Talk:Karyn Kupcinet

message: The article says she attended "Pine Manor College at Wellesley for a semester."  There is no Pine Manor College at Wellesley.  There is Pine Manor College and there is Wellesley College, and both are completely separate and located in different towns.  Does anyone know for sure which one she attended?  Did she transfer from one to the other?  Beginning (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. At one point (according to the source used), Pine Manor College was in Wellesley, Massachusetts. I corrected it. Pinkadelica (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: College education

message: I have an account now: "sourcingit."
You said in the "edit summary" of your edit that the majority of my edit is unsourced.  Not true.  Did you read any of what I added to this discussion?  I made a point-by-point list of each part of my edit.
The James Ellroy essay/GQ article Glamour Jungle is a source for my rearranging the "Personal life" chapter.  Previous edits had the details in the wrong chronological order.  They had her "talking exclusively about her weight" after she met Andrew Prine, but she did that many months before.  Ellroy said she met Prine in December of 1962 when she guest-starred on his TV series The Wide Country.  What's wrong with putting this chapter in chronological order?  And James Ellroy is hardly the only source for the article.  There are several others.
Later chapters use the Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Herald-Examiner and the Chicago Tribune as sources.  I added a new Chicago Tribune source to the "Legacy" chapter.  A March 29, 1962 Times article that was already a source in the article gives us the year "1968" that I added to the sentence about parents' memorial to her at Shimer College.
IMDb.com and Tv.com source the change from "1" to "26" in her acting credits at the very bottom -- Mrs. G. Goes to College. She was a regular cast member who appeared on every episode. CBS put 26 episodes on the air before the network cancelled it. That's why the Los Angeles Times ran the profile of Kupcinet when she was alive -- to promote that series on which she was a regular cast member.  The show got cancelled a week after the article. It was the article where she wanted to talk about food and her weight instead of her show. There's no way you can reply to these points in your edit summary, so can you reply to them here please?  Thanks.Sourcingit (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Pinkadelica

message: I notice nobody has reverted my edit during the last four hours (approximately).  I do understand what Pinkadelica said about including enough sources.  Glamour Jungle by James Ellroy is the source for the sentences I added to the end of this paragraph.
------------------------------------
The problems with the relationship with Prine were mainly due to his objections to making the relationship exclusive. After the actress underwent an illegal abortion in July 1963, the relationship cooled and Prine began dating other women. In turn, Kupcinet began spying on Prine and his new girlfriend. Los Angeles County sheriffs later determined that in the fall of 1963 Kupcinet had sent threatening and profane messages, consisting of words and letters she had cut out of magazines, to Prine and herself. When Prine showed the notes to her, she seemed shocked and showed him identical notes that she had received. He believed her claim that she knew nothing about them.
------------------------------------
I would be happy to add source notes for those last two sentences, attributing them to Glamour Jungle.  But I'll hold off until someone chimes in here.  I've made enough edits during the last 24 hours. Of course, other editors should have input. But they shouldn't change my deletion of Beverly Hillbillies.  Kupcinet never appeared on that show, not even under her alleged pseudonym of Tammy Windsor. (And one website says that her surviving brother never heard of that name and that they were two different women.)Sourcingit (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Additional editors don't need to come here to tell you the exact same thing I already said. It's basic policy that you should follow at all times. You need to add sources for content add when you add it. You keep talking about removing The Beverly Hillbillies as one of Kupinet's roles. I already removed it yesterday after reverting one of your edits and you restored it here. Either you're not paying attention to the content you're adding or you're simply copying and pasting previous versions of the article back in. Either way, this is disruptive and unneeded. Your latest edit summary claims the "majority of changes have sources" which is patently false. Content such as Kupinet claiming she found a baby on her doorstep is unsourced as are the claims that Penn Jones, Jr. "did not visit California to investigate the matter. The Oxnard woman was never identified nor was the Associated Press story about her investigated by the Warren Commission." and that newspapers only covered her death for a week (which doesn't belong in the article anyway). You're also rewording sourced content against consensus. As I already told you on your talk page (whilst you were editing under an IP), this has been a controversial article that underwent a major overhaul some time ago. Everything has been sourced and the current wording was done according to consensus due to past issues with the article. Further, you have already broached the three revert rule on this article so I strongly suggest you begin discussing the changes you'd like to make on the talk page instead of attempting to force unsourced content back into the article. Pinkadelica♣ 02:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Way to address the actual issues of adding unsourced content to the article. If you can't be bothered to go through the archive, you can rest assured when I tell you there is a previous consensus for the current wording and the majority of the changes you're attempting violate policy (WP:BURDEN). As for your "Wikipedia crimes", I suspected that you're the latest incarnation of User:Nyannrunning/User:Dooyar yesterday when you were editing under your IP address. You can go to the sockpuppetry case page and plead your case there instead of professing your shock and innocence here. If you're innocent, awesome. If you're not, you'll be blocked. You know the drill. Pinkadelica♣ 08:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced the Glamour Jungle reference to point to the actual book Crime Wave as it is now available on Google Books and content sourced from it can be easily verified. I also rearranged the personal life section so these issues about chronology and the difference between a book and an article are now dead. That means there's no reason to add any other unsourced tidbits about how long newspaper coverage lasted on Kupinet's death (gee, where I have heard that before?) or change the word "researcher" to "conspiracy theorist" (déjà vu again!). Pinkadelica♣ 10:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding more source notes to "Personal life"

message: Everyone here should be familiar with Andrew Prine, Karyn Kupcinet's boyfriend, possibly estranged boyfriend.  If you think Karyn's article gives undue weight to fringe theories, check out Andrew's article.  Maybe it doesn't mention Oswald or Jack Ruby, but the details about Karyn's murder that it does have are an incoherent mess. The "Personal life" section is filled with bad grammar, bad sentence structure, blockquotes without references and a lot of hearsay without references. Someone even added the POV claim that the reason newspapers stopped covering the LA county sheriffs' investigation of Kupcinet's death after December 6, 1963 was that they hoped to avoid upsetting her father Irv, himself a newspaper columnist. That does not have a RS.  Please check out the mess and prepare to devote at least an hour to fixing it, if you have that much time.  Andrew Prine's article is a mess of fringe details.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.50 (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, Andrew Prine has less than 30 article page watchers, so hopefully some one will visit from this talk page. I already had him on my watchlist, as well as Karyn's. Someone, possibly you from a similar IP address just made some improvments. I still gave it an WP:Original Research issue tag/ If any article needs it, that one does. Now that I have tagged it, the incentive is there to boldly trim, reword, or delete much of the unsourced speculative commentary. If no one else does, later (days, weeks) I shall return and take the proofreaders pencil to that section.  Thanks!  Fylbecatulous talk 16:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: If you think ''this'' article contains speculation, check out Andrew Prine's.