Talk:Karyn Kupcinet/Archive 1

message: This murder was down the street from where I lived as a child with my aspiring actress mother. It was very scary for a 7 year old to deal with. West Hollywood was a quiet, nice place to live in those days. I am sorry it was never solved and the killer brought to justice.
===Finality===
I added the fact that Karyn's diary omits the names of all JFK conspirators (E. Howard Hunt, etc.) in order to justify the passage from the diary about Karyn not getting along with actress Gertrude Berg.  The purpose of quoting the diary is to show that Karyn's circle of effect was entirely show business.  We have no evidence that she ever met one of the JFK conspirators in Los Angeles. And she wasn't targeted by a hit man because the hit man would have killed her father, not her.  He's the one who made a living revealing information and holding some of it back.  Karyn made a living reciting lines from a screenwriter or TV writer.  Her fellow actors, including Ms. Berg, had no motive to kill her.  Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.98.27 (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk archive, page 1

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

message: The quotes in this article seem a bit excessive to me. The info is good, but it relies on the book far too much. It's hard to take things as fact when it's the stated opinion of an author. Plus, the quotes are a little confusing, especially towards the end.
I also changed the fact about there not being any E! THS on Karyn. She had one because I vividly remember watching it eons ago. Not too sure about the Mysteries & Scandals episode though. I can't find anything to back that up.
Unless someone objects, I'm going to reword the quotes and remove they Mysteries & Scandals info.
Pinkadelica 10:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Quotes

message: Not only is it absurd that Karyn Kupcinet had anything to do with a 1963 Associated Press report of an Oxnard, California woman forewarning a telephone operator of the JFK assassination, but connecting this report to the political events of 1968 is also ridiculous.
Listen, I did not believe Karyn made the phone call.  Some womsn did just that and the FBI said so.  A lot of things are coming out about Bobby Kennedy.  I think it's unlikely that he went to the phone company and then the legal practice to find the woman's name.  But there are people who say it's true.  Because "Penn Jones" allegedly put the call on Nov.22 at 10:10 am PT and it was an upset woman trying to place a person-to-person call to Chicago, I at first believed it.  But Oxnard?  I don't think so.  But there are Dallas ties to that area in CA and I think the woman who made the call that they were going to kill Kennedy must have been murdered.  It can't be Karyn, although she might have been in a state, if you know what I mean.Kc440 03:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: False Link Between A 1963 Associated Press Report And Robert Kennedy's Schedule In 1968

message: I deleted the stuff about Karyn and her "Mrs. G. Goes To College" castmate Gertrude Berg allegedly not getting along.  Ms. Berg was more than an actress.  She was one of the first women to develop a network radio series and then a network TV series.  She fought several battles with advertisers over what "The Goldbergs" could put on the air.  I'm not saying the stories about the two women are false.  I'm asking, "Why bring them up now that both women have been dead for more than forty years ?"
We have a death to look at for "more than 40 years."  Ellroy said Gertrude told her she wore too much make-up.71.122.233.246 19:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Avoiding Gossip That Makes The Victim Look Bad

message: David Lange died a year and a half ago.  He was living in Connecticut with one of his sisters.  Hope Lange, the actress and older sister of David's, predeceased him.
His career as a Hollywood producer was ruined due to the murder of Karyn Kupcinet.  Lange moved in below Karyn Kupcinet's apartment in West Hollywood just days before Karyn was killed.  He was a heavy drinker and womanizer.  At the time he was seeing Natalie Wood.  The Kupcinets believed he was the killer of their daughter, Karyn.Kc440 03:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: David Lange

message: There are certain style guidelines that are fundamental to article writing. These aren't a matter of personal preference, they are a matter of guidelines. Adherence to the manual of style guidelines is basic and fundamental. When editing an article, the editor needs to familiarize him or herself with these basics: 
*Don't refer to a person on whose biography you are writing in the first person. In this case, its proper to use "Kupcinet" and not "Karyn." If you have a problem with this, take it up with the manual of style. 
*When a quote is included in text, it must have a reference. No discussion. If you have a problem with this, take it up with citations. If you are adding information that comes from an intermediate source (for example, a book that is being cited in a magazine article) you can only cite the source where you got it, not the orginal book. If you have a problem with this, take it up with citations.
*If an addition has a  tag added to it, it requires a citation because the addition either is asserting a fact, a quote or something that could be controversial. Don't remove this tag without adding a citation. If you have a problem with this, take it up with citations.
*Section titles use only capitalization for the first word of the title and any proper names contained in the title. If you have a problem with this, take it up with the manual of style.
----
Wikipedia has certain policies that are sometimes difficult to comprehend or incorporate. There are three that are fundamental to writing and contributing to an article:
*One of these is neutral point of view. If you are unsure what constitutes neutral point of view, read WP:NPOV.
*The second of these is no original research. If you are unsure what constitutes original research, check at WP:NOR.
 
*The third of these is verifiability. If you are unsure what constitutes verifiability, check at WP:VERIFY.
  
Too much editing time is wasted going back over articles again and again because an editor either doesn't understand these fundamentals or opts to ignore them. If you don't violate these principles, then obviously, this note doesn't apply to you. If you aren't sure if its referring to you, then please re-acquaint yourself with these principles to be sure. If you know that this applies to you, then expect your contributions to be challenged, edited, moved and/or removed. Wildhartlivie 07:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Basic Wikipedia housekeeping and clean-up

message: A few moments ago I reported Wildhartlivie's alleged vandalism to the forum titled "Editor Assistance / Requests."  Wildhartlivie constantly threatens to suspend me so I am making a preemptive strike against him / her doing it again.  I kept my request short and sweet, but I was sure to include Wildhartlivie's outrageous ignorant claim that "police" who investigated the Kupcinet case indulged in "gossip."  The article has two sources that indicate it was a county sheriffs' case, not a police case.  And Wildhartlivie does not back up his / her claim that the "police" were gossiping as opposed to doing their jobs.  Think twice before you believe everything Wildhartlivie says about the Karyn Kupcinet article.  Don't let this unstable Wikipedia contributor revert your edits. After all the garbage spouted by this person, he / she and I could be the only people still reading this page.  Let's see if anyone other than the two of us are still here.  If this paragraph warrants a reply from Wildhartlivie and nobody else, that is a bad sign. Dooyar 18:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: I second that. As seen on this talk page, Dooyar has consistently been rude to other editors (myself included) and refuses to adhere to Wikipedia policy when adding to this article. He\she has made personal attacks on anyone who challenges his/her edits and as NomeKing stated, basically thinks the article belongs to them. A six month suspension might be too harsh, but the article needs a massive cleanup and needs to be left alone once and for all. Pinkadelica 05:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editor Assistance / Requests 

message: 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)
thread_title: Verifiable material

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Wow!

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

message: I left the following note on the talk page of the editor who made the lengthy changes to the article a few moments ago:
I haven't read over the changes you've made to this article yet, but that isn't necessary to ask the question I have. What I'm wondering, after everything that has has transpired with this page, and you knowing that there are two other editors who have worked quite diligently on it, is why you didn't at least bring up such an extensive rewrite on the talk page before you dived right in to it? That is what collaboration and cooperation in working on an article is all about. It's what Wikipedia asks of its editors. We've tried, over and over, to establish such an atmosphere on this page, but to no avail. After the rework last week, the other two of us were quite satisfied with what the page had to say. We had discussed depending so heavily on James Ellroy's book and hoping for outside sources besides his. If you'd looked on the talk page you would have seen that we had agreed that we were happy with it as it was until other sources could be found. By simply ignoring us and delving into this rework, you have again circumvented consensus on the progress of the page. What is it going to take to get you to work with us instead of instead of around us, behind us, and independently of any collaboration on this article? ?  Wildhartlivie 06:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dooyar, you cannot stick in statements in front of sourced items in an attempt to pass them off as sourced. For example, putting the name of Earl Holliman's girlfriend's name is not in the source I provided. If you know that information and have a source for it, great, include it. Otherwise, providing information that is not available at the reference citation is incorrect and will be removed by anyone checking for verifiability. You've also added information that is not sourced and removed citation tags without providing references. Also, why did you delete the entire section about drug abuse and Ellroy's suicide theory? I get that you don't feel Ellroy said this and you're relying on his book as your reference, but two different publications stated he said it. Kupcient's niece acknowledged the statement and dismissed it. Unless you're calling the Chicago Magazine's reliability into question, it should remain in the article. One cannot omit information because they personally don't like the way it makes the subject look. Both Wildhartlivie and I have agreed that the information is valid and sourced properly and that amounts to consensus, yet you keep removing it.  As far as the coffee table versus a chair, the entire phrase can be omitted. It can simply state she fell, end of. I'm not going to change the page for now because I'm going to give you the opportunity to consult a neutral and established third party editor to assist you. Until that time, the edits on this page need to stop until an acceptable version can be agreed upon by the three editors involved. If you choose to keep adding and deleting sourced information from the page simply based on your personal feelings or because you feel if you didn't write it, it must be wrong, this will be escalated into mediation and we can go from there. This article has been the source of too many edits and way too much contention. Pinkadelica 02:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not even going to attempt to address everything you've said here. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. This is a concept which you persist in ignoring each and every time that you charge in and make wholesale changes to this article that circumvent the collabortive process and fly in the face of the consensus of the other editors of the page. We have asked you to discuss these sort of changes on the talk page before you undertake them, which you continue to ignore, and said as much above when you said you couldn't possibly announce you were going to make changes. That suggests that your edits are not well thought out, or you could discuss them first. You continue to make changes based on your personal perception of things, for example, your statements above regarding the use of the phrase "drug abuse." Drug abuse does not suggest narcotics, it suggests drug abuse. Instead, you changed the title completely and introduced an entirely new issue to the page in the guise of an eating disorder, then offered a huge block of text where she discusses her weight and the dieting methods she follows. Excess dieting and using weight control drugs does not an eating disorder make, and you offer no supporting documentation of any indication of an eating disorder. Compulsive dieting for a Hollywood actress is far from unusual and doesn't equate with eating disorders. And now suddenly, you've now thrown into this talk page discussion a totally unrelated shoplifting arrest that has no bearing on the matter of her death and means nothing to the development of the article, so why bring it up, if not to cloud the issue at hand. Finally, there is nothing gained by throwing little details about how many people agreed that someone seemed genuinely upset by the JFK assassination. The article only needs to touch upon it and include the denial of the father. Finally, please go take a look at WP:BIO regarding the layout and inclusion criteria for biographies. The way in which you changed the first couple of paragraphs to talk about Karyn Kupcinet's father without using her name (your words in the edit summary) isn't in compliance with the way in which biographies should be written. I've said this more than once and I'll say it again: If you want to write a detailed and rambling account about the theories and your thoughts on the life and death of Karyn Kupcinet, then write an essay, publish a book, or build a webpage, but please stop introducing them in this way to what is supposed to be a straightforward, cited and balanced article about it. The article is not about James Ellroy's thoughts and theories on her death. It must take into account all the sources available on it, which it has not been doing. It is time for someone to step in and arbitrate this issue, since we have bent over backwards, time and time again, in an attempt to get you to work with us, not around us, behind our backs, or in flagrant disregard for the consensus that has been drawn on the issues and inclusions on this article. Don't come in and change everything on the page and then tell us that you did it, and don't change it. That has gotten very old, very fast. Wildhartlivie 14:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to Dooyar: Yes, you did erase most of the content I added and sourced to the page. Whatever your reasonings are for doing that have no bearing because you refuse to work in a collaborative effort with the two other main editors on this page or with anyone else for that matter. None of us own this page, but two of us are attempting to bring this article up to Wikipedia standards and we've both been hindered at every effort to do so. If you had an issue with the content I added, you could've easily pointed out what you felt were inaccuracies instead of deleting entire passages and sticking unsourced items in the article in front of citations I provided. A simple message on my talk page or this talk page could've solved all of this, but instead, you took it upon yourself to rewrite an already overwritten article to add what you think is correct. That is not a collaborative effort, that is you telling anyone who dares to edit this page that their research or sources aren't as valid as yours. Sometimes varying sources do not add up, sometimes people are misquoted, no one ever disputed that. What we are disputing is you taking it upon yourself to decide what information should be included and what sources are not reliable based on your personal opinion. Could it be possible that Ellroy made a statement about a possible overdose or intentional suicide after he wrote that book? I think that is quite possible, but that is something none of us ever discussed here because you deleted everything that wasn't in your sources. I find it quite odd that Kupcinet's niece acknowledged this suicide theory of Ellroy's and dismissed it yet you claim Ellroy never said it. Again, another thing that should have been discussed before changes were made. So many edits have been made that even a third party has trouble figuring out what the correct content is. That should never be an issue with any biography on Wikipedia. Pinkadelica 02:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Newest changes