube with me and I used to dissolve it in hot water ... "[4]

Comments. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 12:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This is also fine with me. I do have issues with the details in a couple later sections regarding Andrew Prine, but this section is basically what we had edited prior to the article being locked. This section as it is omits a lot of rambling and tangential additions that didn't relate specifically to Kupcinet's life. Example would be a detailed discussion of her driving ability, how she got to whatever place it was when she was arrested and why she shoplifted there, none of which made a difference to the outcome and was basically speculation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I wrote originally and it was subsequently removed:

Personal life

Relationship

Kupcinet began a relationship with actor Andrew Prine in 1962. The relationship was tumultuous mainly due to Prine's objections to making the relationship exclusive. After the actress underwent an illegal abortion in July of 1963, the relationship cooled and Prine began dating other women. In turn, Kupcinet began spying on Prine and his new girlfriend.[2]

It was later discovered that Kupinet sent threatening and profane messages, consisting of words and letters cut out of magazines, to Prine and herself in an attempt to get Prine to pay more attention to her.[2][5]

Drug abuse

While in high school, Kupcinet began taking diet pills to curb her weight. The pressure to stay thin intensified after Kupcinet arrived in Hollywood, and she soon began abusing diet pills along with other prescription drugs.[2]

The references from what I originally wrote are the Lost World of Kup article (2) and the Hollywood Homicide page (5). Anything about taping letters to Prine's door is news to me. The reference I found and used state that she sent him the messages. That can be interpreted many different ways which is why I wrote it as it appeared in the article. I personally think the quote from the article (about the 1,000 calories a day, etc) is a bit much. In my opinion, that section could be shortened a bit. I've never been to crazy out lots of quote in an article unless the subject said something that needs to be explained and can only be understood in their own words. Pinkadelica (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you'll check the Lost World of Kup page that is referenced below, it says specifically that they were mailed. I just noticed that, and the fingerprint verification. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that conflicts with James Ellroy, who wrote in "Crime Wave" that Karyn scotch - taped the messages to the door of Prine's house and to her own door. Ellroy specified that sheriffs' deputies found her fingerprints on the pieces of scotch tape. Ellroy is known to have studied the very large Kupcinet file at the sheriffs' office in the 1990s. He was very familiar with the place by that time, and he knew many old-timers there. In 1994 he spent a lot of time studying the file on his own mother's 1958 murder, which was never solved.

Unless "Lost World Of Kup" provides details about postmarks or about how the envelope looked (Was it typed or printed at a kooky angle similar to the Anthrax culprit of 2001 ?), then I say we should go with Ellroy. His chapter in "Crime Wave" may show some bias, but a claim about fingerprints on scotch tape is hard to doubt. Also, the sheriffs' discovery of the fingerprints was reported by the Los Angeles Times and the Herald Examiner on December 5 - 6, 1963. They included a photocopied image of one weird note. I could check the articles again. As I recall from reading the microfilm, the reporters wrote almost exactly what Ellroy did thirty years later -- scotch tape and all. These newspapers never mentioned Karyn's name again. Dooyar (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Since Pink nor I seem to be able to locate a copy of Ellroy's book to verify anything he said, I'd rather see it go with a non-specific method of delivery than to go into detail. No one is disputing that her fingerprints were on tape, but apparently where the tape was isn't clear in multiple sources. If that is in Ellroy's chapter on this and it conflicts with other printed material, then there's no point in belaboring it. It's a relatively insignificant point. We don't have the luxury of picking which source to "go with." And what does it have to do with anthrax and 9/11?? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wild. There are several other source that are readily avaliable to all of us online that can be used and that all of us can check. One source doesn't trump the rest. Unless a source provided greatly contradicts the others (as in, flat out factual errors or conjecture) and its reliability is called into question, I don't see the problem in using it. Saying the letters were sent and that her fingerprints were found under the tape is quite enough information. The Lost World of Kup article states:

She had started to cut letters and words out of magazines, composing threatening and profane messages and mailing them to Prine and to herself. (Her fingerprints were later discovered under the tape, and the cut-up magazines were found in her apartment.)

That reference does in fact state that her fingerprints were found under the tape. That tidbit was in one of the versions of the article I wrote that was deleted or altered. Seeing as that reference is online and can be checked by anyone, I think that version should be used. In my opinion, it gets the point across and basically states that she sent the letters and fingerprints were found; that is the point we're trying to make here. Saying how the fingerprints got there is of no importance. One can infer that her fingerprints were found under the tape because she created the letters to begin with. I am honestly not comfortable with relying on one source and disregarding the others if it doesn't jive with Ellroy's book. This is an encyclopedic entry and should be treated as such. We need to present a neutral, factual and to the point article with more than one source to back up the info presented. Personally, I would not trust an article's content that is based on one source. Authors do present their own slant on events and they also present their own opinions which is why using one source is not recommended for a Wiki article. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mention 9/11 at all. I referred to the unknown Anthrax letter sender because if you say Karyn mailed the messages, that would raise the issue of what her envelopes looked like. How weird or ordinary was the printing or did she type them ? Now we are agreeing to use the neutral verb "sent." I am defending myself before this point becomes water under the bridge. Thank you. Dooyar (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This is part and parcel of the problems that have occurred with this page and issues. In fact, no, whether or not she mailed the letters would not raise these issues. If the sources we have can verify that letters were mailed, then that would be sufficient. Unless the sources themselves would go into what the envelopes looked like, the printing or if they were typed, then no issue would be raised. Writing a Wikipedia article is not investigative journalism, nor is it required that the coverage be exhaustive. Mentioning anthrax letters is one more diversion attempt. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Using 'sent' is acceptable to me. Pinkadelica (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not intend my reference to the anthrax letters to be a diversion attempt. I consider that a personal attack. Your sources don't verify that Karyn mailed any letters.

James Ellroy's book is easily available at many public libraries, either on their stacks or via interlibrary loan for free. In the book Ellroy writes that Karyn used scotch tape, which matches what two newspapers reported when the story was fresh. The Los Angeles Times displayed a photocopy of one of her kooky notes. Dooyar (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If your intent wasn't to divert, then I was mistaken. You should realize that when you put in analogies like that or mention something tangential, it does appear to be diversions. Typed words rarely reflect the intonation and delivery that the spoken word would reflect. Having said that, commenting on what appears to be a diversion doesn't make a personal attack, and you tend to take many things as a personal attack. See WP:PA to clarify what that is.

In fact, if you go to the Chicago magazine article in the reference section below, it does say that it was mailed. Of course, that is a moot point, since we've decided to go with the more ambiguous "sent" because your named source appears to have conflicting information. It is possible, however, that Ellroy could be wrong!

Please try to grasp that the book James Ellroy wrote, which by your own admission has a chapter on Kupcinet that was greatly reduced in a new edition, is not available in the public library where Pink lives nor in the one where I borrow. Obviously it's not that easily available, and neither of us has access to the sheer volume of books available from the LA County Library system. Interlibrary loan is a lot of effort to read one chapter. That's as far as either of us intend to go to obtain a copy of a chapter. If it's that much a point for you, then by all means, scan the chapter and we'll give you an e-mail address where you can send the chapter. Otherwise, the consensus will probably always be to go with a more readily available source. In any case, no one disputed that there was tape nor that there were fingerprints. We didn't dispute the delivery method, however the Chicago magazine article does dispute it. This is why we chose the more ambiguous wording. The issue has been determined. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The matter of the book is irrelevant. I suspect that even if Wild or I had this book right in front of our face, there would still be "issues". One source is NOT gospel truth nor is it going to dictate how this article is written at every conceivable turn. This feet dragging/passive aggressive act is transparent and it needs to stop. This whole debate over one word is bordering on insanity especially since it was basically agreed that we would use a neutral word anyhow. I'm also tired of Wild being accused of personal attacks because that is simply not true. Dooyar, if you're that offended by anyone challenging your ideas, I suggest that you not present them to any other human being because that is bound to happen. If you have no intention of working with Wild or I in any constructive manner, please let us know now so we can all figure out what alternative steps to take because, obviously, this method of compromise is not working. Battling over one word, making assumptions, accusing others of "attacking" you at every turn or making everything else into a long, drawn out debate isn't going to stop the article from being written the way the consensus ultimately decides. In the end, this article will be written using more than one source and it will be written in a neutral and factual manner. It's just that simple. I am committed to that and even though this process if frustrating and I'd like to move forward more quickly, I will remain committed to that idea. However, I will no longer sit back and let a competent editor who has been nothing but polite be accused of things she has not done. I will also not continue to let others play games and repeatedly impede the progress of this whole dispute. Enough is enough. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

From my reading of the above it appears that people have accepted the version in bold, and we are moving on. I don't think that you guys are that far apart in agreement on the best way forward for this page, so this discussion will at times come down to individual words. A single word can have a significant impact on the reading of an article, so it is appropriate that care is taken. This discussion is slow, but there's nothing wrong with that - if the wording is right, then the wording may remain in place for many years to come, and be read by many people. I'd rather see this discussion take another month and at the end have a stable page, than hurry matters along and the page return to unstable edit warring because there was an issue left unresolved. To help matters I have today ordered a copy of Crime Wave from Amazon in order to check references. If there is a solid reference in there regarding notes being taped to doors we can revisit this issue later. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 11:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

James Ellroy never shortened his chapter on Kupcinet. Another author, John Austin, did that. He shortened the Kupcinet case from an entire chapter in a 1970 book to a short paragraph in a 1990 book. The 1970 book went out of print in the 1970s and does not have an ISBN number.

As I said before, I believe Ellroy's citation of scotch tape matches what the Los Angeles Times reported on December 6, 1963 -- the last article on Kupcinet before the paper dropped her totally. It would be easy for me to double check that on the microfilm, but scanning thirty pages from Ellroy's book is financially impossible. Have you tried World Cat to see if it's in a library within 100 miles of you ? Maybe a college library ? It has an ISBN number. Dooyar (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I am disabled and homebound because my vision no longer allows me to drive. I have a home visit once a month from the local library who brings things I have requested. It's fairly much impossible for me to pursue sources from elsewhere under those circumstances. SilkTork has noted above that he has graciously decided to order this book from Amazon. It will have to be sufficient to wait until then. Byond that, no one has disputed that there was tape or fingerprint matches, so it's not necessary to belabor this point. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Death section

Are people comfortable with this version of the first two paragraphs? There doesn't appear to be too much dispute in this section. The name of the subject by convention should be the surname, so I have used that version. Comments please. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 16:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

On the last day of her life, Kupcinet had dinner with Lost In Space cast member Mark Goddard, and his wife, Marcia Rogers Goddard, at their house on Coldwater Canyon Drive in Beverly Hills (near Mulholland Drive). She was due there at 6:30 pm, but arrived an hour late by taxicab. The couple said Kupcinet only toyed with her food during their meal. Marcia told two sergeants from the L.A. County Sheriff's Office that during dinner with Kupcinet "... her lips seemed numb. Her voice was funny. She moved her head at odd angles." The Goddards noticed that Karyn's eyes were constricted. Mark Goddard told authorities that he confronted Kupcinet about her altered state during the meal, and she began to cry, putting her arm around him. At one point during the meal, Kupcinet told her friends an unsubstantiated story about a baby that had been abandoned on her doorstep earlier that day. At 8:30pm, a taxicab arrived to take her home, and she promised to telephone the Goddards soon.

Kupcinet apparently went straight home after dining with her friends. She was visited by freelance writer Edward Stephen Rubin shortly afterward. The two were then joined by actor Robert Hathaway around 9:30 pm. They told detectives they watched TV, including The Danny Kaye Show, with Kupcinet. They all drank coffee until she fell asleep sitting next to them on the couch. She awoke and went to her room. The men either turned the TV set off or simply lowered the volume (three days later it was still playing with a low volume), and they made sure the door was locked behind them before departing at about 11:15 pm. Hathaway said he and Rubin returned to his place and were later joined by Kupcinet's boyfriend, Andrew Prine, who was also Hathaway's neighbor. The three young men watched television and talked until approximately 3:00 am.

That's acceptable in my opinion. Pinkadelica (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The only possible problem with it is the direct quote from Marcia Goddard. We don't know that she used those words. What you are quoting is James Ellroy's summary of her words that he made after he read them on a sheriffs' document in 1994. If a Wikipedia writer hasn't read Ellroy's book, then he / she wouldn't know the difference. Dooyar (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It's quite acceptable to me. The reference that is given for that quote is FOR Ellroy's book. There's no misperception of where it came from. That's what references are for. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I now have Crime Wave. The words quoted above come from page 72 in my paperback edition which is the UK one.

In relation to the earlier discussion on taping notes to the door. There is no mention of the notes being taped to the door, the wording is: "Prine said some nut sent them both hate notes. It started last summer. The notes were made up from magazine clips. The nut placed them by his door and Karyn's. The nut knew when they were home and when they were out." Page 69 in my edition. Then on page 74 in talking about the notes: "The words were clipped from movie magazines. They were secured with Scotch tape. A lab crew searched the victim's apartment. They found the magazines that were used. A print man dusted the words under the tape. He found Karyn Kupcinet's prints. She sent the notes to Andy Prine - and herself." I can see how the phrase "They were secured with Scotch tape." could be conflated, as Ellroy's writing style is elliptic. I think we are secure with the agreed wording of "sent". SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 11:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Pinkadelica (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The second part of the death section seems to be largely free of dispute. Though I have a quibble with the wording here:

Despite the evidence of pharmaceutical drugs and her emotional state, coroner Harold Kade concluded that due to a broken hyoid bone in her throat, Kupcinet had been strangled. Her death was officially ruled a homicide.

There is an editorial interpretation happening here which is against NPOV. If there is a view that the coroner was wrong, that has to be worded and sourced as such. Until then, the first half of the sentence has to be removed to read:

Coroner Harold Kade concluded that due to a broken hyoid bone in her throat, Kupcinet had been strangled. Her death was officially ruled a homicide.

A sentence starting. The coroner's verdict has been challenged by...., with an appropriate reliable source (not a forum or blog), would be acceptable. I am uncertain about using the speculation in Ellroy's book - wording such as "Doc Kade was a juicehead. They hauled him out of bed and put him to work a 2 AM. All he found was a broken hyiod. He might have snapped it himself." is insecure, and has to be handled with care. And wording such as "He allegedly told a colleague, 'At least I didn't break the hyoid bone on this one!'" is clearly unsubstantiated gossip.

This rather outlines my issues with the use of Ellroy's book. In the past, I've found his work on true crime stories to be speculative and sensationalized. Obviously, from what you've quoted above, that is the case in this book as well. I've read somewhere about the summary of findings in the autopsy, and wherever it was, the details of the damage to her throat were more complete, and reflected a lot more damage that "just" a broken hyoid bone. That also jives with what I know about forensics and what is involved to break a hyoid bone. Thanks for pointing out that some of this is gossip. The wording about the drugs and emotional state were there because we'd already pared out a great deal of more sensationalized text about Harold Cade, as well as at least alluding to something or another that was there about the possibility of suicide. (Can you tell I'm sleepy?) I'm just as pleased to see it limited to only what is citable outside of the Ellroy stuff. I haven't seen any information that challenges Cade's findings except for what little Ellroy threw into the mix. I'm glad to see all of that gone. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ellroy

My feeling on reading the Ellroy book is that where it supports the known facts it can be used as a source, but where it enters into areas of speculation it shouldn't. However, a section on "Glamour Jungle" could be created to put forward Ellroy's speculation. There is already a sub-section in Theories currently called Accidental death which is pretty much what I'm talking about - though care has to be taken with interpretation: "That he was awakened in the middle of the night to perform the autopsy on Kupcinet, wrote Ellroy, made his accuracy worse." is a POV interpretation of the extract I quote above. We leave interpretation to our readers. We present the sum of human knowledge. We say what Ellroy said: "Kade was called out of bed at 2 AM to perform the autopsy." For all we know, Kade was an insomniac who did his best work in the early hours of the morning. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 11:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. I don't feel this article should reflect every alternative theory out there or focus on what Ellroy wrote. Obviously, we can't cover all those theories as some of them are completely unfounded and are just an opinion. I think we can touch base on the alternative theories that contradict the official version of events, but we shouldn't focus on them too much. Like it or not, we must go with the official version and let readers make the choice to follow up with other literature if they feel the official version isn't what really happened. Pinkadelica (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Investigation by law enforcement

This section seems to be free of edit conflicts, and can stand as it currently appears - though it may be expanded. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 11:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A working document

I have an editable version of the article which is a summary of agreements so far, plus the next sections I am looking at. This can be found here: User:SilkTork/Cambridge. I am now making this accessible to all so we can see if folks can agree on an acceptable version. Please feel free to amend, adjust and expand the working document. If agreement can be found on the working document, then the Karyn Kupcinet page can be unlocked. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 11:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the statement about the newspaper on the working document. We all agreed that the name of the newspaper (which is evidently inaccurate) should be removed. Aside from a few copy edit mistakes and missing citations, I think the article sounds fine. I personally don't think anything else should be added to it as it already provides enough information about the official version of events, the alternative theories, and the family's feelings about the those theories. I don't want to get ahead of myself here, but I feel that we should all agree that after the article is unlocked, all involved parties should not make any more bold or drastic edits. It took us quite awhile to get to this point and I'd hate to see the same problems arise once again. Pinkadelica (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have one or two questions about references to the Ellroy book that I was hoping SilkTork could check. One fact I wanted to have checked was the list of prescription drugs that were found in Kupcinet's apartment. The statement in the article reads: Upon searching Kupcinet's apartment, police found prescriptions for Desoxyn, Miltown, Amvicel, and other medications.

Another question is a round-about reference. The article mentions a rambling note that investigators found in her apartment after her death, and we have included a quote of the note. The reference given for the text of the note comes from McAdams Hollywood Homicide article, however that page references the quote as from Ellroy. Since we do have the original source for this available, could you please check the veracity of that quote and the context in which it is presented? Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess I have one more question from the Ellroy book. Does it say verbatim that she may have fallen and "clipped her hyoid"? That's such an awkward way of stating it. Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Page 66 "Chapman and Wahlke [...] checked the medicine chest. They found thirteen pill jars. They read the fill dates on the labels. Miltown, Amvicel, Thyroid Extract, Modaline, Desoxyn." Ellroy then goes into detail on the amount of pills of each.

Page 66 "Lieutenant Walsh finds a handwritten note. // For me - I feel self-conscious about this, like I'm going to have to get approval on it eventually. (Approval it is - or you're doomed to insignificance). Everything I've done, supposedly being myself and with the promise of anonymity, I do for approval ... knowing ... 'this'll get 'em.' 'They'll love me for this' and 'They'll say nice things behind my back.' / I guess I've been searching for an identity too desperately ... seized the nearest image; whether David and doing things his way and pointedly not compromising with my traditional way - and using vs my parents - snubbing my nose at their way. Always hate to be with them after a lengthy visit with 'current' boyfriend and their families - guilt - I guess. Trying to show them I can be something. Always faking it. Never tapping my own resources. Afraid of - what? Me or that there won't be anything. / I'm no good. I'm not really that pretty. My figure's fat and will never be the way that my mother wants it. I won't let it be what she wants. How stupid. I want to be slim and she loves me and wants me to be slim - intellectualization doesn't mark. / Why must I be so alone. Have I fallen that short of my ideal? Why does my image of me have to be so aesthetic and perfect? What's the use of living with nothing to believe in? Have faith in? Where's the security - or habit or order - oh shit - what good is that going to do? What happens to me - or my Andy? Why doesn't he want me? Why? There's no GOD. / There's nothing only phony motives, selfish egoists, selfless people, fat heads and drunks, and I want out. / I like President Kennedy, Bertrand Russel, Theodore Reiks, Peter O'Toole, Sydney J Harris, Albert Finney. / I just care about now who gives a shit about 10 years from now. 9there won't be any with Andy - maybe that's it) If only I had a reason. No one needs me - or cares to need me. They're right. I'm bored and I'm a doll at first, then a phony and fake. I feel like 'they' owee me a life. Like all my failings are their fault... I dare them to make me happy. How immature and childish - I know."

Page 77 "The victim was a hophead. They found her nude. They found that 'dance-in-the-nude' book. She might have danced and stumbled around. She might have made that big mess. She might have tripped and clipped her hyoid bone on a chair. She might have crawled up on the coach and died. She might have passed out on the couch and choked on her own puke. She might have purged the dope in her system as she decomped. Doc Kade was a juicehead. They hauled him out of bed and put him to work at 2 am. All he found was a broken hyoid. He might have snapped it himself."

Hope that helps. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 01:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that, SilkTork. It answers my questions. In comparing the text above with the bits and pieces chosen for the Hollywood Homicide reference, I have concerns with keeping the specific quotes from the note. It reads more like brief journal entries. The Hollywood Homicide article makes it sound like a rambling, disoriented suicide note. I propose that we eliminate the "quote" from her note and replace it with a brief prose description, to the effect of writings were found that reflected her emotions regarding issues in her life (ie., parents, self-image, problems with boyfriend).

Having read the above passage, it only crystallizes my feelings about Ellroy's writing. It reads like voiceover narration from a bad 1950s noir film. I agree that we should avoid following that lead as far as possible. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think using the neutral facts presented in the chapter of that book is fine, but we should not rely on it too heavily as Ellroy seems to have formed a somewhat negative opinion of the people involved. Authors will naturally form an opinion about a person they're writing about and that cannot come into play when writing an encyclopedic article. That's pretty much been my problem with some of the content in this article to begin with. I'd like to again express that I think that all the involved parties should at least consult one another before adding or removing any content from this article from here on out. In case any "new" people pop up and begin to add unsourced and speculative things, I think it would be beneficial if we point them to this talk page and discuss any changes beforehand so we don't have to go through this again. Pinkadelica (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Unlocked

The article is now unlocked and I have updated it with all the agreed amendments. You are now free to continue to build the article. I hope that edit warring will not resume, and that if people have disagreements that they will settle them on this talkpage in as neutral and polite a manner as they are able. Problems, queries, requests for more information from the Ellroy book, general thanks and cream cakes, can be left on my talkpage. I've enjoyed working with you folks and wish you all well for the future! Best wishes SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 11:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot SilkTork! You've been a great help! Pinkadelica (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Old newspapers and self-published books

I am proposing two minor edits.

First, the Chicago Sun Times needs a link to its Wikipedia article. This comes early in Karyn's article. The Chicago Daily Times does not have an article, but offering to send the reader to the Sun Times article will answer any questions he/she might have about why the name of the newspaper changes. Many younger people don't know that newspapers used to merge with each other.

Second, the sentence about Penn Jones, Jr.. I propose adding just five words. "Kupcinet's death was first mentioned in connection to JFK ... by researcher ... Jones ... in his book Forgive My Grief II, which he self-published in 1967." I propose adding those last five words. Many younger people might have no time frame about when a "researcher" could have published his own theory. They should know Jones did it many, many years before Oliver Stone drew attention to researchers and many, many years before they all starting using online blogs. Dooyar (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Since Penn Jones, Jr has his own article on here and it mentions that he is a researcher that wrote a series of books on the JFK assassination, there's no need to go into how to book got published. If that info needs to be known, it can be added to his article, not this one. Anyone that wants to find out more about the publication of his books can also look that up on Google books since the ISBN numbers for his books are in his article. The fact that it's self published is irrelevant to this article. The fact is, he wrote it, it was published and he proposed a theory about Kupcinet being linked to JFK's murder. End of. As far as the Chicago Sun Times merger, the same thing goes. That info is found quite easily in the Chicago Sun Times article. The fact that it merged with another newspaper years before it reported on Kupcinet's death is not important. If a "younger" reader isn't aware of the history of a publication, this article isn't where they'll come to look for the information. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with simply wikifying the Chicago Sun Times link. The Chicago Sun-Times is mentioned twice in the article, the first of which is wikilinked, which is what guidelines ask for in an article (not overlinking). However, I do agree that since a link is already there to the Penn Jones article, that elaboration isn't necessary. The Jones page gives the dates of publications of all the "Grief" books. The article already mentions that Irv Kupcinet attacked the conspiracy theories regarding the assassination at the time Oliver Stone was making JFK. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the first reference to the Sun Times is not Wikilinked. It's in the "Career" section. Before that the only reference to a newspaper is the Chicago Daily Times, which has no Wikipedia article. No, the fact that the Sun Times eventually "reported on Kupcinet's death" is not an issue, and it never has been. The issue is that the Sun Times did not exist for the first seven years of Karyn's life. For all we know the seven-year-old could have been smart enough to understand that Daddy had a new job that gave her access to movie stars, other entertainers and she got to visit the White House four years later. Had those things happened to me when I was that young I would have realized how important my dad's employer was.

Yes, someone who reads Karyn's article gets a link to Penn Jones, Jr., but his use of a vanity press should be emphasized in her article, too. In 1967, before web sites, he did something that anyone with money to burn could do. He paid someone to print and bind books in which he said anything he wanted. In 1967 you could say the moon was made out of green cheese, and a vanity publisher would deliver you 100 bound copies of that. You get what you pay for.

You will recall that thousands of libraries, if not every single library in the world, declined Forgive My Grief II. World Cat has no listing for it at all. Paul Fecteau, mentioned at the end of Karyn's article, Emailed me that he never has seen a copy of the book, and he does not want to pay 75 dollars for it on Ebay. That means he's not gonna get it. And this book is what started the Karyn Kupcinet - JFK theory. That it "came out" in 1967, means that for the first three years after her death, nobody read about any connection to the assassination. A reader of Karyn's article might want to know that. For three years, it was just a show - business story. Dooyar (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, we are not to assume or guess what someone feels or thinks, especially if that person is no longer able to speak for themselves. That goes for the subject of a biography or a reader. Projecting ones own thoughts and feelings will only serve to add unneeded speculation and POV statements to the article. The fact that Kupcinet's father had a job change when she was 7 means just that. He changed jobs. For all we know, she could have found the entire situation of celebrities and going to the White House boring. The speculation can go both ways which is why speculating should not be done in the confines of an encyclopedia. Unless she specifically stated this event had a profound effect on her life, the newspaper's history and it's eventual merger does not need to be explained in her article. If you're otherwise concerned about providing the historical background of the newspapers, create a new article for the Sun Times, and explain the history. There's no way we can cover every facet of anyone's life and we sure can't assume anything.

As far as the Penn Jones, Jr. issue, the fact that the book was self published and he was a self promoter doesn't change the issues/theories it sparked nor does it enrich Kupcinet's article. His theories are mentioned because that is one of the reasons some people find her case compelling. The whole thing about the book being hard to find isn't true. A simple search of Google will pull up links to alibris, Stone Hill Books, and Amazon which means the book can be found. It's also avaliable from several other online databases. Every book is not going to be in every database and that's not unusual. It might be expensive to own, but certainly not impossible to find. If someone doesn't want to pay $80+ for it, it looks like they're just not going to get it and that's their choice.

We cannot try to predict what a reader will want to know or what they understand. Most people who are of moderate intelligence are capable of looking up more about a subject if they're interested in finding out more. All we can do is provide information in the same manner that any other well written article on Wikipedia provides. None of us can possibly know what every different reader will want to know so we must stick to guidelines provided by Wiki. Too much unneeded and speculative content was one of the main problems this article suffered from. In my opinion, the current version is clear, concise, and fairly well written which is the goal we were after. That being said, since Wild made the last edit and she too is a part of this, I'll allow her to weigh in before anything is added. Pinkadelica (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have switched the wikilink for the Chicago Sun-Times from the second one to the first one. However, I am in agreement with Pink about the Jones issue. It's not material to the article to bring in that the first mention of Kupcinet in regard to JFK was a self-published book. What is, vaguely, relevant is that in time, it became a bigger issue. It is immaterial whether Paul Fecteau emailed you or not, his emails are irrelevant to Wikipedia. What is relevant to this is that Baylor University has a dedicated section in their "Collection of Political Papers" ancillary papers for Penn Jones and his writing. It cancels out the questionable nature of the first publications. What I'm wondering is why this wasn't brought up during the dispute resolution, which would have been appropriate. There was a point when the Penn Jones portions were open for discussion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You are not to assume or guess what someone feels or thinks, either. By omitting the Wikilink that tells readers about the 1948 newspaper merger, you are assuming that it had no effect on the seven-year-old Karyn. She is not known to have "specifically stated that this event had a profound effect on her life." She is not known to have commented on her stint at the Actors Studio, either, yet that remains in the article. We know she did it for a short time, and we know it was in New York. She did all her documented acting jobs in all three media (film, television and theater) in Chicago and Southern California, including Laguna Beach. That undermines the importance of whatever she did at the Actors Studio. There are no recorded statements from Lee Strasberg or his family about how much talent Karyn might have displayed. She didn't talk about her stint that we know of, and people involved with the Actors Studio didn't talk about it that we know of. Lists of talented actors who failed auditions for the studio (such as James Dean) have been published many times and are part of that Wikipedia article, yet we can only assume that Karyn auditioned successfully. She just spent a little time there, and that's all we know.

Yet people have said for publication that the 1948 newspaper merger had a profound effect on Irv Kupcinet and his networking with famous people. Even if the young Karyn found it all boring, she knew it was her ticket to an acting career. The 1988 memoir by her father listed under "Further reading" says she went on a local TV talk show at the age of 15 to promote Picnic (play) that featured her as the bratty kid sister at a Chicago theater. She knew the options she had at a young age. By omitting an event that she might have understood at age seven, you are projecting your own thoughts and feelings onto her. We don't know it was important to her, and we don't know it wasn't. Because she died so young, we have very few comments from her about anything in the first place. The seven-year-old could have felt like she was entering a magic kingdom. Kingdom or not, we know she soon learned the practical aspects of working in a profession with a 95 percent unemployment rate. I say the first reference to the Sun-Times, which was part of her ticket to employment, should have a Wikilink. It falls under the "Career" chapter. Last I checked, it wasn't there. I will check again. Dooyar (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Dooyar, you had every opportunity to participate in the dispute resolution which was held regarding this article. You only participated to a VERY limited degree, and yet, the dispute was, in fact, between you on one side and Pinkadelica and myself on the other. It is inappropriate for you to come on once the dispute resolution has been closed and start in with extensive roudabout point-making. Had you read closer, you'd note that the Chicago Sun-Times wikilink was changed from the latter one to the early one. Apparently you aren't paying attention. Wikipedia has guidelines against overlinking, so the first link is all that is allowed. In the future, please read closer and check before launching into a two paragraph off the point diatribe for a change that was already made. Then please post your apology for assuming that it wasn't done. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Dooyar, if you had actually read what I wrote, I did not assume nor did I project anything. I stated that assuming/projecting can go both ways and provided an example. This isn't a psychology profile of the subject and we're not going to delve into her thoughts and feelings. Wild made an excellent point that these are issues that should have been raised earlier. The article was locked for a long period of time and SilkTork took great pains to go through the article piece by piece. He also provided the opportunity for each of us to provide an opinion for content we would like to be added or removed. For whatever reason, you chose not to bring these issues up at that time. If you feel these are incredibly valid points that should be mentioned in this article, I suggest that you leave a message on SilkTork's talk page and ask his opinion. Both Wild and I have provided our opinions on both points and we both agree that the article's present state is acceptable and should not be changed. Pinkadelica (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)