Talk:Dorothy Kilgallen/Archive 1

Archive 1

Having been born in 1951, I grew up with What's My Line? The photo displayed in the Dorothy Kilgallen entry is definitely NOT Dorothy Killgallen. I recognize the wholesome, blond, "girl-next-door," "Doris-Day-type" actress in the photo as being from that era, but cannot come up with her name. Compare her photo to these actual photos of Dorothy Kilgallen:

This is Dorothy Kilgallen!

David L. Kutzler

There's some confusion here--the entry suggests that the Sheppard trial was early in her career, but it was in 1954--nearly 20 years after her career started in the 1930s. Can someone more knowledgeable correct this, please?

I corrected it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.81.203.13 (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

January 2, 2008 -- Please Don't Revert All The Edits Without Checking Sources

Here is a summary of the many edits I did today. By no means did I fix all the problems, such as many of the "citation needed" requests in this article. I fixed a few.

Most of my edit was changing dates of American newspaper articles from the British format to American. All the American papers cited in the entire article have their own Wikipedia articles, and I gave them all links.

Memo to the person who doubts that Arlene Francis said something as gramatically shaky as "I thought Dorothy was a marvelous journalist. When she covered something like the Sheppard trial. As opposed to her gossip column." Yes, she did say it. Check the source: a particular page in the Lee Israel biography of Kilgallen. Israel interviewed the woman in January of 1976. So I removed the questioning of that from the footnotes.

I fixed the run-on sentence about Kilgallen's sister Eleanor Kilgallen that used to be there in the "After death and legacy" chapter. Now you see two succinct sentences about her. Please say something here before removing them. Eleanor is relevant because she is discussed in a prominent magazine column on her sister's mystery from as recently as 2006. It's in Vanity Fair (magazine), and the writer is Dominick Dunne. That's in the footnote. Eleanor Kilgallen is alive today, but I omitted that fact from the article. The very first paragraph of the entire article claims that Eleanor was a casting agent who helped the careers of James Dean, Kim Cattrall and other actors. I added a footnote after Dean and one after Cattrall.

I added a short section titled "Hearst bylines" immediately after the "Sam Sheppard" section. I did it so that Arlene Francis' quote comparing Kilgallen's different types of reporting (murder trial vs. show business gossip) remains there for a good reason. Her quote transitions the reader to a short explanation of why Kilgallen and other Hearst Corporation writers did as many diverse stories as possible. It was because Hearst wanted them to so their star bylines would sell more papers. Louella Parsons -- you know what she was famous for, right ? -- reported on the attempted assassination of a politician in Italy in 1948. His name was Palmiro Togliatti, and he survived the attempt for a few decades, during which few American gossipers paid attention to him. His 1948 news item was hardly show business gossip, yet Hearst wanted Parsons to cover it. This puts Dorothy Kilgallen's diversity (jury selection vs. which entertainers act gay) in perspective.

In the "Death" section I changed a reference to Kilgallen's husband from "Richard" to "Richard Kollmar." They used different last names publicly. Debbiesvoucher (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Restoring information about Kilgallen's widower and sister

I dispute Wildhartlivie's removal of Kilgallen's widower's refusal to talk and her sister's refusal to talk. Both are mentioned earlier in the article. In fact, Kilgallen's sister Eleanor Kilgallen is referenced in the very first paragraph of the article. Their silence is important because readers might wonder what the family ever said about a possible murder. Dominick Dunne said publicly in 1996 that it could have been a murder, and I'm restoring that, too. Wildhartlivie, maybe you need to submit this article for dispute resolution. Dooyar (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you are trying to ascribe meaning to the absence of something. That is not possible. You can not know why these people didn't talk about Kilgallen's death, therefore to bring that up is to imply there is meaning in it. That is creating speculation and does not belong in a Wikipedia article.

You wrote:

When Kollmar died in early 1971 two days after fracturing his shoulder, he and Fogarty had been married for three-and-a-half years. Two published accounts of him in that late period do not reveal whether he knew anything about the assassination. He and Fogarty were close with her niece who has said she does not recall either of them expressing interest in the subject or speculating about what Kilgallen had known (even though the niece had been an acquaintance of Kilgallen's). The ophthalmologist has stated he recalls Anne Fogarty, who was "personable," visiting his office sometimes to discuss landlord/tenant issues, but he never met her husband, who evidently did not take care of the couple's business.

The problems in this paragraph start with the mention of a fractured shoulder, which is irrelevant to Dorothy Kilgallen. Next you ascribe meaning to something not being in a book. Next you discuss the step-daughter of Kilgallen's widower, who is not relevant to the article. Then you mention what amounts to an anecdote from the person who rented an office from Kilgallen's widower and his wife years later. This is not an investigative piece, an essay on who knew what or who didn't or a platform for developing meaning. It's an encyclopedia and what you are adding is not encyclopedic.

Fogarty, whose age is difficult to determine because of reports that vary by as much as ten years, died shortly after the publication of Lee Israel's book, to which she had not contributed. Information about Fogarty's work for Dorothy Kilgallen, including the original dresses for her last several episodes of What's My Line?, comes from Kilgallen's hairdresser, who knew many designers and Diana Vreeland.

And all I can ask here is "so what??" Fogarty's age is even less relevant to the article than the fact that she designed dresses that Kilgallen wore. It's not encyclopedic.

Another close relative of Kilgallen has refused to discuss her, according to crime writer Dominick Dunne. Appearing on Larry King Live on January 25, 2006, he answered a phone caller's query about Kilgallen by saying the columnist could have been murdered. Dunne added, "I doubt we would find anything this many years later," with which King, who said he had known Kilgallen, agreed. In the April 2006 edition of Vanity Fair (magazine), Dunne added that he asked Kilgallen's sister Eleanor about the mystery on two occasions after the columnist's death and before he left film and television production to become a crime writer. Eleanor Kilgallen, a casting agent who worked with him to book actors, "... made me feel like a skunk for asking," Dunne wrote, and she refused to answer.

This is just more of the same "they won't talk about it. We think she was murdered, but those people who might know something won't talk to us." It doesn't mean anything in regard to fact. All of this just continues to give undue weight to this one factor, which, if there were statements by these people, or investigations with conclusions, then would be relevant. So the family didn't talk about it, that does not equal meaning. It's implying meaning and a conclusion from the absence of comment. That isn't encyclopedic.

Finally, what good does it do to bring something to dispute resolution when you won't participate? I will put in a request for comments on this one, which will establish a consensus which will then need to be adhered to. Should we ask for an IP check of some of the contributors over the last 2-3 months as well? Please do not use edit summaries to direct comments at another editor. It's unacceptable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Latest version

Bad grammar is also unacceptable. The article read as follows until the version I made a few minutes ago: "The column, which she wrote until her death in 1965. The column featured mostly ..." For the latest version I fixed that plus I added footnotes for the segment on the Sheppard murder. I left alone the sentence about Kilgallen's father Jimmy in "After death and legacy." It reads the same way it did before: "Jimmy Kilgallen worked until 1981, but the word in New York journalism circles was ... ." Nyannrunning (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between bad grammar and editing errors when trying to clean up a mess. Please assume good faith and don't phrase things contentiously. Also Dooyar, when adding citations for television programs, you need to follow the format listed at Wikipedia:Citation_templates, which has one specific one, {{cite episode}}, which is outlined in more detail at Template:Cite episode. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"Hearst girl"

The reference to her being a "Hearst Girl" is unclear to anyone not familiar with the term. This should be worded so the general public can understand the point (if there is one). 208.127.106.170 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

External links

I removed the following links because they do not appear to meet our WP:EL guidelines for including external links. Another editor returned them with the summary "educational links"

• Dorothy Kilgallen and the JFK Assassination
• Dorothy Kilgallen Bio

1) i take great issue with the term "educational" being applied to the mcadams site. 2) even if they are "educational", that alone is not sufficient reason for inclusion

Per the guidelines "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link."

They clearly fail "What should be linked" numbers 1. (its not kilgallen's official source) and 2. (it is not legally hosting a copy of a score or script) And it does not meet number three either 3. "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." There is plenty of room in the article to integrate any information either of these sites hold without violating any copyright issues.

The sites might possibly fall under "Links to be considered #3" "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." However, considering the fact that there are hundreds of completely reliable sources about the topic of the article, there is no reason to include links that fail to meet the standard.

Is anyone able to provide validation that these sites have a reputation for fact checking and reliability and are not WP:NPOV or WP:FRINGE violations. Please bring it forward. But both sites are focused extremely on speculation about one very very minor portion of her life WP:UNDUE. MM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.137 (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The first is a well-regarded website run by a college professor. Don't see any reason not to keep it. Gamaliel (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gamaliel. There is not enough room in this article to go into depth with Kennedy Assassination conspiracy theories, and both of these sites delve into that aspect much deeper than can be covered here. Since Kilgallen's death has been posited to be related to the JFK assassination, these links add sufficient content beyond which we can cover it. They clearly fall under Links to be considered and are properly included. Sara's Song (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The site is well regarded by whom? Just being a professor does not make a reliable source. Has he been published by reliable sources in the areas relevant to this article? (WP:ELNO #11: Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.) Also, it is not at all difficult to google sources that connect Kilgallen to the JFK Assassination conspiracy theories. Why would we violate WP:ELNO #1 "Any site that does not provide a unique resource" MM—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.25 (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is a site that provides a unique resource. Gamaliel (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

On what basis do you make the claim of "unique"? there are hundreds of online JFK assassination sites with information about Kilgallen? MM

It is well regarded by reliable sources and falls under the category of specialists in an area. It is used in other crime related articles. Besides, you opened the door to opinions. Please don't post responses and arguments to each opinion as it is expressed. And beside the point is that you are posting guideline arguments, not policy, so it is entirely proper to point out WP:IAR. These are good links to content that cover the issue in further detail. Sara's Song (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

How come people who point out "ignore the rule" always seem to ignore the second half of the requirement "if it improves the encyclopedia"? MM—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.25 (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Is there a particular reason why you are being contentious about this? Two previously uninvolved editors have commented here. "I don't agree, therefore don't respect your opinions" aren't helpful here. Sara's Song (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything you can point me to that will suppport your claim "It is well regarded by reliable sources"? because as I pointed out above it does NOT appear to "falls under the category of specialists in an area."(WP:ELNO #11: Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.) " MM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.24 (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I can point you to the fact that this was broached to the WP:EL/N and no one bothered to respond negatively to it, that no one came here to challenge it and that the site is used on various articles here with no challenge to state that it is accepted here. No one is required to widely justify it to your satisfaction. You are trying very hard to exclude this content, which Gamaliel has pronounced acceptable use of the links, citing guidelines as policy. Why would you continue to fight over it when an administrator has stated this? Sara's Song (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Very little is ever appropriately decided on Wikipedia in conversations with less than 24 hours for people to participate. Generally no conversation under a week could be considered to have existed long enough to allow people who dont log in every day to have a chance to notice and give their opinon.

2) Administrators are merely users with access to mops, not individuals whose opinion in and of itself outweighs the opinion of other users.

3) You still have not supported your claim that the site is "It is well regarded by reliable sources" On what basis do you make that claim? MM

I guess User talk:Sara's Song will not be able to supply an answer, due to having chosen to vanish [1]. Can anyone else? 207.69.139.142 (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A cursory search of both google scholar and google books turns of dozens of papers and publications which both cite and praise McAdams. He's used in dozens of Wikipedia articles as well. He's a recognized, credentialed expert. Don't see any reason to single this source or this article out. Gamaliel (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide specific links that are about this McAdams showing his area of expertise is closely related to the content of the website? MM207.69.137.39 (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said in the Edit Summary for my edit (using some abbreviations to fit in the limited space), "John McAdams' web site is a reliable source. If you tag footnotes as unreliable, okay, but please don't remove text that cites them. His web site has two pages on Kilgallen. I added second one to External Links." So, Sara's Song, please don't remove the text about the declassified FBI documents on Kilgallen that Dr. McAdams examined at the National Archives. Earththings (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If the source cannot be shown to be reliable, we remove it, we do not leave it flagged forever. MM 207.69.137.39 (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that multiple editors have supported the use of the McAdams content and you are waging edit wars against that with no support. Please stop removing the links to that content. You have no support to do so. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You need to weigh the links http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/kilgallen.txt and http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death4.htm against WP:ELNO #2 and #11. The former forbids external links to "unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints which such sites are presenting". The conclusions of Eric Paddon's article reflect only Paddon's opinion. The "Dorothy Kilgallen: Mysterious Death?" webpage is presumably written by McAdams and quotes its sources, but still can only be seen as McAdams' opinion. In WP:ELNO #11, there is a prohibition against "links to ... personal web pages ... except those written by a recognized authority". It then offers a minimum standard for recognised authority as "recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies". The only John McAdams article is about a public address announcer for Philadelphia Big 5 college basketball. The Eric Paddon article does not exist. If you are looking to establish consensus on either author as a recognized authority, at the very least you need to have their biographies in Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That an email copy was sent to McAdams does not mean the sender wrote an opinion piece. And I am unaware that a person is required to have a Wikipedia article to be an authority on a topic. Where can I find that guideline? Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

An opinion piece is where an author draws conclusions to form his own opinion. I doubt you will convince anyone that Paddon's article can be taken as representing anything more than his own opinion. McAdams' is certainly more clearly researched, but does far more than present facts: he presents his opinion.

WP:ELNO #11: "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.)" If no biography exists, how are you going to demonstrate that he is a recognized authority? WP:EL clearly states "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." --RexxS (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've edited this to make clear that Paddon, and not me, researched the article that was cited. And I'm not aware that he went to the Archives. I doubt they have the Journal-American, but he was a Ph.D. student at the University of Ohio, which could easily get the paper on microfilm. (I'm done that here.) -- John McAdams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.30.18 (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Of course, Padden could have read the Journal-American on microfilm. Anyone can. If you can't visit the libraries in New York, Washington and Austin, Texas that have it, then you can make an interlibrary loan request. I understand your edit, Dr. McAdams. I'm going to submit another version momentarily that will have your name and Padden's. People should know that his essay is part of your website. Maybe he didn't visit the Archives, but his essay suggests that he has strong opinions about particular declassified FBI documents that the Archives has available for viewing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.90 (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Two minor additions

In the section "Early life and career" I'm adding the detail that Kilgallen was dead when Bennett Cerf said in a taped conversation that she had regularly angered him and other What's My Line? regulars. (Footnote #8 gives the date of the taped conversation as January 23, 1968. She died November 8, 1965.) I'm adding his very words about her publishing in her newspaper what he and others said in their joint dressing room: "We didn't like that." We have an additional source about them sharing one dressing room: the book What's My Line? -- TV's Most Famous Panel Show by Gil Fates. It has a photo of Kilgallen and Cerf sitting in front of a vanity mirror shortly before going on the air live; she is putting on powder make-up and he has not yet put on the bowtie or the jacket of his tuxedo.

Next, I'm adding one word to the section "Kilgallen and the Kennedy assassination": officially. To be clear, the article should say most of the Ruby testimony "didn't become officially available to the public until the Warren Commission released its 26 volumes in early 1965." Without the word officially, it doesn't make sense that Kilgallen publishes all of it in August 1964 (see footnotes #25, 26 and 27) but most of it is unavailable until 1965. The truth is that she published it in several newspapers at which time it was not officially available (from the U.S. government agency that was in charge of it.)Earththings (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Insertions by Clarkx on July 4, 2010

Regarding the two paragraphs this editor inserted in the "other controversy" section, the first one is alright. There are several sources about Kilgallen making negative comments about a preview performance of Skyscraper (musical). They include two of her newspaper columns, the second of which read, "I have in hand a slap on the wrist from Howard Lindsay ..." indicating that the producer/playwright objected to her critique. Variety (magazine) is another source on the episode. This source ran an article on it when she was alive. A week later Kilgallen's Variety obituary referred to Skyscraper.

Aside from adding Wikilinks, my only change to this first of two paragraphs from Clarkx was changing "about seven months" to "248 performances." I got that from the Wiki article on Skyscraper.

The second paragraph inserted by Clarkx in "other controversy" had to go, however. It contained pure speculation about a connection between Kilgallen's death and the Northeast Blackout of 1965, adding that she would have loved it. (The lights went out while her hairdresser was preparing her hair and make-up in the Abbey Funeral Directors at Lexington Avenue and East 66th Street.) The only legitimate source that ever speculated about a Kilgallen / power blackout connection was a 1966 book by Penn Jones, Jr.. He devoted just one sentence to it. His comment seems too cursory for Wikipedia when compared to the technical explanations in the Wiki article for the Northeast Blackout of 1965.

Padden / McAdams

• [Discussion transferred from UserTalk:EEng]

Your edit summary from yesterday says, "Somebody's essay on a website is not a reliable source." I agree. The essay and website in question is an essay by Eric Padden on a website about the JFK assassination that was created and is maintained by John McAdams, a professor at Marquette University. I made a follow-up edit less than an hour ago in which I removed references to Padden / McAdams from the text of "Kilgallen and the Kennedy assassination" but retained it as a reference (on the list of "References") for the FBI's cluelessness. It never determined who gave Kilgallen Jack Ruby's testimony to Earl Warren in the Dallas County jail, even though two FBI agents visited her house to interrogate her. Padden / McAdams remains as reference # 37 abcd. If you want to remove it as a reference as well, then you can use our other source for the FBI never determining who gave Kilgallen the goods: reference # 2 also known as "Israel." All the references for "Israel" provide page numbers. I can provide them.

I propose that Padden / McAdams remain in another section of the article headlined "After death and legacy" because that section cites other sources that dispute Padden's claim that Mark Lane told Kilgallen everything she knew about the assassination. Mr. Lane said no, he did not tell her everything. She knew a lot more than he did, but she declined to tell him about it. We should introduce the Padden / McAdams claim then say it contradicts what Mr. Lane has said publicly. I'm open to other proposals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.44.95 (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No, the other sources don't "dispute" Padden -- they can't, since they predate it -- rather, they merely appear to contradict' Padden. I'm afraid all of this discussion is WP:OR in its use of audiotapes and so on, and WP:SYNTH in its juxtaposition of primary sources. Elsewhere in the article Padden is used as the source for bare assertsions. None of this is appropriate for Wikipedia, which is too bad since it sheds light on a little corner of the Kennedy assassinatio. But its use here will have to wait until a RS engages this material first.

I'll leave it to you to review the relevant policies and act on them. EEng (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Did this thing erase the second of my edits that I did today or what?

Description of first edit reads: "One of this article's major sources, book by Lee Israel, has 1948 photo of Kilgallen with Sinatra in radio studio, it also limits Sinatra's "

I apologize profusely for hitting a key on my keyboard with my pinky that sent the edit before I typed the rest of the description in a second edit. Continuation of description should read: "... it also limits Sinatra's use of 'chinless wonder' to concert stages in New York and Vegas, no evidence people elsewhere heard it when she was alive, Kollmar - Fogarty wedding announcement ran in New York Times June 23, 1967."Hbtvmusic (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

After death and legacy

I thought it relevant to add a paragraph to that section of the article about a loved one of Kilgallen who is still alive. Her son Kerry Kollmar turns up many times in the Kilgallen biography by Lee Israel. I included page numbers with the references from that source that I added to the new paragraph. Another source I added is the kinescope of a live episode of What's My Line? that shows Kilgallen with a cast on her arm enclosed by a sling. It was a live telecast on April 25, 1965. You Tube has the mystery guest segment in which you can see the sling for the cast. It hangs from her neck.

mystery guest segment from live telecast of April 25, 1965

The opening segment of this What's My Line? live episode shows the sling and cast more clearly, and you can hear John Charles Daly say to Kilgallen how sorry he is that "that arm" is giving her a lot of trouble. The kinescope of this episode was rebroadcast several times in the 1990s and 21st century on GSN, so it is a legitimate source. The new paragraph of the article cites a passage from the Israel book that illustrates how little we know about the injury. The paragraph refers to the oddly sparse information that NYU Langone Medical Center released to Kerry Kollmar and Lee Israel in the 1970s. Dorothy Kilgallen's "general health" was described by the hospital official who wrote on the document as "excellent." The official did not sign a name under it. The person added that the patient had "sustained injury to left (left is abbreviated) shoulder." Why the What's My Line? kinescope indicates her forearm was injured is not known.

Although one doctor told Kerry Kollmar many years later that his mother had remained in the hospital for three weeks so she could withdraw from barbiturates and alcohol, the medical records made no mention of that.

Do people agree that the citation of the cryptic medical document belongs in the article?

Another mystery that I cannot figure out how to include in the article is that her autopsy report, which is available on this website,

Report of autopsy on Kilgallen on original documents from medical examiner's office

says she had a fresh bruise on her right shoulder when she died. We know that the injury she had sustained seven months before her death -- whether on the shoulder or the forearm -- was on her left side. Would inclusion of that mystery in the article be considered "original research?"— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.8.239 (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Tone

Before replacing the {{tone}} tag, please list specific concerns here so that editors may have an idea what to work on. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 15:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hauptmann Trial

Dorothy was one of hundreds of journalists covering the 1935 trial of Bruno Richard Hauptmann, the person eventually convicted of the Lindbergh baby kidnapping and murder. See page 261 of Behn, Noel. Lindbergh: the Crime, (New York, NY: Penguin Books USA Inc., 1994), 496 pp. L. Thomas W. (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC) L. Thomas W. L. Thomas W. (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Undue Weight to Fringe Theories

This article gives vastly disproportionate coverage to various fringe theories regarding her death. I am tagging the article accordingly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I am leaving your tag alone. I disagree with you, however. Every allegation that seems "fringe" comes from a legitimate source. If you think Lee Israel was the only writer who cried "Conspiracy!" during the era when many Kilgallen witnesses were alive, you are mistaken.

As the article says, Ramparts magazine gave credence to a Kilgallen conspiracy theory in its November 1966 edition. The editor prepared it at least two weeks before the first anniversary of Kilgallen's death. All important witnesses were alive.

What's that -- somebody is going to point out that Ramparts was an extremist left-wing rag that introduced paranoid hippies, including David Crosby, to their first conspiracy fairy tales? If that describes our source accurately, then why did Helen Gurley Brown reprint the Ramparts story word for word in her February 1967 Cosmopolitan? Our article says that, too.

Was Ms. Brown a paranoid anti-establishment nut? I don't think so. If the article she reprinted was so demeaning to Kilgallen's memory, then why did the respected ladies' dress designer Anne Fogarty say nothing about it publicly? As a dress designer, she read Cosmopolitan. She married Kilgallen's widower Richard Kollmar four months after Cosmopolitan came out with the "fringe" article on a Kilgallen conspiracy. Fogarty had known Kilgallen personally.

Yet the "fringe" article never elicited a peep out of Anne Fogarty or Richard Kollmar. I checked every Cosmopolitan from March to December 1967 looking for a letter to the editor from either. Nothing. Remember, February 1967 had the "fringe" allegation on a Kilgallen conspiracy.

In 2015 we will have a new source for our article: a book solely about Dorothy Kilgallen that is authored by Mark William Shaw. Do you believe he is a day late and a dollar short because all Kilgallen witnesses surely must be dead? They were not dead when Mr. Shaw interviewed them, using a video camera for some and audio recordings for others.

I am not a conspiracy extremist who believes black is white, white is black and someone else's disagreement proves I'm right. What I am saying is that several legitimate sources, including words published by Dorothy Kilgallen herself, support our article.

Finally, if you believe everyone who has published anything about Kilgallen automatically is a fringe person who is starved for very old sensationalism, then read the Witness deaths section of the following Wikipedia article. It puts Kilgallen in perspective.

Scroll down to Witness deaths and read two paragraphs about Rose Cheramie

Two paragraphs are devoted to a "witness to a JFK conspiracy" named Rose Cheramie. She was an intravenous heroin - using prostitute with a long criminal record for stealing cars to support her drug habit. She was convicted of stealing cars in the late 1940s, many years before the assassination. If the Cheramie angle of the JFK conspiracy is not very old sensationalism, what is?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.50 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not arguing against mentioning legitimately sourced conspiracy theories. I am stating that the coverage is grossly disproportionate and a clear violation of WP:DUE and WP:PROFRINGE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot to tackle in that post. The context of the Ramparts article is is a discussion of Penn Jones, Jr.'s "suspicious deaths" theory. Ramparts stated: "We know of no serious person who really believes that the death of Dorothy Kilgallen, the gossip columnist, was related to the Kennedy assassiantion."[2] TIME quoted that and added: "Nor, for that matter, can a serious person really believe that the rest of the Ramparts-Jones saga is anything but a macabre and mischievous exercise in mythmaking."[3] There is a strong argument that Jones and Ramparts could be considered fringe sources for this material. There are reliable sources that report on this particular conspiracy theory, but as Ad Orientem has argued, the question is of how much weight do we give to it. Regarding Rose Cheramie, WP:OTHERSTUFF is applicable here. John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories has its own problems and one of them, exemplified by the discussion of Cheramie's death, is that it has become overly detailed on certain points. User:Joegoodfriend has suggested that the "suspicious deaths" theory be spun-off into a separate article. But that's a discussion to have there. - Location (talk) 05:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

How can the coverage be grossly disproportionate if the article cites several legitimate sources, including words that Kilgallen herself published about the murders of JFK, Dallas police officer Tippit and Lee Oswald? The article even includes two graphics that have clippings from newspapers that ran Kilgallen's comments when she was alive.

Please check the graphic that appears on the left side of the article. It contains her column that appears under the headline Princess Lee's in the Wings. When you read it carefully, you notice that Kilgallen denigrates, instead of liking, the first A-list American conspiracy-oriented movie, which was The Manchurian Candidate. So the article indicates that Kilgallen cautioned her readers about conspiracy fiction. That helps prevent the space devoted to conspiracy from being "grossly disproportionate." Also, a lot of space is devoted to show business professionals hating her for reasons having nothing to do with a conspiracy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.50 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Please read WP:DUE. You seem intent on arguing the merits of the conspiracy theories which is neither here nor there. What should be an article about a person has been turned into an article about conspiracy theories surrounding her death with a few biographical details thrown in for flavor. Also please remember to sign your comments with four tildes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Ad Orientem said:

You seem intent on arguing the merits of the conspiracy theories which is neither here nor there.

I am not arguing such merits. Did you read what I said about Kilgallen herself criticizing The Manchurian Candidate movie when it was old and not accessible on American television? The article says that, or did somebody remove that portion today or yesterday?

What should be an article about a person has been turned into an article about conspiracy theories surrounding her death with a few biographical details thrown in for flavor.

The "person" was a journalist and game show panelist who got paid a lot of money to downplay her own identity while reporting and while asking questions to determine what a stranger's job was. In turn, her fans left her private life alone. Even Frank Sinatra talked only about her looks. He never repeated publicly any allegations about her private life -- obsession with Johnnie Ray, anti-Semitism, etc. Sinatra's private life inspired huge speculation -- painful rejection by Ava Gardner, etc. -- not Kilgallen's. Kilgallen was one of the columnists who told you about Sinatra, not vice versa.

You hope to throw in more biographical details? If you include sensational ones, such as Kilgallen's alleged anti-Semitism, her love affair with Johnnie Ray or her own husband Richard's alleged bisexuality, then you are doing what Kirkus Reviews accused Lee Israel of doing. You can scroll down further on this page to find someone's citation of the Kirkus Reviews take on Israel. Whoever adds pseudointellectual old gossip to this article is in no position to criticize Ms. Israel.

I find the UFO section problematic as well. There's no evidence that those quotes from her 1950s columns are notable as no reliable secondary sources have mentioned them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. We cannot put that material in a section called "Controversial articles" unless we have a secondary source showing that her comments generated controversy. The only reliable secondary source I have found mentioning Kilgallen and UFOs in the same breath is this blurb in 1997 for a Dark Skies episode. Unless there is more, this section should likely be struck. - Location (talk) 05:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Note there are more problems with a conspiracy theory being heavily woven throughout "Kilgallen and the Kennedy assassination", "Death" and "After death and legacy" sections. Much of the synthetic emphasis on conspiracy is being sourced to Kilgallen's columns, a Wordpress blog, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree - a bio on her written shortly after her death would have none of this conspiracy stuff affixed. It only became an "issue" when the national mood changed a year later, and some made connections. The context must be remembered. The fall of 1966 was when, arguably, the conspiracy movement was hatched, with, in particular, Mark Lane's book becoming a best-seller and the New York Times calling for a re-evaluation of the evidence. When she actually died a year before, there was no link made to the assassination, but with all the talk a year later, the connection was made. The premise has been that in November 1965, Kilgallen was sitting on some huge story. The problem is, even if she did interview Jack Ruby (and there is considerable doubt she did more than shout questions during the trial), the fact a year-plus later she had published nothing suggests there was nothing of note to publish. She wasn't an investigative reporter per se, more the type to publish the latest scuttlebutt whether it was accurate or not. Of course, it can never be disproved that someone dropped a "smoking gun" on her lap, it just strains credulity that a glorified gossip columnist would be the one entrusted by a Deep Throat to break this story. And, of course, her "murder" pre-supposes there was a conspiracy in the first place and parties were interested in keeping certain information confidential. Indeed, she may have been sitting on any number of stories, nothing to do with the assassination, with interested parties determined to keep her quiet. So even if she WAS murdered, that doesn't automatically mean assassination conspirators were involved. If she was able to comment on the controversy surrounding her death, she'd likely say "You've got to be kidding." Canada Jack (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

If the Mark Lane stuff has received attention in independent sources, it should be moved into a separate "Conspiracy theories" section of the article, and the amount of detail in that section weighted according to the coverage given the conspiracy theories by objective sources. Right now it's scattered all over the article, and it looks as if some obscure details have been added here and there simply to give support to conspiracy notions. I can understand why some may be reluctant to go through each line of text in the article and locate and remove conspiracy-minded original research cited to nothing more than Kilgallens own columns, but I think the material cited to obviously unreliable sources like "http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/" (someone's private JFK conspiracy site), "http://radiodiscussions.com/" (a forum) and "http://kilgallenfiles.wordpress.com" (a blog) can be removed immediately, for starters.- LuckyLouie (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Note There is a discussion concerning this article on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I am 100% in agreement with the assessment that the article in its current form gives disproportionate and undue weight to the conspiracy theorizing about her death. I share the concerns about the reliability of Lee Israel book, given the author's problems telling the truth. I recommend that this material be trimmed dramatically. This ought to be a biography of Kilgallen's whole life. It should not not be a coatrack to advance conspiracy theories. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations

I have removed a number of scanned newspaper articles from the article. These must be assumed to be copyright violations unless we have irrefutable proof that the material is either in the public domain, or has been freely licensed in a compliant fashion. No such evidence has been furnished. The fact that a newspaper has ceased publication is not enough, as copyrights can be sold or assigned to creditors.

We do not build articles on scanned copyrighted documents posted to the article. We cite reliable sources, whether or not they are available online. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Time to fix this mess

Between discussions here and on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard I believe there is a strong consensus that this article has become a WP:COATRACK for conspiracy theories and gives grossly disproportionate weight to certain aspects of the subjects life, specifically her death and various conspiracy theories surrounding it as well her views on the Kennedy Assassination. The article has been tagged to this effect for sometime with the support of numerous editors. See the various discussions at FTN. It is my intention to undertake a significant overhaul of the article in the coming days as my time permits (I am pretty busy with real world stuff) with the object of bringing it into line with Wikipedia guidelines. This will almost certainly involve redacting significant amounts of extraneous detail and bloat coupled with combining appropriate references to the controversial stuff into one or at most two sections in order to comply with WP:DUE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I see that you have begun that process, Ad Orientem, and I commend you for it. I will assist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Cullen328! I think we have made a good start on this. It's getting late here. I will be back on this tomorrow sometime. Once we delete as much of the bloat and PROFRINGE stuff as possible we will have to do some c/e to smooth everything out. Hopefully we can knock this out in a couple of days. Thanks again! -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the much-needed editing. Question; is Kilgallen known primarily for being controversial? The article chooses to focus only on her "Controversial articles". It seems like a holdover from conspiracy buff edits seeking to push the idea that Kilgallen was murdered because she "knew too much" about Sinatra, UFOs, the JFK assassination, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

In the era of YouTube, people who missed Kilgallen's commentary when she was alive know her only for YouTube videos of her What's My Line? game show. Was she known to older people for being primarily controversial when they experienced her commentary the first time around? That depends on which older people you talk to.

I have met older people who rooted for Kilgallen when she denigrated Frank Sinatra in her column. I have met older people who were mainly interested in her front-page articles that were exclusively about the Sam Sheppard murder case. Newspapers throughout the United States laid them out separately from her column.

Some older folks tell me they lived in a place where none of her writing was accessible, not even her syndicated column. If your local newspaper editor declined to publish her "Voice of Broadway" column, you were stuck. So these people only remember What's My Line. Very rarely did she make any controversial statements or jokes on that nationally seen game show. Nobody acknowledged on-camera that Sinatra hated her.

I don't interpret our article as insinuating that her feud with Sinatra or her knowledge of UFO's could have resulted in her murder. Mark Lane, the conspiracy theorist who knew her personally and who is quoted in the After death and legacy section, believes her intense interest in Lee Oswald and Jack Ruby placed her in danger. And the unreliable Lee Israel book is not our source on that.

Our article has other important sources besides the book by Ms. Israel. People here seem to be saying that not only is Ms. Israel a deceitful crook, but she has brainwashed everyone who ever interviewed Dorothy Kilgallen's colleagues or friends and everyone who has viewed declassified FBI documents. They seem to be saying that more than ten years after Kilgallen's death, Ms. Israel invented a new conspiracy theory. Hogwash.

The Ramparts article was published thirteen years before Ms. Israel's book was. It was published at a time when Kilgallen's widower could have responded to it publicly, but he didn't. He was dead when Ms. Israel started working on her book. Our article already has the first sentence from the Ramparts piece: "We know of no serious person who really believes ..." My attempt to include the second sentence resulted in another of Cullen's editing reversals.

Why does Cullen believe that adding one more sentence from a non - fringe source gives our article too much emphasis on conspiracies?

I believe its inclusion is important because the first sentence by itself suggests that Ramparts totally discounts the Kilgallen aspect of the JFK conspiracy, when in fact succeeding paragraphs describe a genuine mystery.

Or should Ramparts be considered a fringe source as the Israel book is? In 1966, Ramparts was popular in the San Francisco Bay area. (The magazine's office was in San Francisco.) In November 1966, when the issue appeared with a jigsaw puzzle of JFK's face on the cover and Kilgallen's name on an inside page, the counterculture and anti-Vietnam War movement were growing but were not reaching the peak that they eventually reached in the summer of 1967. So maybe Ramparts should be considered a fringe source.KathrynFauble (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there are two different aspects of conspiracy theories related to this article. There are the conspiracy theories that Kilgallen promulgated (i.e. that Ruby had information about a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy) and there are the conspiracy theories promulgated by others in which Kilgallen was the subject (i.e. that she was killed because she had knowledge of a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy). The quote from the Ramparts article you are referring to is this:

"We know of no serious person who really believes that the death of Dorothy Kilgallen, the gossip columnist, was related to the Kennedy assassination. Still, she was passionately interested in the case, told friends she firmly believed there was a conspiracy and that she would find out the truth if it took her all her life."

The first sentence is applicable to conspiracy theories promulgated by others, and that was what the section was about. The second sentence is not. For the content in question, the Ramparts article is likely a fringe source. I reworked the material applicable to Ramparts because the article previously misstated what it actually said and also because it was likely the origination for the idea that she was murdered because she had knowledge of the assassination that others wanted suppressed. Still, it is not even necessary to cite Ramparts directly as the article and its allegations were discussed in a non-fringe source, TIME[4] - Location (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Article under construction

I know it's being re-planned, but I can't see the point of a totally blank section headed 'Conspiracy theories about her death'. Valetude (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

We have decisions to make about several contents of the section from when it was there. If editors consider Ramparts magazine to be a reliable source, then how about including the first two sentences of the Ramparts article on Kilgallen?

"We know of no serious person who really believes that the death of Dorothy Kilgallen, the gossip columnist, was related to the Kennedy assassination. Still, she was passionately interested in the case, told friends she firmly believed there was a conspiracy and that she would find out the truth if it took her all her life." I recommend including those two sentences instead of only the first. The first by itself can mislead Wikipedia readers into believing that Ramparts was dismissing entirely the Kilgallen angle of a JFK conspiracy. When you read the entire page, which you can access by clicking on the URL, you notice that the magazine hardly dismissed the angle.

I am adding the reference and URL below for the benefit of people who missed it during previous edits of the article. You may need to scroll down to page 45, which is the page that contains the portion of the long article about Kilgallen.KathrynFauble (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

As stated previously, the second sentence states that Kilgallen believed in conspiracy theories regarding JFK's death; it is irrelevant in a section discussing conspiracy theories about her death. A better source for a discussion of theories about her death would be the November 11, 1966 issue of TIME magazine since it is a secondary source for the allegations put forth by Jones and Ramparts. - Location (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Removing maintenance tags, Issues not resolved.

It could still use some tweaking and polishing, but I think the really serious problems have been largely corrected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

All Time magazine did was react to two sources: Ramparts and Penn Jones' piece on Kilgallen in his November 1965 Midlothian Mirror newspaper. Time provided zero new details. It gave Dorothy one short paragraph.

Granted, the second sentence in Ramparts says what Kilgallen believed about JFK's death and Oswald's death, not what others believed about her death. Then how about including the following sentences from a later paragraph in Ramparts?

"Dr. James Luke, a New York City medical examiner, said the cause of death was 'acute barbiturate and alcohol intoxication, circumstances undetermined.' Dr. Luke said there were not high enough levels of either alcohol or barbiturates to have caused death, but that the two are 'additive' and together are quite enough to kill. This cause of death, he observed, is not at all uncommon. Was it suicide? Accident? Murder? Dr. Luke said there was no way of determining that."

There you have a Ramparts writer asking medical examiner James Luke about the mode of death, and he says he doesn't know. This would be a major improvement on the new section of our article: Conspiracy theories about her death.

Ramparts quotes a source: Dr. Luke. The Time paragraph only quotes Ramparts. It doesn't mention Dr. Luke or anyone else whom Ramparts quotes.

What source does the new section provide for the following? "Kilgallen was known as a heavy drinker, and both the coroner and her physician suggested it was likely a case of mixing..." It cannot possibly be citing Ramparts, which has Dr. Luke explaining the word "additive."

Additive means anyone who mixes even a moderate amount of alcohol with X number of pills can die. X depends on the individual, of course: height, weight, metabolism, food ingested or not ingested during the several hours before death, etc. To be on the safe side, someone taking certain medications shouldn't drink even a glass of wine within minutes of swallowing the pills. Many medical doctors told people this in the 1960s. Medical examiner Luke (New York City didn't have coroners) was a medical doctor. At no point in the Ramparts article does Luke or anyone else assert that the amount of alcohol found in Dorothy's body was heavy, moderate or whatever.

And who is "her physician?" The new section refers to such a person. Only possible source on that is the 1979 book by Lee Israel, and it is 100 percent fraud. Right? Israel wrote that she and Dorothy's son Kerry Kollmar had interviewed two physicians: Dr. David Baldwin and Dr. Saul Heller. Kilgallen allegedly had visited both of them some time prior to her death, and they both -- according totally to the Israel book -- examined her dead body while it was inside her home.

If you accept that the Israel book sometimes quotes human sources accurately, then you have to deal with a doctor other than James Luke who reviewed the autopsy documents and concluded that "the pills alone were in the lethal range."KathrynFauble (talk) 05:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The extent of TIME magazine's coverage of the allegations of conspiracy promulgated by Penn and Ramparts is irrelevant. What is relevant is that TIME magazine's coverage likely qualifies as coverage in a reliable source independent of the subject. For exceptional claims, we should be using those types of sources and not the primary source or sources of the claims (per WP:REDFLAG).

Similarly, their is no reason to use Ramparts quotes for Dr. Luke since his findings are already discussed and cited to a reliable secondary source earlier in the article. - Location (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Not all of Dr. Luke's findings were already discussed before our readers reach the new segment Conspiracy theories about her death. The segment could include Dr. Luke's answer to a question about the possibility of murder. He said he had no way of knowing. I have seen other sources that quote Dr. Luke on Kilgallen's death, and none of them broach the subject of a possible murder. They were all published a week after her death. As Wikipedia editor Canada Jack pointed out on November 19, the mood of the national consciousness changed dramatically between the immediate aftermath of her death and the publication of the Ramparts article a year later.

During the immediate aftermath, no journalist went on record as asking Dr. Luke about the possible murder of Kilgallen. A year later, a Ramparts writer did just that.

How can Ramparts not qualify as a reliable source independent of the subject? Its headquarters were in San Francisco surrounded by the New Left political movement, and those people had very little to do with Dorothy Kilgallen's older colleagues in New York. Her behind the scenes co-workers were newspaper editors with whom she worked and the publisher who had contracted with her to publish her manuscript titled Murder One. Her book publisher was Bennett Cerf. He was born in 1898, which made him at least forty years older than the vast majority of the New Left people in San Francisco. Their different viewpoints were well-known.

If you label Ramparts as a pro-conspiracy source, you are missing the point that the November 1966 issue was released very shortly after Mark Lane's book Rush to Judgment, and they were the first pro-conspiracy sources that were nationally known. Bennett Cerf, as well as the newspaper people who had worked with Kilgallen, didn't have an opportunity to cry "Conspiracy!" even if they wanted to. Cerf was thirty years older than Mark Lane. Lane, fourteen years younger than Kilgallen, gave her some tips during the early part of her critique of the Warren Commission: August and September 1964. Several legitimate sources on that exist: not the Lee Israel book.

Because Kilgallen was the first notable writer of her generation to do what she was doing with the assassination, then she has to be independent of Ramparts magazine. Even if the Ramparts staff tried to promote conspiracies the day before Kilgallen died, she didn't need them. Her name was well-known enough to sell books, and Bennett Cerf was helping her do that.

This is a reminder that none of our sources specifies that the words "a heavy drinker" describe Kilgallen's drinking on the night of her death. You seem to have missed my pointing that out previously. The new section uses these words, and none of our sources backs them up. We do have the Ramparts source in which Dr. Luke uses the word additive, which means it is dangerous to mix even a moderate amount of alcohol with any prescription medication. And he never commented on how heavily or how lightly she had consumed alcohol on occasions prior to the night she died, which further undermines our use of the words "a heavy drinker."KathrynFauble (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

We are not going to include someone saying that they have no way of knowing if someone was murdered. That's 100% WP:PROFRINGE speculative crap and it has no place in an encyclopedic article. We deal with verifiable facts, not empty speculation. Kilgallen's disagreement with the Warren Report is already mentioned. Ramparts was a pro-conspiracy source. Whether or not it was an early one is immaterial. I have no idea what Cerf has to do with the topic at hand. The reference to Heavy Drinker comes from the source I cited, Bugliosi's book. It appears to have been common knowledge, but he specifically cites Hugh Aynesworth who is a legendary reporter and quite probably the most knowledgeable man alive on the subject of the Kennedy assassination (pg. 1016). The bottom line is we are not going to go back and start reinserting speculative bull shit about murder absent some EVIDENCE. Of which there appears to none. The subject has gotten as much attention as it warrants. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Re: "Was it suicide? Accident? Murder? Dr. Luke said there was no way of determining that." This passage is troubling in that it requires us to take the word of Ramparts that Luke specifically addressed the issue of murder when the weight of published material appears to indicate that he only reported that he could not tell if Kilgallen's death was accidental or a suicide. - Location (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Bennett Cerf is relevant because his company contracted with Kilgallen to write the non-fiction book titled Murder One. It was published a year and ten months after her death. She was listed as the sole author. The very end of the Lee Israel book raises suspicion because the Murder One book, as it was published, makes no mention of Lee Oswald or Jack Ruby, yet witnesses said Kilgallen had planned to include them in her manuscript. Is everything in the Israel book unreliable?

If you believe everything in the Israel book is questionable, then be prepared for a new biography of Kilgallen that is scheduled for publication in 2015. The author has a Wikipedia article: Mark William Shaw. Age 69, he has had a long career as a criminal defense attorney, so people are going to have a hard time calling him a fraud. I plan to add the book as a source to our article upon its publication.

Mr. Shaw is busy checking out many of the claims that Lee Israel made in her 1979 book. He has not communicated with Ms. Israel. He was able to access video and audio interviews with her human sources, many of whom have passed away. He has examined declassified government documents that the Israel book cites. So far his verdict is that Lee Israel was honest when she worked on her book between 1975 and 1978, and that had nothing to do with the crimes she started committing more than ten years later. New York-based writers have been known to swing back and forth between severe highs and severe lows in their careers.

Upon the publication of the Mark Shaw book, Wikipedia editors and readers will have a much harder time dismissing Dorothy Kilgallen as an alcoholic gossip columnist and game show participant.KathrynFauble (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Your comment raises serious concerns about a possible WP:AGENDA in your editing. While I decline to address a book that has yet to be published, I will say that any additions to the article must conform to community standards, specifically WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE and must be confined to actual verifiable facts, not conjecture, innuendo or quotes designed to promote fringe theories. I believe there is a very strong consensus against the introduction of any more of that sort of stuff. This is an encyclopedia, not a promotional website for conspiracy theorism. And I think you will see any attempt to use this article for such purposes vigorously resisted by a large number of editors who have added it to their watch list. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Ping Location and Cullen328 -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Then apparently you approve of the conjecture that dominates the Wikipedia article on the death of Marilyn Monroe and the separate article on the woman who lived with her: Eunice Murray. Many sources confirm Monroe habitually ingested large doses of pharmaceutical drugs -- habitually meaning over a period of years. Any theory about her getting murdered should be considered a conspiracy theory or a fringe source. I recommend examining those two articles carefully.KathrynFauble (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The notion that we would discuss a book that has not been published as a source for this article is ludicrous. Maybe the book will be acclaimed by reliable sources as a brilliant expose of unresolved controversies of the 1960s. Maybe reliable sources will dismiss it as a piece of crap. Maybe they will ignore it. We shall see, but discussing it now, before publication, is utterly worthless. KathrynFauble, certainly you must be aware that there are many websites where you can post your speculations. Wikipedia is not one of them. Please stop your tendentious pushing of your own personal agenda. It will not fly here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I've already offered my comments on Israel. And Shaw, like a thousand others who have been published by Skyhorse, has already had a crack at enlightening the world about the Kennedy assassination with Poison Patriarch. - Location (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say we should discuss Mr. Shaw's Kilgallen book here now. I'm merely giving everyone here a preview of activity to come. This is not my "own personal agenda." It's Mr. Shaw's agenda. I'm not doing any "tendentious pushing." And the publisher for Mr. Shaw's Kilgallen book is not Skyhorse. That company didn't publish every one of his 24 books.KathrynFauble (talk) 06:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Based on some of your comments, I have serious doubts. But just to be absolutely clear, the only agenda allowed on Wikipedia is one of verifiable facts, that are relevant to the subject and that are presented in a completely WP:NPOV manner. So no, Mr.Shaw's agenda is not welcome here either. Given some of the very problematic things you have suggested belong in the article, I would suggest proceeding slowly and seeking consensus before making major changes. The bottom line is that this article is not going to be returned to its previous state as a WP:PROFRINGE WP:COATRACK. I think this horse has pretty much been beat to death and it is time to move on. But there are a lot of eyes that are now going to be watching this article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Mark William Shaw has authored 24 non-fiction books. Skyhorse published only a few of them. Macmillan published some of them. His books aren't fringe sources. You will find out in 2015.KathrynFauble (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Off Topic Commentary

Let's stay focused please. This page is getting bogged down in off topic bloat This is not a forum for debating conspiracy theories. If you want to discuss issues not directly related to the article please do so on your respective talk pages. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely.What you have written above, KathrynFauble, does not discuss improvement of this article in any way that I can comprehend, so is inappropriate for the article talk page. Why don't you discuss this on one of the many Kennedy assassination conspiracy blogs? Or start your own? Please limit yourself to making specific proposals for improving the article that can gain consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Why are you upbraiding only me and not Canada Jack? (I assume you no longer need a URL you can click on to access this person's Wikipedia identity.) The person rambled on about Lee Bowers using more space than I did. Canada Jack's theory makes no sense -- a theory that Bowers merits the attention of conspiracy theorists but Kilgallen doesn't.

From a Wikipedia standpoint, Kilgallen merits attention for what she did and said before the assassination. She had a long career wearing a few different hats. She was investigating murder cases when John Kennedy was a teen and before Oswald was born. Lee Bowers was a child at the time.

It's nice to give voices to the dead, but Wikipedia can't include information about everyone who was present in the Dealey Plaza section of Dallas during the assassination. Kilgallen didn't have to be there. Journalism was her field. Canada Jack can denigrate her dimension of the JFK mystery, but that hardly will help him revive another mysteriously dead person about whom classic game show fans couldn't care less.KathrynFauble (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record my observation was general and not directed at any one editor. I will however note that you have a habit of posting very lengthy commentary on here. Some of us do not live on Wikipedia, The few who do, probably have other articles they would like to spend some time on. PLEASE keep your commentary short and to the point. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

You are the one primarily responsible for the disruption here, KathrynFauble. If you don't stop, then it will be necessary to file a report at an administrative noticeboard asking that action be taken to be sure that you stop. Let me be clear: your obsession is becoming disruptive. Please stop now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Canada Jack was also one of the disruptive people. So there is no evidence that Kilgallen's death was suspicious, according to Canada Jack? None for Lee Bowers, either.KathrynFauble (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk page guideline

This is a reminder to all editors active on this talk page as to the pupose of article talk pages, per our Talk page guideline:

"The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject."

Please post ONLY specific proposals for improving this specific article, along with references to reliable sources backing up the proposed additions. Off-topic conversations like the walls of text above are simply not allowed on article talk pages. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Specific proposals aren't necessary anymore. The article no longer contains any of the findings from the 2007 online article whose title is misleading but forgivable. Don't judge a long article by its title.KathrynFauble (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Lee Israel, Kilgallen's biographer

Discussing Lee Israel's biography of Kilgallen, Kirkus Reviews wrote "once past Kilgallen's 'vinegary salad days,' it all makes for a crudely effective, if inflated, tabloid serial."[5] Israel has also admitted to have engaged in literary forgery (see, for example, [6], [7], and [8]). I think there is enough here that material cited to Israel should be used with in-text attribution and careful attention to WP:WEIGHT and WP:REDFLAG. - Location (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Based on 5, 6 and 7 from above I don't see how Israel can possibly be considered a reliable source about anything. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Lee Israel's crimes that she committed in 1992 had nothing to do with the integrity she displayed between 1975 and 1978 while working on her Kilgallen book using a 40,000 dollar advance from Delacorte Press. You are generalizing about her actions throughout a very long time span.

• Please don't take this personally, we all have our moments, but that post looks a bit shallow in the logic department. Forgery is a form of lying and deliberate deceit. A person caught in not one, but serial lies must expect that their veracity is going to become the object of doubt on any important matter. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Our article cites other sources besides the Lee Israel book, and many of them originate from researchers who:

-- examined declassified FBI documents that Ms. Israel had cited in her book. Turned out they said what she said they said.

-- interviewed human sources -- people who had known Kilgallen. Turned out they said what Ms. Israel said they said.

You can watch a basic cable television broadcast, originally telecast on January 31, 2000, a half-hour minus commercials, and listen closely to at least three of Ms. Israel's human sources on Kilgallen talking. Please click here. basic cable telecast on Dorothy Kilgallen that was produced in time for initial broadcast on January 31, 2000

Two of the interviewees, Jean Bach and Marlin Swing, both express similar beliefs about the suspicious nature of their mutual friend Kilgallen's death. If you check the Lee Israel book carefully, you find that she used many quotes from both throughout the 400 - plus pages, but she never cited the suspicions that either friend had about Kilgallen's murder. So much for Lee Israel fraudulently concocting a conspiracy theory using a 40,000 - dollar advance from Delacorte Press.

If a writer getting caught forging invalidates every scoop he or she ever published, then the fraud committed by Seymour Hersh, which his Wikipedia article details, would have to mean women were never raped or murdered at My Lai in Vietnam in the 1960s. But they were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.50 (talk • contribs)

• (edit conflict) First, please remember to sign your comments and also please indent them. It makes it easier to follow the discussion. Your post seems to create a straw man argument. I am not saying that Ms.Israel's work is a complete fabrication. I am saying that her track record of deceit makes it impossible to know with certainty if her work is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. In other words, she is not a reliable source. Mr. Hersh's standing is irrelevant to this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It may be impossible for you "to know with certainty if her work is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." Not only was it possible for other people to contact her [Ms. Israel's] human sources when they were alive, but these people [researchers who wrote snail mail letters and used recording devices] did just that. The other sources that our article cites originate from these researchers.

Turns out that all of our article's Israel citations check out. They include her citation of the 1972 book on the Sam Sheppard case authored by Jack Harrison Pollack. It does indeed say that the Cleveland newspaper that carried Kilgallen's column for many years (in syndication) dropped it permanently in December 1954 because the editors were not happy with her comment that the Sheppard prosecutors had not proven anything about the defendant's guilt or innocence.

Did you watch the video I provided for you -- a half-hour minus commercials? Two of the interviewees are heard commenting on their mutual friend Kilgallen's JFK investigation and her suspicious death -- Jean Bach and Marlin Swing. Check the Israel book and you only find them commenting on other stuff, such as socializing with Kilgallen at clubs. I avoided the YouTube version of the video because Wikipedia does not save a page if I include within it a YouTube link when I click "Save page." I can continue this tomorrow but not this evening.KathrynFauble (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

We simply cannot use the work of an admitted literary thief and serial forger as a reliable source, in my opinion, no matter the date of the source and the the date of the admitted crimes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Disputed 100%. Other sources that have been in our article for more than two years confirm that Lee Israel's human sources said what she quoted them as saying, and she also quoted declassified FBI documents correctly.

If you accuse Ms. Israel of milking the conspiracy angle for all it was worth, you are committing forgery yourself. Her book's many quotes from Kilgallen's friends Marlin Swing and Jean Bach have nothing to do with a conspiracy. They commented on a few of Kilgallen's short items of entertainment gossip that they remembered from her daily column. They discussed the talk radio show she had done with her husband. They commented on her personal life. But neither Mr. Swing nor Ms. Bach commented on a conspiracy -- not to Lee Israel in the 1970s they didn't.

Yet both Mr. Swing and Ms. Bach were videorecorded by E! in 2000 saying they always have believed in a Kilgallen conspiracy. Ms. Israel did not provide the cameras or the budget for that basic-cable television broadcast. It is a source that is totally separate from the 1979 book authored by Ms. Israel. I have provided a URL that you can click on to watch the 2000 broadcast. Scroll upwards.

If Ms. Israel's 1992 arrest for forgery undermines every non-fiction assertion she ever published in her career as a book writer, then we would have to remove her 1972 Tallulah Bankhead biography from Bankhead's Wikipedia article. We also would have to remove every portion of the article that is attributed to that book authored by Lee Israel. Then comes Estee Lauder (businesswoman). Remove Lee Israel and all her facts from that Wikipedia article, too.KathrynFauble (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

This talk page is to discuss this article about Dorothy Kilgallen only. Changes to the Bankhead and Lauder articles should be discussed on the talk pages of those articles. I am sure that all three articles will survive and thrive without referencing the works of an admitted thief and forger. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The first name of "Dr. DiMaio" never appears in the article. Can you find it? If you care to add it and you need a source, you can find his full name in one of the article's frequent sources: the 2007 Midwest Today online article. Dominick is the correct spelling. The current version of our article omits his first name, so readers can become confused.

Another confusing omission: When readers look at the photograph of Dorothy seated next to her husband and daughter in the photo that appears in the After death and legacy section, they might not know that those two people are the husband and daughter. The caption is incomplete. He was known publicly both as Richard Kollmar and Dick Kollmar, and she is Jill Kollmar.

Regarding the edits I submitted two days ago: How does the following sentence from the 1966 Ramparts article, which I tried to add two days ago, add a much stronger conspiracy atmosphere to the Wikipedia article than the sentence that is already there? I'm hoping to add: "Still, she was passionately interested in the case, told friends she firmly believed there was a conspiracy and that she would find out the truth if it took her all her life."

It's only one more sentence from an article that contains several paragraphs. If you need a reminder of the Ramparts sentence that is already there, you can review our Wikipedia article. If you need to confirm that I have posted here the second sentence correctly as Ramparts wrote it in 1966, then you can click on the reference for that first sentence that our article already has. The Wikipedia reference has a URL for a graphic of the correct Ramparts page from 1966. If you don't want me to add the second sentence to the article, can you please add it?KathrynFauble (talk) 03:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

KathrynFauble, why are you adding this stuff to a thread about Lee Israel? How can we keep things straight, if everything is jumbled together? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm adding it as a reminder that the article has other important sources besides the book by Lee Israel. People here seem to be saying that not only is Ms. Israel a deceitful crook, but she has brainwashed everyone who ever interviewed Dorothy Kilgallen's colleagues or friends and everyone who has viewed declassified FBI documents. They seem to be saying that more than ten years after Kilgallen's death, Ms. Israel invented a new conspiracy theory. Hogwash.

The Ramparts article was published thirteen years before Ms. Israel's book was. It was published at a time when Kilgallen's widower could have responded to it publicly, but he didn't. He was dead when Ms. Israel started working on her book. Our article already has the first sentence from the Ramparts piece: "We know of no serious person who really believes ..." My attempt to include the second sentence resulted in another of your editing reversals.

Why do you believe that one more sentence from a non - fringe source gives our article too much emphasis on conspiracies? I believe its inclusion is important because the first sentence by itself suggests that Ramparts totally discounts the Kilgallen aspect of the JFK conspiracy, when in fact succeeding paragraphs describe a genuine mystery.

Or should Ramparts be considered a fringe source as the Israel book is? In 1966, Ramparts was popular in the San Francisco Bay area. (The magazine's office was in San Francisco.) In November 1966, when the issue with a jigsaw puzzle of JFK's face appeared on the cover, and Kilgallen's name turned up on an inside page, the counterculture and anti-Vietnam War movement were growing but were not reaching the peak that they eventually reached in the summer of 1967. So maybe Ramparts should be considered a fringe source.KathrynFauble (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

When you say that critics of Israel are claiming that she "brainwashed everyone who ever interviewed Dorothy Kilgallen's colleagues or friends and everyone who has viewed declassified FBI documents. They seem to be saying that more than ten years after Kilgallen's death, Ms. Israel invented a new conspiracy theory", you are creating a straw man. No one is hinting anything about "brainwashing" or "inventing". For all I know, 98% of what Israel wrote is accurate. Or maybe it is 18%. I don't know. But what we do know is that Israel simply can't be considered a reliable source here on Wikipedia, because of her serious and repeated crimes directly related to her literary work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

No more trivial bloat

@ KathrynFauble Seriously? We are not putting comments into the article about what someone says they don't know. Your efforts to reinsert trivial and irrelevant bloat, likely in an effort to promote baseless speculation over her death is bordering on disruptive editing. Stop it.
CC: Location Cullen328
-Ad Orientem (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Ad Orientem. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

When a man who is 77 years old in early 1966 says he doesn't know anything about his late daughter's use of barbiturates, how is that "trivial and irrelevant bloat?" The woman died from swallowing too many barbiturates.

Do you understand the portion of the article that says Kilgallen died from swallowing too many barbiturates? You can find it. It's in there. If her father's comment on that should be considered "bloat," then why did TV Radio Mirror publish it? Very little was published in the mid 1960s about the cause of her death. The reason nobody cited her death as an example of addiction is that substance abuse was not publicly discussed in 1965 or 1966, but the article can't say that. The article does rely on the TV Radio Mirror article as a source. You can find it in the references.

When you access the article online, you find that writer George Carpozi, Jr. asked Jim Kilgallen if he knew anything about his daughter's use of prescription medication, and he replied that no, he didn't.

Also, the following words in your edits confuse readers: "Despite Richard Kollmar's public silence about his late wife ..." Where does the article say -- prior to those words -- anything about Kollmar remaining silent? It doesn't. The easiest solution is to remove those words. Jump directly to the citations of two sources that quote Jim Kilgallen on his daughter's death. Anyone who includes "Despite Richard Kollmar's public silence ..." is adding bloat to the article. I am helping to remove it. Here is more bloat that I have tried to remove from the section Early life and career: "Cerf described Kilgallen as an outsider among her castmates for two reasons." The text should cut to the chase. Two is a small number and doesn't need an introduction.KathrynFauble (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I, too, agree with that. He wouldn't be the first father to not know what drugs his daughter used or abused. The only reason to include what the father did not know is to introduce speculation about her death. Leading the reader in that manner is a violation of WP:SYNTH. - Location (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read this entire post before attacking me. Everyone says I support the bloat then they ignore everything I say, including weak spots in the article that remain from long-ago edits. There is another reason -- besides the conspiracy theory -- to add the TV Radio Mirror quote from her father: completeness when you have only three reliable sources on the cause of her death, excluding the debunked Lee Israel book.

The three sources are the breaking news story in the New York Journal-American that quotes her father about a heart attack, the widely published announcement that the medical examiner made a week later, which includes the words "could well have been accidental" that the article already has, and the February 1966 TV Radio Mirror that says her father knows nothing about her prescription medication. Ramparts only dealt with the possibility of a conspiracy. Please read this entire post before firing back with an unfounded accusation about me supporting the bloat. I'm not.

We can have it your way as long as we remove other bloat, including the poorly worded indirect quotes from Bennett Cerf about why Dorothy didn't get along with her television "castmates." That word choice becomes even more absurd when you remember the hundreds of comedians and actors who filled in the fourth panel seat during the last nine years of Dorothy's life. Am I to believe that William Shatner was a politically active liberal before he became Captain Kirk, therefore he had a conflict with the conservative "Hearst girl?" He can be seen and heard seated next to her on two episodes that aired live in 1965. The article doesn't cite any episodes as examples of conflict, but that is a foolish reason to hang everything on the 1968 audio-only interview with Cerf -- which, by the way, can be found only in a multi-part YouTube video that Wikipedia isn't supposed to rely on. You can find that Bennett's audio-only interview originates there.

Hundreds of episodes exist that show Dorothy getting along happily with actors and comedians, many of whom didn't even live near New York where the politically active liberals scraped against her and the New York Journal-American. Those conflicts were important to Bennett Cerf because he always lived in New York, so he reminisced about them at Columbia University where he was audio-recorded talking in early 1968. As long as the Cerf quotes remain indirect, they warrant a better word choice.

The other bloat consists of these words: "Despite Richard Kollmar's public silence about his late wife,..." That makes no sense. Up to this point, the article hasn't said he was silent about ... whatever it was he was silent about. All the article says up to this point is the contrary: he and his wife hosted the radio talk show Breakfast With Dorothy and Dick. By the end of the article, many readers may have forgotten the long-ago words "remained on the air until 1963," which means the radio show was cancelled while Dorothy was alive. Indeed, it was. That silenced Kollmar before he started grieving.

BTW, he did talk about his wife to a New York-area radio audience a year and ten months after she died, but that comes from the following legitimate source that everyone here ignores whenever I bring it up: Scroll down until you find this entry: Oversize 44 (nebel_0873-0875) September 29, 1967 "Murder One" (aired 1967 November 21) Richard Kollmar, Paris Flammonde, Rev. Robert Schrock (3 reels) I have accessed a transcript of what Kollmar and others say on the hour-plus radio broadcast. They carefully avoid the cause of her death and everything to do with Lee Oswald, Jack Ruby and the Warren Commission. They talk a lot about the Sam Sheppard case that was still very controversial in 1967, which is when they are talking.

I am not saying the article should include it as a source. Most likely, it shouldn't. But these words have to go: "Despite Richard Kollmar's public silence about his late wife, ..." They lie. The man died almost 44 years ago and can't type for posterity: "Yes, I did leave behind a tape recording after she died."KathrynFauble (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been avoiding adding more to this so far, but in terms of "bloat" I question the rather expansive section on her death. She died as per the conclusions of the coroner, when conspiracy authors started to make a connection, the entirely everyday nature of her death and the entirely everyday non-specificity from the medical examiner suddenly became "suspicious." Why we need to engage in a lengthy discussion on the circumstances of her death is beyond me. The ONLY reason there is more here is the maniacal focus from the conspiracy crowd who equate "unexplained" with "conspiracy" on any issue where the evidence isn't iron-clad or specific. Actually, no. When evidence IS iron-clad and specific, then it is... forged. Yes, conspiracy crowd, we can't prove a negative, that she wasn't killed by conspirators. On the other hand, we also can't prove that she had the goods on the Roswell aliens and the Men in Black had to kill her. This uncertainty doesn't mean we have to waste space on the page going over this in any detail. We need TWO lines, max: She died as per the medical examiner's report; conspiracy authors claim a possible link to a the Kennedy assassination. That's it. Canada Jack (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Canada Jack, that's a pretty powerful argument and one I am going to give some thought to. My initial reaction however, is that I mostly agree with you. I think the section on her death can be paired down to one or two sentences. Most of the rest of the stuff there doesn't have sufficient relevance for inclusion. On the other hand I don't think we can reduce the conspiracy stuff to a single sentence. For good or ill it has garnered enough discussion in RS sources that it warrants some coverage. I am fairly comfortable with what we have now on it though I am not opposed to tweaking it. Before the massive rewrite and pair down, the whole article was pretty much a giant bloated COATRACK for conspiracy and FRINGE theories. KathrynFauble has also identified some areas where we can further trim the article that I think are worth consideration. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ad. The conspiracy crowd likes to make the death of Kilgallen have the scent of conspiracy. But they like to do that with the death of ANY person connected to the assassination. The criteria seems to be a) have a link, however tenuous, to the assassination, b) die. That's about it. That's why, for example, the death of a BROTHER of a witness to the Tippit killing (not even Kennedy!) is deemed... suspicious. I kid you not!

For this reason, the fact of what the conspiracy crowd claims in terms of the death of Kilgallen is neither here nor there as she fits their criteria as she a) reported on the Ruby trial, made other enquiries and b) died. Hence a "suspicious" death. However, if I may propose a criteria in terms of inclusion on wikipedia where a death IS "suspicious" in connection to the Kennedy assassination and therefore warrants more than several lines: a) person has information which actually could establish a conspiracy; b) person's death isn't simply "unexplained" (half the deaths in recorded history arguably could fall into that category - can you PROVE Amy Winehouse drank herself to death? No?) but an actual intended killing; c) establish there was, indeed, a conspiracy to kill the president and hence a reason for the person themselves to be killed to cover up that conspiracy. It's no good to establish, say, the mafia killed your witness when the mafia had nothing to do with the assassination.

To show you how easy it is to make a "case" for conspiracy via a "suspicious" death, how about the following:

Why not turn the tables on the conspiracy crowd? What if a star witness had information which in fact would pretty well establish there was NOT a conspiracy? And that they died under "suspicious" circumstances? And that this evidence they had would not be revealed for some 30 years after their death? Well, I have a witness who in fact falls into this category: Lee Bowers. He was a railway signalman, the lone witness behind the picket fence who had a clear view of the side of the fence where many conspiracy authors - like Mark Lane - claim a sniper was firing from. His testimony of men milling about the edges, of a "commotion," have been used for decades as evidence of such a sniper, even though he never said he saw anyone there firing shots. And what happened to him? He died in a car crash in August 1966 just as the first wave of authors like Mark Lane were publishing their books attacking the Warren Report for covering up the "truth." Bowers, like Kilgallen, has been a poster child of the "suspicious deaths" claims for 40+ years.

Problem is, Lane interviewed Bowers on camera shortly before his death (it appears in his film "Rush to Judgement") and the cameraman made transcripts of the interview from which Lane chose segments for the film, standard practice back then (and now). It was not until the 1990s that anyone saw these transcripts and there it can be seen Lane studiously avoided asking the obvious question, "Was anyone in front of the fence when the motorcade..." which Bowers was watching as it disappeared behind the fence "...passed behind the fence from your vantage point?" Lane never asked the question because he knew the answer, so Bowers on his own initiative, obviously wondering why he was being asked about the minutia of people milling about at the sides BEFORE the assassination, and not the obvious and most pertinent question, simply told Lane this: "Now I could see back or the South side [BOWERS is actually speaking of the north side of the fence] of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have - uh - had anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there - um - at the moment that the shots were fired." And Lane's editing can be seen excising the statement for use in the film! [9]

Seems to me that the real "conspiracy" behind the death of Bowers could very well have been those who stood to lose the most if he talked - the conspiracy buff crowd! Doesn't it seem a little too "convenient" that, just as the conspiracy movement was picking up steam in late 1966, the ONE witness who could establish that there in fact was no one behind the picket fence and hence no sniper there to take a shot at Kennedy, would die under suspicious circumstances? Johnny Carson was a well-known skeptic who grilled Jim Garrison on the Tonight Show about his ludicrous case against Clay Shaw. Bowers would have been the perfect guest to pour cold water on any notion of a Grassy Knoll assassin. His public testimony - answering questions from someone who actually wanted to know what he saw and not there to buttress some shaky theory through selective queries - could have dealt a major blow to this "conspiracy" nonsense back in the late 1960s! But that witness was, conveniently for some, dead.

I am not making a case that Bowers was in fact murdered by the conspiracy theorist crowd. I am making the point, however, that when one plants a seed of doubt, when one cannot prove a negative (can you prove some conspiracy author hoping to make a huge splash DIDN'T arrange his death? No? Of course you can't!), when in this case we HAVE evidence which would pretty well prove a case (unlike virtually any other "suspicious death" I've heard of), then you can see how far down the rabbit hole one can go with all this nonsense. Canada Jack (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Canada Jack, I'm familiar with Lee Bowers and the black-and-white sound bites of him talking in Mark Lane's documentary film. BTW, Lane didn't produce the film by himself. His partner for it was Emile de Antonio, who has a Wikipedia article. I admit I don't know if the term sound bites can apply to a documentary released in 1967. Yes, I am aware Bowers never says or hints that people were shooting from the grassy knoll. All conspiracy theorists have to go on is his use of the words "a flash of light or smoke."

I must direct your attention, Canada Jack, to the following source on the Dorothy Kilgallen dimension of the mystery that used to be a major source on her Wiki article, but editors saw fit to remove every witness account contained therein: hairdressers Marc Sinclaire and Charles Simpson, etc.

Please click to read this source that used to be very important in Kilgallen's Wiki article.

Scroll down more than halfway through that article and you get a witness account from "a New York woman" whose name has been listed online variously as Mary Brannum, Mary Brannum Bringle and Mary J. Brannum. She turns up in a source on Kilgallen that remains in our Wiki article, but only for one reference: the November 1966 issue of Ramparts magazine. Mary remains alive in her longtime (redacted address). She says Midwest Today reports her comments correctly and Ramparts twisted them slightly. In truth, the strange crank phone call she received in her movie magazine (Screen Stars) office on Monday, November 8, 1965 did not necessarily happen "before the body was discovered." The crank caller could have done it after hearing a radio news report of Kilgallen's death that Mary had missed. Another living witness from the same magazine office: Patricia Bosworth.

But all that matters to Wikipedia is what has been published. Right? As I said on this Talk page more than a week ago, an experienced author named Mark William Shaw is working on a Kilgallen book with a publishing company that is paying him, not vice versa as another editor claimed in response to what I said here.KathrynFauble (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

KathrynFauble: Do not edit against consensus. Do Not Edit Against Consensus. DO NOT EDIT AGAINST CONSENSUS. DO NOT EDIT AGAINST CONSENSUS. Have I made myself clear? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

KathrynFauble: Please quote the passage in which one of us said that Shaw is paying a publishing company to get his book out. - Location (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Location (talk) You added the following comment to this Talk page on December 5 regarding Lee Israel and Mark William Shaw: "I've already offered my comments on Israel. And Shaw, like a thousand others who have been published by Skyhorse, has already had a crack at enlightening the world about the Kennedy assassination with Poison Patriarch."

Have you ever communicated with Mr. Shaw? I have. A publishing company is paying him for what he is writing about Dorothy Kilgallen. He isn't paying a publisher. You always can accuse me of promoting his agenda, which I haven't done, -- I haven't revealed any of the contents of his manuscript -- but please don't assume anything about his actions. Mr. Shaw never has participated in this Talk page, so he can't defend himself. He has been busy for a while and will remain so. Much of his schedule consists of communicating with senior citizens, some of whom knew Dorothy Kilgallen personally. Mr. Shaw has access to videorecorded and audio-recorded statements by people who knew her and have since died.

Richard Kollmar never has participated in Wikipedia at all, as he died in 1971. Our Kilgallen article says erroneously the words "Despite Richard Kollmar's public silence about his late wife,..." He can't defend himself. Those words are misleading because he only refused to discuss publicly the cause of his wife's death or her interest in the murders of JFK, Officer Tippit and Lee Oswald. Those words in our article should constitute bloat, but everyone here consistently refuses to acknowledge what I say about that.

Kollmar did discuss publicly his late wife's investigations of other murder cases, including the Sam Sheppard case, which constitutes a segment of our article. The case remained very controversial when he discussed his wife's interest in it on the following local New York-area radio broadcast a year and ten months after she died: Scroll down until you find this entry: Oversize 44 (nebel_0873-0875) September 29, 1967 "Murder One" (aired 1967 November 21) Richard Kollmar, Paris Flammonde, Rev. Robert Schrock (3 reels)

Reply to User talk:Cullen328 Your "consensus" is unclear because you constantly point out that the article contained bloat until you changed it, yet you oppose my efforts to remove the bloat. The bloat includes the poorly worded indirect quotes from Bennett Cerf about Kilgallen not getting along so well with her What's My Line "castmates," who could have included the notorious left-wing political activist (?!) William Shatner. The current wording of Cerf's indirect quotes insinuates that notion about Mr. Shatner. He can be seen and heard on episodes that aired lived in January and March 1965, which was before he got the part of Captain Kirk. The point is that Kilgallen's "castmates" included hundreds of actors who were not yet famous or who never became famous.KathrynFauble (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

KathrynFauble: Yes, I said: "I've already offered my comments on Israel. And Shaw, like a thousand others who have been published by Skyhorse, has already had a crack at enlightening the world about the Kennedy assassination with Poison Patriarch." Where in that statement did I say that Shaw is paying a publishing company to get his book out? - Location (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You said it when you referred to the "thousand others who have been published by Skyhorse." Or did you? Your December 5 statement seems to insinuate that. Can you prove that every assertion made in every non-fiction book published by Skyhorse is inappropriate for Wikipedia to cite as a source?

It is well-known that anyone can pay a vanity press to publish anything. Penn Jones, Jr. did that as far back as 1966, and our Dorothy Kilgallen article includes his assertion that he made about her at the time. Yet entire books on Kilgallen that authors were paid to write many years later get discredited in their entirety. People say they are inappropriate for citation by Wikipedia. And nobody expresses doubt about Canada Jack's proclamation that Lee Bowers' 1966 car accident was actually a murder, even though John C. McAdams says it was a car accident.KathrynFauble (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I cannot vouch for what you inferred but I never said nor did I imply that Shaw was getting paid by Skyhorse. What you can infer from my comment is that I am skeptical that Shaw's book on Kilgallen will prove any conspiracy claims. - Location (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Why? Does it occur to you that Mr. Shaw hopes to circulate the recollections of people who knew Dorothy Kilgallen personally, and those recollections were unknown to Lee Israel? If you check the last chapter of her book, also known as the "epilogue," you find these words about hairdresser Marc Sinclaire: "Sinclaire refused to see or talk to me." Mark Shaw has access to more than an hour of video of Sinclaire telling his strange story about his experiences with Dorothy when she was alive and immediately after she died.KathrynFauble (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Patricia, you utterly proved my point. When you direct us to an article which has a headline "WHO KILLED DOROTHY KILGALLEN?," then you have many problems with credibility. Where is it established that she was murdered? This is simply taking that as a given, ludicrously using "evidence" that she was found dressed when dead, a book overturned etc. Please refer to "b" above:"person's death isn't simply "unexplained" but an actual intended killing." And, while you are at it, please establish that she in fact had evidence pointing to a conspiracy, as per "a" above: "person has information which actually could establish a conspiracy."

Actually, I have FAR more evidence that Bowers was killed for the information he had as THAT information is now known and was covered up and established there was no Grassy Knoll assassin, effectively destroying the case for conspiracy from a high percentage of conspiracy theories. Kilgallen? Not only did she die in all likelihood from a misadventure, after 49 years, NO ONE has established she had ANY evidence at all! And, more to the point, if her sources with this "information" were stymied by her death, what has prevented them from over the past 49 years producing it for us? I think we know that answer to that - there were no secret sources, there was no information. Of course, I can't prove that, but not being above to prove a negative isn't much to go on, just saying. Canada Jack (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Canada Jack (talk) You have far more evidence that (Lee) Bowers was killed for the information he had ...? Evidently you haven't published it in a reliable source, therefore your comments are as insignificant as your remarks about Dorothy Kilgallen's "misadventure" and my information about her new biographer, Mark William Shaw.

Should you ever work on a manuscript about Mr. Bowers for a magazine or book publisher who pays you, be sure to address the statements by researcher David Perry that were widely circulated by John C. McAdams more than ten years ago. McAdams is a Marquette University history professor. You can access Mr. Perry's debunking of the Bowers dimension of the JFK conspiracy by clicking below. It seems that Mr. Bowers revealed everything he could have revealed about the JFK assassination before his car accident, which was just that: a car accident on a Texas highway before seat belts were legally required.

Research by David Perry on the "mysterious" death of Lee Bowers circulated by John McAdamsKathrynFauble (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Kathryn, that's it. I'm proposing to publish on Lee Bowers. Is this a joke? I hope so. The simple fact that I can come up with a plausible conspiracy scenario in terms of Bowers - one far more plausible than the Kilgallen scenario - is the point, not whether I should approach a publisher with these sinister allegations.(!) As for Perry - well, that's old news, and you seem to gloss over the FACT that conspiracy authors to this day cite Bowers' death as a "suspicious" one despite Perry's debunking of that claim. My question for you is why doesn't your sudden skepticism apply to Kilgallen's death as well?

Look at what I did - produced SPECIFIC information which a SPECIFIC identifiable group of people would not want publicized. Kilgallen? We have NOTHING - no indication what evidence she supposedly had; no identification of who would want her dead. Maybe you are focusing your skepticism at the wrong place, Kathryn, just sayin'.

The ultimate point to my bit of fun, using the techniques seen in the conspiracy community, is that there is NO EVIDENCE KILGALLEN HAD ANY INFORMATION ABOUT A CONSPIRACY and, hence, no evidence that any potential conspirator would want her dead! I, on the other hand, not only demonstrated that Bowers HAD EVIDENCE which certain people did not want publicized (why would Lane suppress his testimony if this was not so), there were people with a clear motive to potentially get rid of this inconvenient witness! The myriad conspiracy theorists from whom many base their scenarios on a Grassy Knoll sniper!

I am not saying for a second that Bowers was in fact murdered. My POINT is that because we can't PROVE that Kilgallen wasn't murdered and that we can't PROVE that she didn't have evidence of a conspiracy DOES NOT MAKE THESE ALLEGATIONS CREDIBLE. And, until such time as we can PROVE she was murdered and PROVE that she had evidence establishing a conspiracy (or, at least, her murderer thought she had it), then the onus is on THOSE MAKING THE CLAIM TO ESTABLISH ITS VERACITY.

Until that time, ALL we have to do is a) note she died of what the medical examiner said she died of, and b) note that some claim it may have been a suspicious death connected to information she may have had about a conspiracy. Two, three sentences, max. Canada Jack (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Per the above discussion and what I believe is fairly clear consensus, I have trimmed the death section down and done a little related copy editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree totally with Ad Orientem's revision of the Kilgallen article. Nothing about it bothers me, but I must point out an issue that might bother Ad Orientem and other more experienced Wikipedia editors. I have read where they say YouTube is never an appropriate source for someone's statements. Well, that is relevant to our article's inclusion of Bennett Cerf's statements about him and Arlene Francis not getting along with Kilgallen because of differing political views and because of Kilgallen publishing what they revealed in their mutual dressing rooms at the television studios they used over the years.

Wikipedia blocks me from adding the relevant YouTube video that has Bennett making those points two years and two months after Kilgallen's death. I can say here that you can find "part 4" when you search "Bennett Cerf Notable New Yorkers" in the YouTube search field. I also can point out that YouTube's chopping up of Cerf's long oral history interview (from January 1968) is different from the way the Columbia University web site chopped it up, so you need to put some elbow grease into finding his comments on Kilgallen there:

Search for Bennett Cerf's comments on Dorothy Kilgallen on this web site making your own efforts; I can't help you.

It's the only URL link I can provide. As I said, any potential URL link for YouTube is blocked here.

Finally, a reply to Canada Jack: Have you ever audio-recorded or videorecorded the recollections of Lee Bowers' surviving brother or others who knew Lee personally? I haven't, but I have watched video and listened to audio of people who knew Kilgallen personally or met her during the last 24 hours of her life. You are in no position to debunk them if you haven't listened to any of them. When I tried to debunk the entire Lee Bowers dimension of the JFK conspiracy, I depended totally on the essay that John C. McAdams has circulated for more than ten years.KathrynFauble (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Re Cerf's comments about Kilgallen: Normally YouTube is not an RS source. However in this case Cerf is actually the source as it is a direct recording of him speaking and the text is an accurate reflection of Cerf's statements.. In previous similar cases (example) this has generally been accepted by the community. However, I will defer to consensus on the matter. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

If CanadaJack is reading this after what seemed like the stopping point of our debate, CanadaJack should check out the title "Now It Can Be Told" that David Perry and John C. McAdams used for the essay that debunks the Lee Bowers dimension of the JFK mystery. You can review the URL link by clicking below. As a reminder, please make a special note of the title that you see immediately after the page loads: "Now It Can Be Told." I shall explain its significance to Lee Bowers and Dorothy Kilgallen.

Research by David Perry on the "mysterious" death of Lee Bowers circulated by John McAdams with a title that leads you to Dorothy Kilgallen's credibilityKathrynFauble

Significance of that title? It was the title of the syndicated television series that was hosted by Geraldo Rivera and produced by his brother and others who have worked for him for a long time on various TV shows. Neither YouTube nor any other web site gives you the video of the May 6, 1992 Now It Can Be Told episode that can show you a sound bite interview with someone who knew Lee Bowers. I saw the half-hour episode in 1992, and I own a transcript of it. Someone connected with Geraldo Rivera owns video of it. Why is it significant here? CanadaJack won't like the answer to that.

Details of the Now It Can Be Told episode from May 6, 1992 are significant because Geraldo Rivera and his staff workers did not see fit to devote the entire half-hour to Lee Bowers. They gave him only part of the half-hour. They devoted the remainder of it to Dorothy Kilgallen and her dimension of the JFK mystery. They had to tell viewers of their syndicated show who she was. This was before the Game Show Network revived kinescopes of black-and-white game shows.

After introducing Kilgallen, the episode presented sound bites with two people who had known Kilgallen personally. Only one of them, Mark Lane, was known as a conspiracy theorist. The other, [Liz Smith], is nationally known as a gossipy syndicated columnist and gossipy commentator on entertainment-oriented talk shows. I admit that. I must add that for decades, many people have attested to Smith's intelligence and her upstanding character. These witnesses, who include Gloria Steinem, Rita Mae Brown, Diane Sawyer and Barbara Walters, have said that Liz Smith is erudite to the extent that she knows the difference between Elizabeth Taylor's favorite dress designer and the murder of a president. That notion can be underscored by the fact that Smith was born and raised in Ft. Worth, Texas, and at the time of the homicidal weekend in Dallas she worked at the New York office of Sports Illustrated. She never was your typical gossipmonger. She knew Dorothy Kilgallen personally.

If you look for old video related to Lee Bowers, you will find yourself listening to Liz Smith say she believes the death of her friend Dorothy Kilgallen was suspicious. You also can hear her say that she watched Oliver Stone's JFK movie, does not believe everything that its characters say but she believes it can inspire young viewers to make up their own minds about the truth behind November 1963. Unless CanadaJack replies here on New Year's Eve, I have no way of knowing who has read what I have typed and pasted here. It would be a good idea for CanadaJack to avoid biting the hand that feeds people valuable video about Lee Bowers even if it must be coupled with valuable video about Dorothy Kilgallen. Millions of people worldwide couldn't care less about either person. I recommend expressing gratitude for whatever mainstream media commentators like Geraldo Rivera have offered you about those two people who died so long ago. He and Liz Smith didn't say what they said about Bowers or Kilgallen for their own self-aggrandizement, that's for sure. They would have talked about dead people who remained famous in 1992 had they been focusing on their own self-aggrandizement.KathrynFauble (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

???Kathryn, I think you wildly misunderstood what I was saying. I don't believe for a second Bowers was actually murdered, let alone by a conspiracy theorist. My point is I can pull any silly notion out of the air and make a plausible case for it, whereupon I place the onus on others to prove what may be theoretically possible in fact did not happen. Which is what we see with Kilgallen. I read the Perry article years ago, I know it. As for Smith, her opinion, whether she is a crackpot or the must trusted person on the planet, is IRRELEVANT unless she has evidence for her opinion. Canada Jack (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Time to start archiving

I am setting up ClueBot III. This talk page is just way too long and cluttered. Most of the discussions are no longer active and many are off topic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Good move. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hear, hear. - Location (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It's set up and should start running in a day or two. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Kilgallen and Sinatra

Ping 64.183.42.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Actually "publicly acrimonious" is a very fair description. See this earlier version before the massive rewrite.. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. You are making assumptions about Frank Sinatra. There is no evidence that during Kilgallen's lifetime he said a word about her -- her looks, her style of reporting or whatever -- to a television audience or journalist. He had ample opportunity to do that, but he chose not to.

On the last day Kilgallen was alive, there was a tremendous difference between what a performer said in a nightclub off-camera and what he or she said on-camera / for publication. Sinatra only commented on Kilgallen for customers who had paid for admission to the particular nightclub where he was performing. We know he could have made the same comments to others who weren't paying. He didn't. You could read a newspaper or magazine for free at the library back then, but print media never told you about Sinatra's feelings regarding Kilgallen.

If somebody can find a newspaper, magazine or book that publicized Sinatra's feelings during the era when he expressed them, fine. But we have a reliable source from 1966, a magazine profile of Sinatra by Gay Talese, that quoted Sinatra as saying that now that she was dead, he no longer was going to mention her name to any strangers, even if they were paying for admission to a nightclub. He planned to "remove her from my act."

The only sources on the man's alleged desire to smear her "publicly" when she was alive are books and nostalgia websites that were written or created many years after Kilgallen died. One of these books is the one by Lee Israel that was removed from this article a few months ago because we found evidence that Ms. Israel had been a criminal. Kilgallen didn't live long enough to respond to allegations that Sinatra's treatment of her was "publicly acrimonious."

This article indeed did have bloat before editors removed it a few months ago, but regarding the choice of the words "publicly acrimonious," those two words by themselves are fraudulent. They are smearing not one dead person but two dead people who were born a hundred years ago. And if you watch hundreds of What's My Line? episodes on YouTube, you don't get a clue that these two people ever expressed any strong feelings about each other. If you want to know more than what those black-and-white kinescope films tell you, you are stuck with questionable book writers Lee Israel and Kitty Kelley and bloggers who believed everything they wrote.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.23 (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Trivial details...

Such as this edit do not belong in the article. The edit in question adds nothing substantive to the article. I see no evidence of the claimed consensus. This might also be a good time to remind any concerned editors that sock puppetry is a no no around here. Ping LuckyLouie and Cullen328. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You are editing against consensus. Other editor known as Sroc knew the "trivial details" were in the article but left them alone. You are correct about sock puppetry being wrong. You could be a sock puppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.50 (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Failure to revert an edit is not a de-facto endorsement of that edit. If you have reason to believe that I am a sock puppet you may initiate proceedings at WP:SPI. If not, I respectfully suggest that you refer to WP:AGF and refrain from making allegations that you are not prepared to back up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ad Orientem that such trivial details do not belong in this article. I see no consensus in favor of their inclusion. I see no evidence that Ad Orientem has engaged in any sockpuppetry. I will continue to oppose transforming this article into a coatrack for Kennedy conspiracy theories. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what Melvin Belli and Joe Tonahill said about Jack Ruby both before and after they were photographed with Dorothy Kilgallen for the Dallas Times Herald. They said Ruby was not involved in any conspiracy. The trivial material to which people refer was actually one sentence in the article that referred to such a photograph. It may or may not be trivial, but calling it a conspiracy theory is unfair to these three people, none of whom can defend themselves. Also, I checked Cullen's "Let's discuss it" page and none of this is there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.50 (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Support removal of trivial material. Similar to what appears in the preceding section regarding Sam Sheppard, I do not have any strong objection to noting that she covered Ruby's trial. Noting that she was photographed walking up the stairs or that she granted a short interview is certainly trivial. - Location (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Support removal of trivial content mentioned at the top of this thread. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Unsolved death?

Kilgallen is listed in List of unsolved deaths. I have opened a discussion in WP:FTN regarding this. - Location (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible Fringe Source

I have opened a discussion on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard regarding this source from the article. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Erasmus Hall High School

• http://www.erasmushall60.com/class_custom4.cfm

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 07:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

New Year's Eve edit clarifies that her dying young had nothing to do with her star on Hollywood Walk of Fame

Prior to my New Year's Eve edit, the "death" section segued from Kilgallen being found dead in her New York home to her funeral to her star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame to the November 14, 1965 live broadcast of What's My Line where Kitty Carlisle and others eulogized her. That chronology was misleading because Kilgallen received her star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame five years before she died. So I made a change on New Year's Eve that clarifies that her Hollywood exposure had nothing to do with her dying young.

Do people agree with me that we need not find an old newspaper source for the exact date when her name entered the Hollywood Walk of Fame? It was sometime in 1960. That was the year when 500 stars were added to Hollywood Blvd. Almost simultaneously, the 500 additions to the sidewalk launched the new walk of fame. This fact is well-known among aficionados of honorary mayor of Hollywood Johnny Grant (radio personality) and other behind-the-scenes Hollywood people and places.

The important issue is that when the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce decided Dorothy Kilgallen deserved the star, she was alive, and she was 46 or 47 years old, and they had every reason to assume she would live to old age. Five years later, they learned the news of her sudden death. They knew her name was already emblazoned on Hollywood Blvd., so they weren't going to take it away then put it back as a phony expression of sorrow. They left it there. I tried to explain this in the "edit summary" for my New Year's Eve edit where I referred to the "chronology" in the death section, but the edit summary gives you limited space, so I'm hoping this works. Happy New Year.

Newspapers reported medical examiner's words "circumstances undetermined"

From edit summary: Exact words are important because they include "circumstances undetermined." They weren't just on her death certificate. Newspapers mentioned "circumstances undetermined" a week after she died. If 5 sources are overkill, maybe we can rem one or more. Latest edit has only 3.

Next edit summary: Please see Talk page. Rem two of the five sources cuts down on the "undue weight." You are misinformed if you say we are quoting only from her death certificate. Newspapers reported in 1965 medical examiner's words "circumstances undetermined."

For latest edit, I changed the new sentence for the article so it mentions the newspaper coverage in the aftermath of her death instead of mentioning the death certificate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.58 (talk • contribs)

??? If the phrase was on the death certificate, then that is where the papers in all likelihood got the phrase.(!) I fail to see the significance here of the use of an every-day phrase found in death certificates, nor the need to have a stack of references all of which, save the one from the coroner itself, got the information in all likelihood from the same source - the death certificate! If no witness was there to report exactly how she took booze and barbiturates in combination with a possible heart attack (being careless? took the wrong pill? committed suicide?), then we'd EXPECT the certificate to say "circumstances undetermined." The breadth and inanity of the conspiracy crowd in attempting to make the routine and everyday suspicious never ceases to amaze me. When a person is found dead after an apparent overdose, which is every single day, it is entirely ROUTINE to use a phrase such as "circumstances undetermined." Canada Jack (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

+1 -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a good source on your assertion that medical examiners routinely type the words "circumstances undetermined" in the space for the cause of death on a certificate? Every death certificate includes boxes for the certifying doctor to choose from: suicide, homicide, accident and undetermined pending further investigation. From personal experience I know that checking the box for "undetermined . . ." is very common, but it is relatively rare to use space meant for "barbiturates" or whatever the drug/poison was to type the words "circumstances undetermined."

It is also rare for a New York City medical examiner to say for publication, after all microscopic tests have been completed, that the circumstances of a public figure's death are undetermined. Medical examiners often make statements similar to that a day or two after a highly publicized death, and they add that laboratory tests have yet to be completed, and that the autopsy by itself is inconclusive. But to say "circumstances undetermined" a week after a death, after chemists and doctors have finished all their work, is rare in the case of an American celebrity's sudden death.

Also, what makes you think that I hope to use this fact about the medical examiner typing those words on Kilgallen's certificate so the article could support fringe theories? Like you, I believe any citation of an Oliver Stone connection between Lee Oswald's behavior and the end of Kilgallen's life would be inappropriate for Kilgallen's article. It is totally appropriate to cite legitimate sources that indicate that the medical examiner essentially admitted he knew very little about how she died. That is the importance of "circumstances undetermined."

Those two words become even more significant when you consider that during the aftermath of her death and even a year later and two years later, newspapers and magazines made no mention of her possibly having been a substance abuser. There was a rumor that she had consumed too much alcohol frequently, but it was one of many rumors that circulated about her throughout a few decades. After Kilgallen's death, some New Yorkers claimed she had hated Jewish people, but none of the many Jewish people she knew personally, including her son-in-law, ever came forward to comment on such a thing. So the medical examiner's admission that he knew very little about her death seems historically important in light of the fact that nobody who knew her commented publicly on her personal habits that could have led to her death. Nobody commented publicly, that is, until Lee Israel came along, and we all know about the trouble with every quote she published in her book that has been banned from this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.50 (talk • contribs)

Clearly we have reached a point where we are going to have to agree to disagree. I believe based on your long history of editing this article that you are trying to find a way to raise questions over her death. However there is an overwhelming consensus against this. Most of us have better things to do with our time than endlessly rehashing a debate that has been going on for nigh on two years. Please respect consensus and stop inserting material that has been repeatedly rejected. It is time to move on. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

You are just as guilty as I am of not having "better things to do with our time." You are wrong in your assertion that it is very common for a medical examiner to type the words "circumstances undetermined" on a death certificate in addition to checking the box that every death certificate provides for such a category. It is in fact rare for a medical examiner or coroner to use up the space meant for the cause of death to spell out those words. And you ignored two sources that prove that the Wikipedia article can quote from newspaper articles, not the death certificate. I'm not trying to "raise questions over her death." I'm saying the article should say that the medical examiner knew very little about how Dorothy Kilgallen had died. His ignorance was never complemented by a single eyewitness account of Kilgallen having had a substance abuse problem. There are no such accounts that Wikipedia can cite from a legitimate source. YouTube videos of What's My Line? episodes aren't legitimate sources for Wikipedia, and they don't prove anyway why Kilgallen sometimes seems intoxicated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.58 (talk • contribs)

CC Canada Jack & Cullen328 -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I oppose inclusion of this material which places undue weight on the circumstances of her death. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Opposed because it's misleading to only include those two words. It implies this was the official cause of death when those two words only apply to the circumstances of her intoxication and not the circumstances of her death. The handwritten note in the report reads in full "Acute ethanol and barbiturate intoxication. Circumstances undetermined." Gamaliel (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Circumstances of her intoxication? Medical examiner James Luke told newspaper reporters that the circumstances were undetermined, and he also said that the level of alcohol in her system was "moderate," and so was the level of barbiturate in her system. It was a combination that killed her. Therefore, one of the undetermined circumstances could have been her making an attempt to get a good night's sleep at home. She might not have been intoxicated and she might not have hoped to become intoxicated. So your term "circumstances of her intoxication" is pure supposition.

Nobody at the medical examiner's office found out any details about substances that Kilgallen might have swallowed outside her home -- very shortly before she arrived home. People who interacted with her that night outside her home were never questioned by any authorities -- medical examiners or police.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.58 (talk • contribs)

Stop thumbing your nose at the crystal clear talk page consensus. The next time you re-add this material to the article you will be asked to defend your actions at WP:ANI where I will likely ask that you be topic banned from this article and related subjects. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with your edit. One is that you are citing fringe conspiracy authors like Jim Marrs. Another is that your own sources are contradicting the spin you are putting on this information. You highlight "circumstances undetermined" while citing a source that outright states "Alcohol, Barbiturates Blamed For Death". Please start signing your talk page posts. Gamaliel (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

"You are wrong in your assertion that it is very common for a medical examiner to type the words "circumstances undetermined" on a death certificate in addition to checking the box that every death certificate provides for such a category." Really? Says who? Jim Marrs? Read Gamaliel above. For this to be of ANY significance, one must establish that it is unheard of, or exceedingly rare, to label a death as such. And thus far, you've provided nothing but the opinion of those who it is in their interest to play up a notion of a suspicious death - in terms of her being, say, silenced - rather than mention that the description is actually fairly routine when the precise circumstances of how the deadly mixture found its way into her bloodstream are unknown. If she had, for example, committed suicide, what goes into the coroner's report would be something else, and there are legal consequences here. If it was a simple accident, that's something else too. They didn't know, hence the non-specific wording. There's precisely nothing sinister about that, it simply means what was said - the coroner didn't know how she ended up that way, just that she ended up that way. If there was, say, a suicide note, then there'd be a different description here. The real mystery is how so many people can be so easily fooled by this sort of nonsense from the conspiracy crowd. Canada Jack (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Those details about Kilgallen's death are not nonsense, and they don't come from "the conspiracy crowd." Please click here for evidence on Amazon.com about a new Kilgallen biography that Simon & Schuster will distribute starting on December 6.

New biography of Dorothy Kilgallen gets released on December 6, 2016.

Author Mark Shaw already has twenty books to his credit. A few of his many books have explored some possible theories about JFK's assassination, but that doesn't make him a bona fide conspiracy theorist. Many others who have not been labeled conspiracy theorists have said Oswald might have acted in concert with others. These people include Lyndon Johnson. After his presidency ended, he said such a thing about Oswald during a television interview with Walter Cronkite.

And several other editors who comment here can't seem to understand that the New York City medical examiner actually typed the words "circumstances undetermined" in the space for the cause of death on Kilgallen's certificate. The medical examiner did that even though all he had to do was check the "undetermined box" that a printing press already had put on the document. Every single death certificate comes from a printing press with several boxes already printed on it, and those boxes include one for the category of death being as yet undetermined. (Other categories of death are natural causes, suicide, etc.)

Mark Shaw's forthcoming book includes a statement from a medical doctor who worked for the NYC medical examiner's office during the 1960s. His name is Donald Hoffman. He says that it was indeed unusual for the certifying medical examiner to type the words "circumstances undetermined" instead of simply checking the box for such a thing. And I'm not saying that him doing that constitutes evidence of a murder being covered up. Mr. Shaw presents plenty of evidence of that. None of the medical examiners participated in, much less knew about, a cover-up of Kilgallen's death. All they knew was that very shortly before her death, she had voluntarily drunk a moderate amount of alcohol. They couldn't say for sure that she voluntarily had ingested a single barbiturate capsule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:24C5:A700:4DC:FADB:F550:BE1B (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

You have already been told repeatedly that an unpublished and unreviewed book is of utterly no value in a Wikipedia article and that unfounded talk page speculation is contrary to talk page guidelines. Consensus is clear: your obsession with the circumstances of Kilgallen's death will not shape this article in any way. Please go blog about your obsession elsewhere. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

[redacting] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.50 (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Kathryn, I am getting very close to taking you to ANI and requesting that you be topic banned. You are pretty much a textbook example of a tendentious editor. On a side note, I have no objections to your reverting the recently added text. It was problematic and I was considering removing it myself. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You agree that it would be problematic to add to the article some text with Kilgallen's comments on the December 1963 kidnapping of Frank Sinatra Jr.? Well, the Wikipedia editor who did it once did it a second time with an edit dated March 30. The editor's name is listed as Huangdi. As you probably know, if Kilgallen's article includes an allegation she made about anyone in the Sinatra family, then someone else is going to try to add allegations she made about Frank Senior's interactions with various Italian-American criminals. Many of them have been accused of participating in the JFK assassination conspiracy.

section about Sam Sheppard allegedly murdering his wife

Several minutes ago, I rewrote the second of the two paragraphs in this section. I did it because a previous editor had added a clause using dashes in the middle of a sentence, and the clause was causing confusion about the timing of the following events:

-- In December 1954, a Cleveland jury returned a guilty verdict for Dr. Sheppard;

-- moments later Judge Edward Blythin gave him a life sentence;

-- in March 1964, Dorothy Kilgallen revealed at a New York event (held at the Overseas Press Club) that Judge Blythin had been biased against Dr. Sheppard;

-- minutes later Dr. Sheppard's new attorney F. Lee Bailey, also in attendance at the New York event, insisted on meeting Kilgallen and she agreed to help him;

-- and in July 1964 Bailey successfully had his client released from prison on a writ of habeas corpus.

Continuing my improvement of this second of the two paragraphs, I added a sentence that specifies that Kilgallen died before Dr. Sheppard was retried and acquitted.

If you dislike what I did several minutes ago, then please consider that the edit immediately before this one had the clause separated with dashes, and the clause could have confused readers about the timing of those long-ago events. That clause was added "many edits ago," if you will. You can try to find out when it got there. I don't know who added it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.50 (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

approximate head count at her funeral

I have pasted below the edit summary of the edit I made a few minutes ago. The edit adds only five new words. They provide an estimate of the number of people who attended her funeral that was held at her Catholic church where she had been a devoted member.

add five new words. It's a very short addition, and it has a source that is legitimate for Wikipedia. It's the web site of a nationally known commentator, not a blog, and this article already cites it as a source in one other place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.50 (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

To be fair to Dorothy's memory and her father's memory, article must refer to his career briefly.

Here is the edit summary for the edit I submitted several minutes ago: This version is much shorter than the edit I did earlier today. I added detail of Dorothy's father relocating the family to New York City in 1920. That is when Hearst hired him to work there. I deleted her sister's career as casting agent.

I should have said "... the edit I did yesterday." That was yesterday according to the Wikipedia time zone.

Anyway, I feel that if the article only identifies Dorothy's father in passing as "a newspaperman," that would be unfair to his memory and to her memory. The article should include Mr. Kilgallen moving his wife and Dorothy the little girl to various regions of the United States until settling in New York City in 1920 when Hearst hired him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.58 (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia is Not a Memorial. You seem to have an obsession with the subject of this article that is proving to be counterproductive. While your latest edit is not as blatantly ridiculous in the level of bloat being added, it is still full of unnecessary detail and wordiness. You seem incapable of brevity in anything you write. Even the title of this post shows it. It is too late for me to review your latest edit in depth tonight. I will look at it again tomorrow.

CC Canada Jack & Cullen328 -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Please log into your account before editing. If James Lawrence Kilgallen is notable, then write a well-referenced neutral biography of him, while logged into your account. Wikipedia does not exist to be fair or unfair to anyone's memory. We write neutral, well referenced articles about notable topics. We do not indulge the obsessions of individual editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

STOP IT!

KathrynFauble aka 64.183.42.58 You have been repeatedly warned by multiple editors about your tendentious editing and your refusal to abide by consensus demonstrated by your persistent efforts to introduce references to fringe theories backed by fringe sources into the article. The next time you do this I will reluctantly ask that you be topic banned from this subject. Also please do not edit using an IP address w/o identifying your actual account. This is considered a form of sockpuppetry and can get you blocked. This has been going on for far too long. Please consider this notice as a Final Warning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

CC: Cullen328, Location, Canada Jack, LuckyLouie, Guy

@Ad Orientem: KathrynFauble, who began editing on 20 November 2014, has not edited since 2 January 2015. There is a gap in the edit history of 64.183.42.58 between 26 April 2014 and 4 March 2015. Do you have inside information about these editors? wbm1058 (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

If you read the walls of text in the archives you will see that she used the IP at times. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, do you mean to say that you recall that she actually admitted that the IP was hers? wbm1058 (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not. But I do recall that she was addressed by her user name in replies by myself and other editors and there was never any denial or correction. The style of writing was also the same. If you will take a look at the talk page archives I believe you will find a pretty clear case of tendentious editing. This has been discussed with other editors as well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

So KathrynFauble and 64.183.42.58 do not have overlapping edit histories, thus you are saying that editors accused 64.183.42.58 of being KathrynFauble some time after Fauble quit editing and 64.183.42.58 resumed editing? i.e. in reaction to something about these ~55 edits? wbm1058 (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

See these discussion threads. It looks like she started out using an IP then signed up for a user account and at some point went back to IP editing using several very closely related IPs. [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. I'm not sure if that's all of it, and there were related discussions at FTN and other user talk pages. In any event I think that should be sufficient. After looking at the record, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt this is all the same person. That said, after looking at the record, while I am even more convinced of the tendentious agenda oriented editing, which I think it would take a suspension of commonsense to deny; I doubt this is a malicious case of socking. It looks like someone who just doesn't care how or under what name they edit. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'm not going to dive too deep into those past discussions now. It's a fair guess that this is possibly one person, but to actually follow through on your threat to topic ban them, wouldn't you first need a sockpuppet investigation to prove it within a reasonable doubt (even if there was no intention to mislead others into believing they were different people)? You would need to identify an appropriate IP range. I don't think this is a good path towards solving the problem, if there is a problem (I'm not sold on that). Maybe an increase in protection level, but I'm not convinced even that is necessary at this time. I'm starting a new section below in a minute. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Meantime, I have found and cited the original newspaper articles in lieu of the blog. If 64.183.et.al. tries to restore the blog, this will be incontrovertible proof of POV-pushing. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The bibliography section

I'm concerned about this reversion, which removed Mark William Shaw's book, just published this month, from the bibliography section. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies#Recommended structure, "When creating a new bibliography, include a concise lead with explicit criteria for what entries are – and are not – suitable. The inclusion criteria are for the benefit of both readers and other editors". I think we can afford to be more inclusive here, and include any mainstream-published biography of the subject, regardless of its focus. Sure, some self-published book that theorized that Kilgallen was murdered by Martians could be excluded as too "fringe". It's one thing not to accept the theories and conclusions of a particular book as facts to be so-stated in the lead of the article. It's entirely another to ban the book from a bibliography section intended to show readers other sources they can look to for further information and various other viewpoints about the subject. I doubt that any speculation there might be in Shaw's book is so far out in left field that it can be ruled out as impossible. Unlikely, perhaps, but impossible, no. Even if the book leans in the direction of "tabloid journalism", and I'm not drawing any conclusions about that, I don't think it's unreasonable to at a minimum allow it a listing in the bibliography section, even if the book is not used as a reference for any other section of the article. To deny a book a spot here on the basis that this is promoting the book is ludicrous, if that were the case we could not have bibliographies at all, as every single listing in this section "promotes" the listed book. wbm1058 (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I checked out the reviews of this book on Amazon. I think the one-star review "A Poorly Written Rehash of Discredited Theories That Withholds Key Information From Readers" offers some good insights that indeed show we should be cautious in relying on this source for stating facts in this biography. On the other hand, I think this author brings something new to the table with these interviews, particularly with her hairdressers. This is primary-source information that may not have been public before. So parts of this book, which I haven't read, may be a good source, if we disregard what seems to be some sloppy coverage of previously known facts that have been better covered by other, more reliable and contemporary sources. I don't know that much about Kilgallen, but my sense is she would have been right at home as a correspondent for a program like 48 Hours, in addition to being a game show panelist and as celebrity gossip columnist, she might also have been at home on a program like Extra. And ironically, her death is something you might expect a program like 48 Hours to have covered, though sometimes I wonder if there's a taboo in the media about doing stories about one of their own. wbm1058 (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree. The author of this work is a known promoter of WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories whose works have generally been panned by those outside of the Alex Jones mindset, when reviewed at all. Bearing in mind WP:PROFRINGE and the history of this article which was for a long time a coatrack for the promotion of one of the more loony Kennedy Assassination conspiracy theories, I see no compelling argument for adding this, and I am concerned it could reopen the whole conspiracy issue which was purged from the article by a strong consensus. Given that consensus and the strict rules against using articles for the promotion of fringe theories, I do not believe this should be unilaterally added to the article w/o a clear supporting consensus and am going to remove it. Feel free to post an RfC if you think it should be included in the bibliography. You can also post at WP:FTN and ask if this book is sufficiently non-fringe for the bibliography. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, have you read this book? wbm1058 (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I have read synopsis and it promotes clearly discredited conspiracy theories. Also the author has a track record for promoting that kind of thing which makes anything he writes highly suspect. I would need reviews from multiple mainstream reliable sources attesting to the non-fringe nature of the work before I could support putting it anywhere in the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, OK, please give me a synopsis of the clearly discredited conspiracy theories which this book promotes, in your view. wbm1058 (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

He believes that Kilgallen uncovered evidence of a conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy and she was murdered to keep her quiet, possibly by the CIA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

My impression from what I've seen on his websites is that's only one possibility of several. Other theories include Sinatra or her husband being behind it. I've reserved the book from my public library to satisfy my curiosity, but it may be a month or more before my number comes up on the waiting list. wbm1058 (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

If the theory about such a possible conspiracy is notable enough and has enough content for a separate article, it might be relevant for inclusion in a bibliography there. However, this individual was at the time notable for quite a bit beyond that conspiracy theory, and those matters seem to have been the primary cause of her lasting general notability, so adding a possibly rather sensationalistic work which might be promoting a conspiracy theory which is not in and of itself one of the most important matters related to her biographical notability would seem to me to be possibly excessive. It may be possible that the book itself might be or become notable enough and have enough encyclopedic content for a standalone article, or that the conspiracy theory involving her death may be or become notable enough with enough encyclopedic content for a standalone article. But I also would think that, without sources discussing the book in a way which indicates it is one of the better sources on the subject of this individual as an individual, that it would likely best not be included in this article's bibliography. It might however be relevant for inclusion in John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories if it receives sufficient attention for inclusion there. John Carter (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

In a nutshell; for inclusion anywhere in WP, we need evidence that the book in question, and the particular conspiracy theory it advances, is notable and has attracted serious analysis in mainstream sources, rather than a bit of tabloid news coverage corresponding with its recent launch promotional activity. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Who says the book is advocating just one particular theory? Is any speculation about the cause of her death by definition so "fringe" that any mention of the source must be censored? Accidental overdose? Nope, can't go there, fringe conspiracy theory. Suicide? Nope, can't go there, fringe conspiracy theory. Murder by poisoning with a drug overdoes? Nope, can't go there, fringe conspiracy theory. She died because a toxic drug cocktail was found in her body. Period. End of story. Some of these drugs were the type used for date rapes? Nope, can't go there, fringe conspiracy theory. She was found fully dressed, in a bedroom that she never slept in? Irrelevant. Don't go there. We don't want to feed fringe conspiracy theories. Do you honestly expect anyone trying to sell books to not go there? If you ban any book that speculates about the cause of death, you've probably banned every biography that's been written post-death. wbm1058 (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

More or less, WP:CONCENSUS seems to indicate that at least, admitting how new the RfC is, at this point of the discussion the source is at least questionable. That being the case, it would seem that, according to WP:BURDEN, it would be incumbent on those who seek to add the source to provide evidence that the source does in fact not have the problems which have been ascribed to it. I also note the truly objectionable nature of some of the last comment above, in which the editor seems to be making a large number of straw man arguments about the concerns of others while at the same time doing nothing to indicate that those concerns themselves. Such conduct can be seen as problematic, and I hope that the situation does not become such that outside attention for problematic conduct is sought. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I see that the article says the death was ruled an accident, so that's not a fringe theory. This is getting too heavy for the holidays. I'll wait until I have a chance to read the book to comment further. Merry Christmas. wbm1058 (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The death wasn't ruled an accident. On the death certificate, one of the New York City medical examiners, either Dr. James Luke or Dr. Dominick DiMaio, checked the box for the category "undetermined pending further investigation." Which of them did it? That opens yet another can of worms.

DiMaio signed Kilgallen's death certificate after using his typewriter to type "circumstances undetermined" in all caps underneath his typed words "acute ethanol and barbiturate intoxication." He also typed that he was signing the document "for James Luke." DiMaio handled only Brooklyn deaths. Dorothy Kilgallen died in Manhattan.

The new source you are discussing, the book authored by Mark William Shaw, includes these details. It cites two human sources, meaning people who worked at the medical examiner's office in the 1960s and can be contacted today, on the point that medical examiners very rarely typed the words "circumstances undetermined" on a death certificate. They frequently checked the box that indicated "undetermined pending further investigation," but to spell out words on the lines for the cause of death used up the limited space on the document.

Shaw's book also includes citations from a December 1995 telephone interview with Dominick DiMaio, who can be heard sounding upset after the interviewer reminds him that his signature is on Kilgallen's death certificate. "I never handled the case!" he exclaims. He asks in which borough Kilgallen died. Informed that it was Manhattan, DiMaio becomes even more emotional, adding that he never handled Manhattan deaths in 1965. (She died on November 8 of that year.) Not until 1974 did he become acting chief for deaths in all five boroughs. That was during the aftermath of the chief's unexpected resignation, which explains the title of "acting chief" for DiMaio.

As you can see, the official story of Kilgallen's death is a mess. It is up to you to decide whether Mark Shaw's book, which delineates the mess, belongs in the bibliography. The explanation for the mess that he offers may or may not be a fringe theory or theories, but you can't deny that the word "mess" describes the death certificate and other documents from the medical examiner's office. Anyone who tries to make sense of the mess can be accused of promoting a fringe theory.

I have been told before to create a Wikipedia account for whenever I add something to the Talk page, but the above represents almost all I have to say. Somebody said Kilgallen's death was ruled an accident, and I had to reply. No, it wasn't ruled an accident. My Wikipedia account would not entitle me to pass judgment on whether Mark Shaw's book promotes fringe theories, anyway.

Another source has been discussed here, and it has been labeled permanently as a fringe: a long article in the November 1966 Ramparts magazine that includes a page about Kilgallen. The anonymous reporter claims to have asked Dr. James Luke if Kilgallen could have been murdered, and he allegedly replied, in the anonymous reporter's words: ". . . there was no way of determining that." Ramparts is a fringe source, and author Mark Shaw makes no mention in his book of Luke's comment about murder. Whether Shaw's entire book itself is a fringe source must be determined by consensus. Like most non-fiction books, it has its flaws, but consider that Simon & Schuster is distributing it after publication by Post Hill Press. Shaw paid Post Hill Press for his freedom to write whatever he wanted, but nobody can force Simon & Schuster to do anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.58 (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

It's interesting to see that Ad Orientem's first edit to this article was to slap a {{Fringe theories}} tag on it. What's the verdict on the November 15, 1965 edition of the New York Post? Is that a fringe source? Dr. James Luke "did not rule on whether it was suicide or accidental". – wbm1058 (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

This 30 December 2014 edit by Ad Orientem trimmed "bloat and extraneous/trivial details" like "It is not known whether the death was a suicide or an accidental overdose"... hey, who cares about the cause of death, eh? Just trivial details... wbm1058 (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I think if we are going to start calling into question the work and consensus of numerous editors over the last two years you might want to peruse the very extensive discussions on the talk page both here and at FTN. Just a suggestion. On a side note I won't be online much until Monday. Merry Christmas. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

wbm1058, I'm completely with Ad Orientem WRT the removal of "It is not known whether the death was a suicide or an accidental overdose [or an unspoken something else]". If something is not known, we don't say so; per NOTNEWS and OR, we present what is known and, when contentious, within the context of clearly identified expert opinion. I have nuked similar phrases myself. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

So just yesterday "Her death was ruled an accident"... 50 years after her death! Now, it's finally known. wbm1058 (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@ATS: What clearly identified experts have ruled her death to be an accident? wbm1058 (talk) 02:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

wbm1058, I just retraced my search, and I fixed my error. That said, this speaks in no way to the removal noted above. —ATS 🖖 talk 02:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks, sorry if I upset you (your edit summary, ouch!) -- I understand your point of view about leaving out unknown details, though, with such a fundamental question as this, I'm not sure I agree that it's a good idea. People are naturally inclined to wonder about this one, and want to find answers. If they don't find the answers on Wikipedia, they are going to look elsewhere. I understand that a couple of years ago, this bio needed some cleanup, but I worry that now it's gone too far to the other extreme. Anyhow, enough for now, I was intending to take a break, then got drawn back in by this issue... wbm1058 (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I was upset at myself, wbm1058—that would have been unforgivable in my last job. Meantime, I completely agree that people come here to read facts and perhaps find answers—and that's exactly why "it is not known" in Wikivoice is bad, IMO. Enjoy your holiday. —ATS 🖖 talk 02:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I removed The Reporter Who Knew Too Much: The Mysterious Death of What's My Line TV Star and Media Icon Dorothy Kilgallen from the bibliography section because the present consensus doesn't appear to support its inclusion there. I would have no problem with a "Conspiracy theories" section for the article, if multiple reliable sources could be found to justify one. Shaw's book, aside from tabloid mentions concurrent with a PR campaign promoting its release a few weeks ago, isn't quite there yet in meeting the threshold for a reliable source that has gained some traction via serious discussion and analysis in independent reliable sources. In weeks or months to come it may, but until then, placing it in the article's bibliography alone isn't appropriate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

New York Post article

What about the January 29, 2017 New York Post report of the district attorney's office expressing interest in Kilgallen's death? Is it a fringe source because it quotes from a recently published book that is considered a fringe source? It's the second New York Post piece on Kilgallen within two months. Here is the article, which I have added as part of my edit. second New York Post piece on Kilgallen within two months

Let's balance it by also adding citations from Vincent Bugliosi's respected book from 2007: Reclaiming History. It debunks all the JFK-related conspiracy theories. The segment about Kilgallen cites statements by Hugh Aynesworth, a Newsweek reporter who interacted with Kilgallen during her visits to Dallas, Texas. He witnessed her drinking heavily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.141.117.202 (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Many discussions at the Reliable sources noticeboard have pointed to severe problems with the reliability of the New York Post. Here is the only substantive coverage of the "interest" by the DAs office in Kilgallen's death: "Joan Vollero, a spokeswoman for DA Cyrus Vance Jr., confirmed that a staffer has read the book, and reviewed a letter from author Mark Shaw citing new leads, medical evidence, and witnesses overlooked when Kilgallen, 52, died suddenly on Nov. 8, 1965, at the peak of her career." Yeah, a staffer read a book and reviewed a letter. Please try to explain why that belongs in an encyclopedia article. This is a back door effort to promote Shaw's book which itself promotes a conspiracy theory. As for Bugliosi's book, citing a reliable source does not justify citing an unreliable source. That is a logical flaw. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a longstanding and very strong consensus against introducing any material regarding the various fringe conspiracy theories surrounding the death of Kilgallen. Please do not reintroduce similar material w/o first gaining talk page consensus. This article was a WP:COATRACK for conspiracy theories and it took a long time and much effort to clean it up. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Death

I recently tried to enter content about the suspicious circumstances of Dorothy's death. But I was unaware of the "anti-fringe" policy, and meant no breach of protocol. Now that I am aware of the policy, I at least want to express my concern as to the lack of details concerning her death. Presently the article gives the impression, at least from my own initial reading of it, that she used alcohol and prescription drugs irresponsibly. That seems to be a smear on her reputation and on her memory. In light of the evidence that exists (I followed the rule of citing my sources), it seems rather odd that my edits have been summarily dismissed as "fringe" content. Perhaps I misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia, which I thought was to enable legitimate content to be posted, and then augmented/edited as seen fit, but not outright deleted. Is there possibly a way to accommodate additional content about her death, perhaps in a section labeled "Speculative Content", or the like? Then the readers could make up their own mind. At the very least, why can't we list Mark Shaw's book in the bibliography? I want to protect the integrity of the article. But presently I feel it is misleading and uninformative as to the very plausible connection between her investigation of the Kennedy assassination, and her untimely death. That said, I will make no more edits of this nature, and respect the policy in the future.TubesUntil (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The principal reason for the consensus to exclude the conspiracy theories is that they have received little in the form of coverage from reliable secondary sources. Even among conspiracy theorists they have been widely dismissed as fringe. Mr. Shaw has a reputation as a purveyor of fringe theories and is not a reliable source. I am unaware of any significant reviews of his book by mainstream (non-fringe) sources. The few mentions of these theories that have come from RS sources have been almost uniformly scathing in their assessment of them. See the brief discussion by Bugliosi in his "Reclaiming History." The bottom line is that we do not allow Wikipedia to be used for the promotion of Fringe Theories which this undoubtedly is. And in order to raise Fringe Theories in an article there needs to be evidence of the notability of the theory reflected by extensive discussion or coverage in reliable secondary sources. That is not the case here. In fact I'm not sure this is even mentioned in the extremely long article on Kennedy Assassination conspiracy theories. Note: I'm currently on vacation and won't be online much so bear with me if I don't respond promptly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

CC: Cullen328, Location, Canada Jack, LuckyLouie, Guy

Wikipedia articles summarize what reliable, independent sources say about a topic. Fringe sources like Shaw's book are not considered reliable here. Period. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

BTW, Location disappeared last June. Interestingly, MrBill3—whose assistance was also highly valuable in the then-GA promotion of Ike Altgens—disappeared two days earlier. —ATS 🖖 talk 02:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Ditto Cullen328. Canada Jack (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I logged on today for the first time in a long time - I've had one or two extended Wikibreaks previously - and saw in the alert notices that my name was invoked here. (My absence coinciding with that of others is only coincidence.) I agree that Mark Shaw is not a reliable source for this article and I'm sure he was discussed here previously. -Location (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Holy shit! Welcome back, Location! —ATS 🖖 talk 04:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

My absence coinciding with that of other users is as stated above coincidental. Not sure what the implication of "interestingly" is. MrBill3 (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• This bullshit has been going on for years. I think we need to consider some level of article protection. Almost all non-trivial edits by now are either adding this National Enquirer-grade junk or reverting it. Guy (Help!) 09:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. I was thinking of putting an edit notice on the article warning editors not to add material on this subject without first securing talk page consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• I have added an Edit Notice to the article. Hopefully this will help. If the problem persists we may have to consider protecting the page, but I'd rather not go there unless it's absolutely necessary. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Like Guy (Help!) 18:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Midwest Today

A publication called Midwest Today has been put forward as a possible reliable source for this article. I decided to take a look at this publication and what I found is quite strange. There is no Wikipedia article about this publication (which is not unusual) but what was a surprise to me is that I could find no evidence that this publication is used as a reliable source anywhere in Wikipedia. Then, I did a Google search. The Google listing for the publication highlights just two articles: a 1994 article about Hillary Clinton and this article about Kilgallen. It seemed strange to me that a publication around for decades would be pushing such an old article and one about a relatively obscure media personality who died half a century ago. I searched for the names of the editorial staff and could find nothing, though I found an Iowa P. O. Box number. Then, I took a closer look at the cover of the "latest issue" displayed on the website, which is an impressive looking glossy layout. The cover story of what is purported to be the latest issue is an article about George Clooney on the occasion of his 50th birthday. I then checked Clooney's date of birth and discovered that he is now 55 years ago. Then, I noticed that the website says that the magazine has been published for 19 years. That did not correspond with the age of the Clinton article published 23 years ago. I could find no copyright notices on the website more recent than 2011. My tentative conclusion is that this is a magazine that failed about five years ago, and that its website has been sold to/taken over by people who are pushing conspiracy theories about Dorothy Kilgallen. As this may itself sound like a conspiracy theory, I want to make it crystal clear that I am interested in any alternative explanations. The bottom line is that I see no evidence at all that Midwest Today is a reliable source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Reckon you found a fake news site, good job. Guy (Help!) 18:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Both of you are remiss. Magazine's copyright is current. Hard copy is distributed to subscribers via the Postal Service. Web site isn't fake news. Many articles over a span of ten years can be googled. Publisher is Larry N. Jordan. Please read his long Wikipedia article carefully. Wikipedia article about publisher of Midwest Today magazine Helping Johnnie's memory (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The Midwest Today article is promoting a book that's pushing a conspiracy theory that Kilgallen was murdered by J. Edgar Hoover, Carlos Marcello, and Frank Sinatra because she knew "the truth" about the JFK assassination. This definitely falls under WP:REDFLAG, i.e. surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources. We'd need some extraordinary sources to back up this extraordinary claim, and Midwest Today ain't one. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

You, too, are remiss. The book does not say Hoover, Marcello and Sinatra conspired to murder Dorothy Kilgallen. If you have a copy of the book in front of you or you have read any of it, we can discuss it. If you depend totally on online summaries of the book, then you are misinterpreting them.

Also, Midwest Today has a current copyright and "Cullen328" depends totally on a few google search results to twist evidence of this legitimate publication. Google has more evidence of Midwest Today that "Cullen328" has missed, including sources that another Wikipedia article lists. A Wikipedia article itself can't be a legitimate source for another Wikipedia article, but one article's sources can support another article. I already have provided a link to the other article. You can find sources there that legitimize Midwest Today as a source that can support portions of Dorothy Kilgallen's article. Helping Johnnie's memory (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry you disagree with Simon & Shuster's description of their book: "Shaw unfolds a “whodunit” murder mystery featuring suspects including Frank Sinatra, J. Edgar Hoover, Mafia Don Carlos Marcello and a "Mystery Man" who may have silenced Kilgallen". You may want to notify them they're "misrepresenting" their own book. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. I too am busy. Let me begin by saying that Dorothy Kilgallen was not a "relatively obscure media personality". She was a noted columnist whose article, Voice of Broadway, appeared in countless newspapers all over the country. Her opinion mattered, and a statemtent made in one of her articles could "make or break you". At the time of her death, she was generally known as "the most powerful female voice in America". And she appeared on a very popular television show each week. She most certainly was not "obscure". So I find your assertion to be quite puzzling.

Before making my ill-fated edit, I Googled Midwest Today and found indication of what appeared to be a magazine currently distributed in major outlets (K-Mart, Target, Wal-Mart). Then I Googled Sara Jordan and ended up on Amazon.com, where I found the following description:

Sara Jordan-Heintz is the author of the fantasy/crime novella A DAY SAVED IS A DAY EARNED, set in 1961, which will also be included in the brand-new book SUBMITTED FOR YOUR APPROVAL presented by Rod Serling Books, edited by Anne Serling, available soon. Jordan-Heintz is a writer, editor and 20th century historian specializing in social commentary, women's issues and Old Hollywood. Her research paper on the Mary Tyler Moore Show was published in the prestigious IOWA HISTORICAL REVIEW. Her article on 1970s singer Karen Carpenter was included in the 2012 book YESTERDAY ONCE MORE: THE CARPENTERS READER, revised and expanded edition by Randy L. Schmidt. Her work has also been cited in several books on journalist and What's My Line? panelist Dorothy Kilgallen. Jordan-Heintz edited the groundbreaking and extensive 2011 biography JIM REEVES: HIS UNTOLD STORY and is currently working on a second book called MIDWESTERNERS IN MOVIELAND: THE FIERY LIVES OF TWELVE ILLUSTRIOUS STARS FROM AMERICA'S HEARTLAND, due out later this year. The book will include revealing biographical profiles on ALL ABOUT EVE actress Anne Baxter, the first African-American movie star Dorothy Dandridge, iconic Iowa-born actress Jean Seberg, new insights into Marilyn Maxwell and Rock Hudson's relationship, among others. Ms. Jordan-Heintz holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in American Studies and history from The University of Iowa, Omicron Delta Kappa, with a focus in American society, politics and everyday life. She works as a features writer for a daily newspaper and is the associate editor of MIDWEST TODAY magazine. Several of her newspaper articles have been picked up by the Associated Press, published online through SFGAate sister-site of the San Francisco Chronicle, Omaha World-Herald, Miami Times, Washington Post, Daily Astorian and others. She lives in the Midwest with her husband Andy Heintz, a fellow writer.

Not being on notice of any problem with this source, I felt I had done the due diligence required to make my edit. If you decide to dismiss both Midwest Today and Sara Jordan as valid sources, then there is nothing more to be said, except that the article is still misleading.TubesUntil (talk) 08:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Addition to article reflects the fact that . . .

Kilgallen was friendly with Theo Wilson. If someone is going to say that adding text from her memoir promotes a fringe theory, then I give up. I tried. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.118.32.6 (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it promotes a conspiracy theory, but I do think it's fairly trivial. Everybody has friends and Kilgallen had some well known ones. Are we going to start quoting them all? -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I considered a straight-up revert, but I left what seemed benign absent the opinions expressed here. —ATS 🖖 talk 00:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I added these three words to the direct quote from Ms. Wilson's book: "for his wife." Check page 46 in the book, maybe via Amazon's "Look inside" feature if need be. Previous edits omitted Ms. Wilson's words "for his wife" referring to a typical criminal court prosecuting attorney who encountered Dorothy Kilgallen trying to do her job as a reporter. 99 percent of prosecuting attorneys were male in Kilgallen's era, and many were married. According to Ms. Wilson, the prosecuting attorney's wife was more likely to treasure Ms. Kilgallen's autograph than the attorney himself.Helping Johnnie's memory (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Quote confirmed. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Cause of death

I've now read the first 20 chapters of Mark Shaw's book, "The Reporter Who Knew Too Much". This is a followup to the discussion I started here. Lots of interesting stuff there, but I understand how you feel about Shaw as a source, and there is good reason for that.

So I don't want to discuss using Shaw as a source, but rather the possibility of citing primary sources directly, that Shaw discusses in his book. Specifically, in Chapter 19.

Our article at present simply says, Her death was determined to be caused by a fatal combination of alcohol and barbiturates – we can't even agree that including "Circumstances Undetermined" is necessary or helpful, even though that is stated on the autopsy report, an official, primary-source document. Shaw has published photocopies of pages of the autopsy report in the book. A handwritten page that is marked as part of the autopsy report indicates that the barbiturates found in Kilgallen's body were seconal and tuinal. Shaw claims that the autopsy report and its addendums had not been published before, and that he obtained them from the National Archives. He says that in 2015, he tried to get the autopsy report from the NYC medical examiner's office, but that, even after 50 years, he was denied that since he was not next-of-kin. But presumably the documents are verifiable, if anyone can get a copy from the National Archives, to confirm that Shaw did not create fake documents. So just wondering if we could simply identify the barbiturates cited in the autopsy report.

Shaw claims she had a prescription for the seconal, but not the tuinal, based on the report listing her prescriptions. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

This sounds like a trivial factoid... unless it is intended to raise doubts about the circumstances surrounding her death. Wikipedia is not an investigative agency and I would be extremely careful about introducing primary source material absent a very compelling reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course there are doubts about the circumstances of her death, and probably always will be. "Circumstances Undetermined" means there are doubts. Precisely how that fatal combination of alcohol and barbiturates was administered will most likely never be known with certainty. To the extent that this article implies that there are not doubts about the circumstances surrounding her death, it is biased. wbm1058 (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

An overwhelming consensus, backed by almost all of the reliable sources that bother to discuss the matter, say otherwise. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Citations needed. wbm1058 (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

You are equivocating between what Ad Orientem meant by "doubts" and what the medical examiner meant by "Circumstances Undetermined". It is clear that "Circumstances Undetermined", a common finding in overdoses, meant that the medical examiner could not tell if Kilgallen overdosed accidentally or intentionally (i.e. suicide). It is clear from the background of your comments and book you are citing that Ad Orientem was referring to the introduction of foul play as a possibility. The only way to get from one to the other is to drop the context of what the medical examiner meant by "Circumstances Undetermined". Reliable sources reporting on the medical examiner's findings do not drop that context. Otherwise, they would be stating that the medical examiner and police left open the possibility of foul play. -Location (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the burden is on the editor who wishes to introduce potentially controversial material into an article to provide reliable secondary sources that demonstrate the relevance of the material in question. Per WP:REDFLAG extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If we are going to insert any material into the article that is clearly intended to imply murder, then we need serious RS sources to support that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Text I added in an edit (a few minutes ago) does not support a conspiracy theory in any way. It merely says that mourners who attended Kilgallen's funeral did not know the cause of death, and neither did those who participated in the episode of What's My Line that was telecast live three days after the funeral. My edit included a minor fix of grammar in the Sam Sheppard section and the addition of some Wikipedia-legitimate sources to one of the assertions that has been in the JFK section for a long time. The "San Diego Reader" is a source that has been there for a long time. Check it out. It seems like it might not be legitimate for Wikipedia. So I added two more sources to the same exact place. Here is my edit summary:

minor fix of grammar in Sam Sheppard section, add new sources to JFK section without changing any of text, San Diego Reader source from previous edits could be bad for Wikipedia, add text about people at Kilgallen's funeral not knowing cause of death — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.50 (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

For the most part I'm OK with your edit. I did remove the part about people not knowing the cause of death at her funeral or on the show. That's really trivial and I can't think of any other article where we discuss whether or not a group of people knew the cause of death at the subject's funeral. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. I still recommend that you check out the San Diego Reader article from 2015 that constitutes reference #24 in this article. My edit has changed its status to one of three references that support this sentence in the "Kilgallen and the Kennedy assassintion" section: ". . . and wrote several newspaper articles on the subject." You can click below this post for direct access to the article.

The reason I question it is that if you read the whole thing, it seems like the result of a classified ad that "an informal group" or "a small group" of El Cajon, California residents, led by Gene Bryant, paid for because they were personally interested in Kilgallen. Maybe it is the indirect result of a classified ad that had appeared in another San Diego-based publication. Some of the text hints at that. The article never mentions whether anyone in the "small group" might have first-hand information about her.

Based on my studying the sources in our Kilgallen article, I can't find any link she may have had to a person in El Cajon or San Diego. The San Diego Reader article does not mention whether anyone who now lives in El Cajon or San Diego could have lived in or visited New York City when they were much younger. Our article says Kilgallen lived in various parts of New York City from age seven until she died.

Is this a source that is legitimate for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.50 (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Alleged Constance Bennett libel suit and Pulitzer Prize nomination

I earlier today removed two brief and unsourced passages concerning Constance Bennett and Kilgallen's alleged Pulitzer Prize nomination. In an effort to resolve the 'citation needed' flags associated with each of these passages, I have spent considerable time searching the internet but have found no independent, reliable sources to support either claim. The only items I found were apparent cut-and-paste jobs taken (one is tempted to write stolen) directly from this Wikipedia entry - hardly scholarly, hardly reliable. Concerning Bennett, she did sue a writer for libel in 1938, but the writer wasn't Kilgallen and the topic had nothing to do with Bennett's fame being in alleged decline. Concerning the Pulitzer Prize, the organization's website (www.pulitzer.org) makes no mention of Dorothy Kilgallen in any capacity, although I do note that non-winning prize nominees/finalists in the 1950s are not explicitly listed.

If anyone can provide reliable sources for either of these passages, please restore them. Otherwise, they are unsourced and should not be included in an encyclopedic entry. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

New book

I’m not going to do anything with it myself, but the book The Reporter Who Knew Too Much has just been published. deisenbe (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Deisenbe, that book was published in December, 2016, and was discussed extensively in Archive 1 of this talk page under the heading "The bibliography section". Consensus is that this book is an unreliable source and does not belong in this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It would have helped me immensely if the article on her had mentioned this unreliable book. deisenbe (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately there have been a lot of attempts to insert material into the article that promotes fringe theories. Unless those theories have some level of independent notability or have at least been discussed in reliable sources we generally steer clear of that stuff per WP:UNDUE and WP:PROFRINGE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

We do not promote books on Wikipedia, although some editors try. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I’m not talking about PROMOTING the book. I’m talking about helping ignorant ME not to read it. Isn’t the report of the Manhattan District Attorney a reliable enough source to mention it? If no mention is made of it at all then you have ignorant people like me thinking it must be really important. In other words, some people will hear of the book, and the article provides no guidance for us, in which case I think the cure is worse than the disease. deisenbe (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It is not our job to debunk every fringe book that comes along, especially if reliable professional book reviewers have ignored the book. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I am requesting 3rd party look at this. deisenbe (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Ad Orientem and Cullen. The details of Kilgallen's death are notable, and are explicitly noted in the article. Because no reliable bases/sources exist for disputing those details, there is no compelling, encyclopedic justification to reference such alternatives here, however indirectly. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

What's My Line

@Deisenbe: Hello, Deisenbe. I see that you've got a more substantive debate going on here, so I'll be brief. I removed the sentence about Kilgallen being the only remaining original panelist because, although true from a strictly literal view, it is misleading. Kilgallen did appear on the debut broadcast, but the show's panel was in flux during those early broadcasts. She did not appear on the second broadcast, where she was replaced by Arlene Francis. And on the third broadcast, both Kilgallen and Francis appear and this remained the case when the panel's membership did become stable (indeed, it remained the case until Kilgallen's death). So, I've removed the sentence, but left in place the statement that Kilgallen did appear in the debut broadcast. If you wish, I'll be happy to engage in further discussion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I was not aware that Francis and not Kilgallen was on the second show. In case anybody doesn’t know, most episodes of What's My Line are on Youtube. deisenbe (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

My summary of why I'm asking an uninvolved third party to look at this situation

• I’m not taking a position on how Dorothy Kilgallen died, nor the validity of what some people on the talk page call “fringe theories.”

• My point is that if the subject of a WP article has four books written about her, on one of which the movie rights have just been purchased, they need to be mentioned somewhere in the article. (Two are “based on” novels, but that sort of thing is mentioned under Legacy all the time.) As for the two others, at least write a paragraph on the alleged “fringe theories” and say briefly what they are, and what defects in them have been pointed out or what Reliable Sources have said about them. There’s a whole article about John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. The four books are, in chronological order:
  • Israel, Lee (1979). Kilgallen: A Biography of Dorothy Kilgallen. Delacorte Press. ISBN 0440045223.
  • Hill, Bonnie (2002). Johnnie Ray and Miss Kilgallen. Durban House. ISBN 1930754191. Based on extensive research, Johnnie Ray and Miss Kilgallen is the first novel by...
  • Dunne, Dominick (2009). An Inconvenient Woman: A Novel. Ballantine Books. ISBN 0345522206.
  • Shaw, Mark (2016). The Reporter Who Knew Too Much: The Mysterious Death of What's My Line TV Star and Media Icon Dorothy Kilgallen. Post Hill Press. ISBN 1682614433.
    • Dorothy Kilgallen Film in the Works From Dowdle Brothers
    • Kilgallen Book Coming To Screen
• Going through the talk page, there is an astonishing amount of vitriol, emotion, and possessiveness about the manner of her death. Some people act as if they own the topic. I knew absolutely nothing about this two weeks ago, but I can’t help but wonder why there is so much smoke if there isn't a fire.
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dorothy_Kilgallen/Archive_1#External_links
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dorothy_Kilgallen/Archive_1#Undue_Weight_to_Fringe_Theories
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dorothy_Kilgallen/Archive_1#Time_to_fix_this_mess
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dorothy_Kilgallen/Archive_1#Removing_maintenance_tags,_Issues_not_resolved. (link doesn't work because of the period, it's #17 in Contents)
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dorothy_Kilgallen/Archive_1#Off_Topic_Commentary
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dorothy_Kilgallen/Archive_1#Lee_Israel,_Kilgallen's_biographer
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dorothy_Kilgallen/Archive_1#No_more_trivial_bloat
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dorothy_Kilgallen/Archive_1#Newspapers_reported_medical_examiner's_words_"circumstances_undetermined" (link doesn’t work because header has quotation marks, it’s #29 in the Contents)
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dorothy_Kilgallen/Archive_1#STOP_IT! (link doesn't work because of the exclamation point, it’s #33 in the Contents)
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dorothy_Kilgallen/Archive_1#The_bibliography_section
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dorothy_Kilgallen/Archive_1#New_York_Post_article
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dorothy_Kilgallen/Archive_1#Death
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dorothy_Kilgallen/Archive_1#Midwest_Today
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dorothy_Kilgallen/Archive_1#Cause_of_death

• There is much the same sort of thing on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard and the Unsolved deaths noticeboard:
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_44#Dorothy_Kilgallen
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_48#Is_this_a_Fringe_Source? (link doesn't work because of the question mark, it's #12 in Contents)
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_unsolved_deaths#inclusion_of_Dorothy_Kilgallen
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_59#List_of_unsolved_deaths

• I find the following reversion to be particularly disturbing:[[20]] (My contribution, and the apparent reason the whole paragraph was immediately deleted, was the “Why” template.)

• I’m not saying that these fringe theories have validity. I don’t know. But I do think that the existence of the fringe theories, assuming that’s what they are, still has to be mentioned. You can’t just not mention them, when they have gotten this much publicity. deisenbe (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem:@TroyBradenton:@Akld guy:@LuckyLouie:@Cullen328:@Dimadick:@Edward321:@NewYorkActuary:@JoJo Anthrax:

deisenbe. No they do not need to be mentioned and in fact they should not be. There is scant coverage of these theories in reliable secondary sources. The book is not a reliable source. It was written by an author with a well established reputation as a purveyor of fringe theories and has not been the subject of the kind of serious reviews in reliable sources that would make it notable. It is not the job of Wikipedia to promote or advertise non-notable works being peddled by conspiracy theorists to the credulous. We have guidelines covering inclusion of this sort of stuff in articles, including WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE. By any reasonable measure there is not even remotely enough RS coverage of these theories, and the book promoting them, to warrant any mention in the article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and we do not allow it to be used for the promotion of Fringe Theories. The community has discussed this ad nauseum and come to a very strong consensus that these particular theories are not independently notable and that mentioning them would be contrary to WP:PAG.I fully agree with that consensus and at the risk of sounding somewhat snippy, I am getting tired of having to rehash this debate every few months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

As I read them, neither WP:FRINGE nor WP:DUE supports total exclusion of any mention whatsoever of alleged "fringe theories" regarding Kilgallen's death. Also, after reading the Talk page archive in its entirety, I don't see the "very strong consensus". I have posted this on the Wikipedia:Third opinion. deisenbe (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello deisenbe. The issue here seems not whether (or not) WP:FRINGE "supports total exclusion...of alleged 'fringe theories.'" Rather, the issue at hand relates directly to this passage from WP:FRINGE: "it is of vital importance that [writers and editors of Wikipedia articles] simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality." That runs contrary to your position ("I do think that the existence of the fringe theories ... still has to be mentioned"), such that the mere existence of a fringe theory does not justify its inclusion in an encyclopedic entry. In this specific case, and as Ad Orientem has clearly pointed out immediately above, there are not enough independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality to justify the inclusion (or mention) here of fringe theories concerning Kilgallen's death.

I do have this positive suggestion for you, although it might be a long-shot: Write and submit a stand-alone article entitled something along the lines of "Fringe Theories Concerning the Death of Dorothy Kilgallen." As presented in WP:FRINGE (see the 'Coverage in Wikipedia' section) if the theory(ies) is sufficiently notable in itself, AND if such notability (as opposed to the theory per se) can be supported by reliable sources, that might be a good way to proceed. Examples in Wikipedia include the Paul is dead and Holocaust denial theories. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I’m not even going to consider writing it unless User:Ad Orientem and everyone else were to agree there would be a link to it in the main article, preferably where her death is mentioned, which I would not take for granted given the tenor of the discussions. And I’m alarmed by “submit”. Anyway, I’m going to wait and see what a third party says. I still think the books and movie project should be mentioned in the main article. deisenbe (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is anyway that such an article would pass WP:GNG. Again there is scant reliable source coverage for these fringe theories. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

A perfect example of WP:TOOSOON if there ever was one. The idea that there was a plot to murder DK "because she knew too much" has not been picked up by the mainstream or become the subject of any serious coverage, as one would assume such significant news would be. My thoughts on the sources submitted:

• Kilgallen: A Biography of Dorothy Kilgallen — Author Lee Israel plead guilty to literary forgery and thievery, so I think any reasonable editor would agree her book is not a WP:RS.
• Johnnie Ray and Miss Kilgallen and An Inconvenient Woman: A Novel — are both fiction. While it's possible that "inspired by" fiction might be included in the pop culture section of an article about a notable conspiracy theory, you first need sources that show that the conspiracy theory itself is notable on its own. It doesn't work the other way around.
• The Reporter Who Knew Too Much by Mark Shaw — This book still hasn't broken out of obscurity, despite vigorous self-publicity attempts. Let's wait until we have some independent sources that meet WP:RS.
• The Dowdle Brothers — I read the links provided. Apparently the Dowdles (?) acquired the rights to Shaw's book and they are now fishing around for funding (aka "in development"). Since thousands of development deals are announced every week, this in itself doesn't prove the conspiracy theory is widely notable.

It's possible the Dowdles will strike a deal, their film will get made, and reviews in major mainstream press will result in reliable sources discussing the conspiracy theory. At that time there should be no problem including mention of it in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. Wikipedia editors never have expressed a consensus on whether Israel's crimes invalidate a book she finished writing more than twelve years before she committed the crimes. They were non-violent crimes. Books written by convicted murderers have been used as reliable sources in various Wikipedia articles, including the article for Jean Harris.People period 7 (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

People period 7, if you have comments to make, please do so following another editor's comments, not in the middle of them. Thanks. I have moved your comments to the end of the comments made by Lucky Louie. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Now my comment is worthless. People don't have time to search for Lucky Louie's comment to which I was responding. People don't understand my reference to "Israel's crimes." I don't mean the nation of Israel.People period 7 (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

And in your complaint here, those reading this will now know where to look. So, it all worked out: your comment is where it's supposed to be and your complaint will lead readers to the item you were commenting on. All is well! -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

I removed this entry because the dispute is between more than two editors. Consider opening a thread at WP:DRN. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 20:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I have posted this on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and notified everyone who has commented here on it within the past year. deisenbe (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I looked carefully through that Dispute resolution noticeboard and I don't find Dorothy Kilgallen's name. Is the dispute so old that the noticeboard transferred it to another page?Myra or someone (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Myra or someone: yes, the post was archived a while back. It can now be found at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 163#Talk:Dorothy Kilgallen#My_summary_of_why_I'm_asking_an_uninvolved_third_party_to_look_at_this_situation. clpo13_(talk) 19:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Image of her death certificate

A moment ago, I added an image to the article: a certified copy of her death certificate that I obtained. The copy was certified on May 26, 2016. I refrained from adding a single word to the text of the article. I had to add a caption for the image, so I did. If you think the addition of her death certificate is inappropriate, please consider that other Wikipedia articles display death certificates of John Wayne Gacy, who tortured and murdered a lot of people, and Elizabeth Short, the murder victim best known by the nickname "the Black Dahlia." Other people's death certificates are also on display with Wikipedia; you can find them. Gacy's is on display in two Wikipedia articles.Myra or someone (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

How can this be "certified" as the actual document as claimed in the image file? The Exif data shows Adobe Photoshop as the image source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Because it contains the seal of the Bureau of Vital Records of the city government of New York. You can see it.Myra or someone (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't be dense. Any image with an "official" seal can be photoshopped. Setting that aside, I am not seeing in what way this adds anything to the article. I am not absolutely opposed to adding it. But I am not seeing how it substantively improves the article since the information is already in the text. And if there are a handful of articles where death certificates are included I think I can safely say that 99% don't. In this instance I am less concerned with fringe conspiracy theorism than with it being just morbid. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I’m sorry but this is an encyclopedia, our WP:V policies require that any material added to an article must be verifiable by WP:RS reliable sources. It’s up to the editor adding the material to provide verifiable sources that meet WP:CONSENSUS. “Official” documents are sometimes hoaxed. Anyone could have altered the image in any number of ways. And the fact that you claimed the image file as your “own work” is also problematic. Is the image available from a .gov site, NY state for example? The file you added does not seem to be available anywhere else on the internet. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Also not sure it improves the article as it’s significance is minor. See WP:ONUS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

In an effort to help establish consensus I agree with LuckyLouie and Ad Orientem: the death certificate is not needed here (pick your reason(s)) and should be removed. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I removed death certificates of John Wayne Gacy and Eddie August Schneider from other Wikipedia articles. Their significance is minor, too. Schneider was an aviator who died while piloting a plane. He died because the plane stopped moving and he didn't. John Wayne Gacy was a serial killer who was sentenced by the Supreme Court of Illinois to die by lethal injection.Myra or someone (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Tread carefully. Those edits sound very WP:POINTY to me. The consensus in this discussion applies only to the issues in this article. I haven't even looked at the other articles and have no opinion on them one way or another. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

People who do read John Wayne Gacy's article can learn a lot about his crimes without seeing his death certificate. Alright then, the death certificates are gone. Case closed.Myra or someone (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

For two-and-a-half weeks, the Infobox included the words "circumstances undetermined" for the cause of death. Then the editor known as Winkelvi reverted to a previous edit that lists the cause of death as "apparent alcohol and barbiturate combination overdose." Can Winkelvi please explain why? Nobody else has started a discussion of the Infobox.Myra or someone (talk) 04:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support the "apparent alcohol and barbiturate combination overdose" language. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support "Apparent alcohol and barbiturate combination overdose" in the infobox. The "circumstances undetermined" were accidental overdose or suicide, not murder/foul play, as conspiracists suggest. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support "Apparent alcohol and barbiturate combination overdose" per above. [I am on vacation and won't be online regularly until the 23rd of August.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support "apparent alcohol and barbiturate combination overdose", as it is supported by reliable sources as well as previous consensus. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

confusion of Brooklyn / Manhattan

Even if we have consensus with "apparent alcohol and barbiturate combination overdose," we need to have consensus for omitting from the article the fact that her death certificate was signed by the New York City medical examiner who was in charge of deaths for the borough of Brooklyn. The townhouse where she lived and died was in the borough of Manhattan. Is anyone going to chime in with the following?

• Support omission of which medical examiner certified her death and what his job description was

Myra or someone (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources to support any of this? Without it, you're suggesting we change the article based on original research, which we cannot do. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I’m guessing conspiracy theorists feel it’s somehow significant, but there’s no reason such a random detail would need to be featured, nor could I imagine how it would improve the article.- LuckyLouie (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Simon & Schuster -- a vanity publisher?

Hello to editors. As an outsider who hasn't commented for this Talk section yet, may I please point out a page on the Simon & Schuster web site? Simon & Schuster executives comment on Dorothy Kilgallen.

All I'm doing is pointing out the connection between Mark Shaw's book about Kilgallen, which has been debated here many times, and the Simon & Schuster company. During debates, there was a consensus that Shaw's book is a fringe source because it supposedly is issued by a vanity publishing company. Really? Maybe people should double-check that. Granted, Post Hill Press appears in small letters on the left side of the web page, but Simon & Schuster dominates it. The page is part of the Simon & Schuster web site. This company, based in midtown Manhattan, is definitely not a vanity publisher. Employees of the company don't have to sell or publicize the Shaw book if they don't choose to.

With a vanity publishing company, anyone can waltz in to the company office waving money and a manuscript, and the company publishes it, sells it and advertises it. They need the money, so they will present a book as legitimate even if the author says with a straight face the moon is made out of green cheese.

Well, I'm not sure whether I should create a Wikipedia account. I only hope to direct people's attention to that page on the Simon & Schuster web site. Please read it carefully. Bye now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.40 (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Nope. S&S is just a distributor. And the main objection was and remains that the book has received little to no coverage in mainstream reliable secondary sources beyond the usual promotional interviews. The author has a history of promoting fringe theories and I do not believe is a reliable source for... well pretty much anything. If you believe otherwise you will need to provide evidence. There has been a long history of that author directly, and possibly via surrogates or sockpuppetry, to promote their book on Wikipedia so this is going to be a tough sell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you consider the Palo Alto Daily Post a mainstream reliable secondary source? Here is an article it ran on March 13, 2018 about Mark Shaw's strong interest in Kilgallen. Palo Alto Daily Post edition of March 13, 2018

It was not the first article that this publication ran about Mr. Shaw's strong interest in her. Google can lead you to previous ones.John Goldsmith Jr. (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Trivial mention of the Dowdle brothers optioning movie rights isn't notable. It has been discussed before on this Talk page here. Please note that WP:NOTEVERYTHING automatically deserves coverage by Wkipedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Where exactly is the “Simon & Schuster executives comment on Dorothy Kilgallen”? All I see at the link is a promotional blurb. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

On that page that is part of the Simon & Schuster web site, which appears earlier in this thread, click where it says "SEE MORE" and it gives you the following blurb from an employee or employees of the company.

quote on

Was What’s My Line TV Star, media icon, and crack investigative reporter and journalist Dorothy Kilgallen murdered for writing a tell-all book about the JFK assassination? If so, is the main suspect in her death still at large?

These questions and more are answered in former CNN, ESPN, and USA Today legal analyst Mark Shaw’s 25th book, The Reporter Who Knew Too Much. Through discovery of never-before-seen videotaped eyewitness interviews with those closest to Kilgallen and secret government documents, Shaw unfolds a “whodunit” murder mystery featuring suspects including Frank Sinatra, J. Edgar Hoover, Mafia Don Carlos Marcello and a "Mystery Man" who may have silenced Kilgallen. All while by presenting through Kilgallen's eyes the most compelling evidence about the JFK assassinations since the House Select Committee on Assassination’s investigation in the 1970s.

Called by the New York Post, “the most powerful female voice in America,” and by acclaimed author Mark Lane the “the only serious journalist in America who was concerned with who killed John Kennedy and getting all of the facts about the assassination,” Kilgallen’s official cause of death reported as an overdose of barbiturates combined with alcohol, has always been suspect since no investigation occurred despite the death scene having been staged. Shaw proves Kilgallen, a remarkable woman who broke the "glass ceiling" before the term became fashionable, was denied the justice she deserved, that is until now.

More about the book may be learned at thereporterwhoknewtoomuch.com or thedorothykilgallenstory.org

quote off John Goldsmith Jr. (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I assume what you quoted is precisely the "promotional blurb" referred to by LuckyLouie. I hope that you, John Goldsmith Jr., are not suggesting it can be treated as a reliable secondary source. I note also that the source of this obviously promotional blurb seems to have been demoted from "Simon & Schuster executive[]" mentioned by the anonymous IP at the beginning of this thread, to "employee or employees of the company" immediately above. This progression down the corporate ladder makes me suspect we will soon learn that Shaw himself wrote it. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

www.dorothykilgallen.com

Does anyone have an objection to listing http://www.dorothykilgallen.com in external links? I don't find any discussion of it here or in the archives. deisenbe (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I object, although I am willing to change my mind if you can make a case for its inclusion. My objection has three elements. Firstly, the site is an anonymous blog ("Powered by Blogger") and as such none of the information therein can be assumed to be reliable. Secondly, it repetitiously includes sections ("The Mysterious Death of Dorothy Kilgallen", "Was Dorothy Kilgallen Murdered?", "Dorothy Kilgallen's Autopsy") presenting conspiracy theories attached to her death, theories that have repeatedly been rejected for inclusion here. Lastly, WP:ELBLP states: "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP." in my opinion dorothykilgallen.com fails that requirement. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry this fails both WP:NOEL and WP:PROFRINGE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I will add WP:RS to the list of fails. That's three strikes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Dorothy on What's My Line

I thought those interested in Dorothy might find useful a reference to the largest trove of videos of her, which is in the What's My Line archive, which is nearly complete. But someone I won't name took it right out. Anyone agree with me? deisenbe (talk) 10:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

You are the person who added the following two weeks ago?

Most of the episodes of What's My Line that Dorothy participated in, including the entire Hanna-Barbera archive, are available on YouTube.

I don't know who removed it, but the removal is understandable. It lacks a legitimate reference. If you try to add YouTube as a reference, it probably will be removed because Wikipedia does not consider YouTube a legitimate reference. Not that this would make a difference with the removal, but as a television historian you seem to be remiss. The only half-hour telecast in the Hanna-Barbera archive that is relevant to Dorothy Kilgallen is a 1961 Flintstones episode with a character named Daisy Kilgranite, a spoof of Kilgallen. The hundreds of What's My Line? episodes that include Kilgallen have no connection to Hanna-Barbera.

Also, the YouTube channel for What's My Line?, regardless of the fact that the contents are in the public domain, leaves a lot to be desired. Video exists of Kilgallen, her husband and children on a 1956 segment of the CBS series Person to Person, but the person who operates the YouTube channel, Wayne Gary Wetstein, has refused requests to upload the video of it. Ditto for a 1964 episode of the Canadian quiz show Front Page Challenge on which Kilgallen appears as a challenger and Bennett Cerf appears as a guest panelist. Ditto for American television network news footage of Kilgallen in the hallway of a Dallas, Texas courthouse during recesses in the murder trial of Jack Ruby.

What's My Line? episodes, no matter how many of them include Kilgallen and no matter what her demeanor is like on X episode or Y episode, do not reveal everything important about her career or her life. It was a game show. She was a journalist with hundreds of friends and contacts throughout the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.64.181 (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Who Killed Dorothy Kilgallen?

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvpkE29X3tM
• https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/could-dorothy-kilgallen-mystery-be-solved-through-dna-evidence-worth-a-try-author-says
• https://nypost.com/2019/08/10/author-petitions-judge-to-let-him-exhume-dorothy-kilgallens-body-for-dna-evidence/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.7.201.234 (talk • contribs)

Any less WP:SENSATIONAL sources covering this? Seems to be another desperate attempt by Mark Shaw to stir up publicity for his book. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

How about The Jewish Voice? The Jewish Voice article dated August 14, 2019 about a petition for exhumation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.43.88 (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

What was the Park Avenue address?

This page says Kilgallen and Richard Kollmar had an apartment at 640 Park Avenue. His page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Kollmar) says the apartment was at 630 Park Avenue. Which is correct? Rickmbari (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

630 is correct. Two sources that are legitimate for Wikipedia exist. Here is the first.

Real estate web site that provides many details about Kilgallen living at 630 Park Avenue

The second source is a book that was issued by a legitimate publisher, Atheneum Books. Here is one of several web pages that promote the book. evidence of book titled Park Avenue: Street of Dreams — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.24 (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Two minor details in the article are wrong. Reference is a bad source.

On November 24, the Wikipedia editor MarnetteD reverted edits that attempted to replace reference #8 with a legitimate source on the years when Dorothy Kilgallen’s three offspring were born.

The following user-driven web page is bad for Wikipedia. And it only lists a time frame for the birth of Kilgallen's youngest child : Kerry Kollmar. It lists only the names of Kerry's two siblings, not dates or years of birth.

user-driven web page that provides date of birth for one of Dorothy Kilgallen’s children, not other two

I'm trying to add a legitimate source as a replacement for that user-driven web page. The legitimate source is an article in a newspaper that has a Wikipedia article : Philadelphia Bulletin. It provides not only years when Dorothy Kilgallen's three children were born, but also the dates of birth. Of course, years alone are sufficient, as long as they are correct. Text of the article has wrong years of birth for Richard Jr. and Jill, and the user-driven web page doesn't tell us anything about when they were born.

Can MarnetteD please stop blocking efforts to fix reference #8? Would MarnetteD agree to keeping the user-driven web page, and that would be one reference, and the Philadelphia Bulletin would be a second reference? They don't contradict each other. Rigidity flexibility (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Elvis paragraph

I'm not sure this paragraph belongs at all. The information of interest here is that Dorothy Kilgallen wrote about Elvis in December of 1955, a month before he'd released his first single. The paragraph is full of unimportant things: that the Washington Post carried Kilgallen's column and thus it was the first mention in the Post of Elvis; that the Post carried a nostalgia article about it in 2016; that a writer named John Kelly wrote the article. But without that, there's just the quote -- and it's about the Washington Post, which was just one of the 160 or so newpapers that carried Kilgallen, so why is that aspect in the least bit important? She does seem to have been the first national columnist to have noticed the "hillbilly" musician, but I don't have a source to assert that, just negative results from newspaper archive searches. Boiled down, it would be simply "In December of 1955, Kilgallen reported that a "19-year-old country and Western warbler from Nashville, Tenn. (so help us), named Elvis Presley" had signed a $40,000 recording contract with RCA Victor". And that's not particularly useful, other than as an example of her way with words. Certainly not worth a section of the article. Also, for no obvious reason, it was in the "controversy" section. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 08:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Death certificate

Does anyone object to the addition of her death certificate in the "death" section? The Wikipedia article for Elizabeth Short has her death certificate, and how does it enhance anyone's understanding of her death? But Kilgallen's death certificate identifies two medical examiners who made statements about her case many years later.

Two graphics related to Kilgallen's death might occupy more space than the text in that section. If one of them should go, which one? The gravestone doesn't reveal much.Brent Brant (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Haven't we covered this ground before? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I know the death certificate is regarded as proof by people who are convinced Kilgallen was murdered for “knowing too much” but I forget why. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I haven't noticed anyone saying the death certificate is proof of anything. The words that are typed on it, "circumstances undetermined," indicate that further investigation is warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CB81:F80:2C57:70BD:F485:291A (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

a New York Times article that is not a fringe source

In the Legacy section, would an excerpt from the following New York Times article be appropriate? It is about the JFK assassination in general. Only two paragraphs have to do with Dorothy Kilgallen.

two paragraphs about Dorothy Kilgallen in this article about the Assassination Archives & Resource Center in Washington, DCLualaba Binta (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't support much. All it says is that two writers/filmmakers visited the Assassination Archives and Research Center looking for documents on Kilgallen, and that Kilgallen's otes from her interview with Jack Ruby were never found. Schazjmd (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Schazjmd. That's awfully thin soup. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. And it leaves out major context: when the women began spinning conspiracy theories the curator noted he’d seen this type before and backed away from them, he summarized that the subject of JFK attracts nuts, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

Jldel61 Your recent edit was deleted because it goes against consensus. See the prior Talk page discussions here, here, here, here, here, and probably other sections, too. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Jldel61 (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC) How do I ask a question about why certain content is deleted? First time trying to communicate within Wikipedia in this manner. So please pardon me if I did it incorrectly.Jldel61 (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The publisher's website is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. Also, the conspiracy theory put forth in the book hasn't gained any notice not connected with the initial book release, i.e. no lasting impact in secondary sources. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

LuckyLouie, I'm confused why you would remove my referencing of Ms. Kilgallen's own words on an episode of What's My Line?, words that promote no theory as to her untimely death, but do ring as foreshadowing the subsequent controversy. Please explain. Viscount von Stöbig (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

You started your addition with the word "Strangely" but did not provide a reliable source calling it strange. It is not the role of Wikipedia editors to search YouTube for something to call strange. That is original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia. We summarize what reliable sources say. Cullen328 (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Funeral attendees

What is the relevance of whether Cerf attended the funeral or not, Brent Brant? (Referring to these two edits:[21][22]) Schazjmd (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Controversy section

In what way is her testimony in support of Lenny Bruce a controversy? Certainly, the source doesn't present it as that. Did numerous papers stop carrying her column as a result? Same question about the Kennedy assassination; none of the sources present this as controversial. And what was controversial about her having a feud with Sinatra? It might be an amusing detail of Kilgallen's career; can these things just be mentioned in line with the rest of the biography? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 08:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The text that is already part of the article has a link to Lenny Bruce's Wikipedia article. If you read it, you discover that his 1964 criminal trial in New York could have resulted in a jail sentence, and the trial was so controversial that famous people who testified for the defense or prosecution were drawing negative attention to themselves. Just because we have no RS about a newspaper dropping Kilgallen's column in 1964, doesn't mean she didn't cause controversy for herself when she helped Mr. Bruce. The RS we have in this article not only presents Kilgallen's entire testimony, but it is part of a web site that has testimony from other witnesses in Mr. Bruce's trial, and also text that reveals the high level of controversy for everyone involved.

Maybe you should review Wikipedia articles related to the Kennedy assassination and also Sinatra's article. You will learn that not only did federal officials such as Earl Warren and Gerald Ford create controversy when they concluded that Oswald had acted alone, but any journalist or book author who expressed dissenting opinions also caused controversy. You will find that Sinatra caused controversy with his support of Sammy Davis Jr.'s marriage to a Caucasian woman and his support of the Kennedy family, and any journalist who drew attention to Sinatra's negative behavior, such as his mistreatment of women and his temper tantrums, caused controversy for himself or herself. Wikipedia has an article about a newspaper columnist other than Kilgallen who also reported Sinatra's negative behavior, and faced consequences. He was a man named Lee Mortimer. Wikipedia article on Lee Mortimer— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.101.229.136 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

No. Please read WP:SYNTH, and WP:DUE. Unless you have significant coverage of these issues in reliable secondary sources about Kilgallen, this is not going to pass muster. Also do not make changes to comments made by other editors. That is extremely rude. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Along with the links provided by Ad Orientem you should know that other wikipedia articles cannot be used as a source since they are WP:USERGENERATED. Also please learn how to sign your posts. MarnetteD|Talk 02:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

---

This is the worst wikipedia article I have ever read

99% of people coming to this page will expect a discussion of her mysterious death as she was about to publish a lengthy article based in part on an interview with Jack Ruby. She died under highly suspicious circumstances. A friend to whom she gave a copy of the manuscript was also murdered. If Wikipedia's editors revert any attempt to address this subject and ignore the possibility her death was a homicide, it destroys my faith in Wikipedia as an objective source of information.

Like any other subject, reliable sources must be cited. This is especialy true when dealing with grassy-knollers. 2600:1010:B028:3180:E427:A275:DA09:4814 (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The Flintstones

Appeared there as ‘Dorothy Kilgranite’. Should be verified and added to the article. 2600:1010:B028:3180:E427:A275:DA09:4814 (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Be sure to cite the correct Flintstones season, episode number or airdate and episode title.Brent Brant (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Recent edit

Maurice Magnus Your recent edit was reverted because the inclusion of Shaw's conspiracy theory(ies) goes against consensus. See the prior Talk page discussions here, here, here, here, and probably elsewhere, too. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

How about the inclusion of the New York County District Attorney’s denunciation of any and all allegations of suspicious circumstances? I have submitted an edit that indicates that the district attorney knew what he was talking about and that Lee Israel and Mark Shaw were fringe theorists. If you don’t like my edit, revert it.Brent Brant (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Brent Brant, the New York Post is not an acceptable source on Wikipedia; see its entry at WP:RSPS. Schazjmd (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

And the Palo Alto Daily Post is an acceptable source on Wikipedia, but another issue is relevant. The is explained by "Ad Orientem" in the edit they made earlier today. Explanation: "The mere fact that a fringe theory exists, or has received passing mention in reliable sources, is not enough to justify its inclusion. Coverage must be extensive and in depth."Brent Brant (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if you’re asking a question or making a comment, however you may not understand that Wikipedia is careful about giving attention to conspiracy theories that haven’t been given any serious attention or analysis by WP:RS. “Local author writes book” type stories are not sufficient sourcing for inclusion of fringe theories and ideas. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

If you read the entire Palo Alto Daily Post article, you don't find any indication that author Mark Shaw ever has lived in Palo Alto. In fact, he never has. What makes the article newsworthy for local history buffs in Palo Alto? It is that Dorothy Kilgallen's close friend Ron Pataky was a Stanford student in 1954 when he and two other men in his age bracket were arrested at the Palo Alto Greyhound bus station. Soon after that, Pataky's academic career at Stanford ended, possibly because of expulsion, and he relocated to other regions of the United States, causing trouble in several places where he lived. Of course, these details do not belong in Dorothy Kilgallen's article, but your designation of "Local author writes book" is inaccurate and sloppy. Mark Shaw has lived in Burlingame and Santa Clara, but northern California is a megalopolis where the physical address of a book author does not mean much, especially if the author lived far away from California until he or she reached old age. Mark Shaw spent his young adulthood in the Midwest, Colorado and New York City and spent his middle age in the Midwest. His achievements in those regions hardly interest readers of the Palo Alto Daily Post. They are indeed interested, however, in Dorothy Kilgallen.Brent Brant (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I think most people could forgive my inaccurate and sloppy characterization. The article title is literally “Local author pushes for justice in death of columnist Dorothy Kilgallen”. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Please don't divert people's attention from an important issue. The article is newsworthy for longtime Palo Alto residents, or for anyone interested in the history of Palo Alto or Stanford University, because Ron Pataky spent a freshman year at Stanford, then was arrested during a bizarre, violent incident at the Palo Alto Greyhound Lines station. That was in 1954. Ten years later this man, who loves to travel, had his first meeting with Dorothy Kilgallen. They had their first conversation at the European filming location of a 20th Century Fox movie.Brent Brant (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

That something might be newsworthy for longtime Palo Alto residents does not mean it meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. And writing of notability, neither the bus station event of 1954 nor Ron Pataky are notable. Perhaps, Brent, it would be best to let it go now. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm letting it go, but people who believe Mark Shaw's multiple books about Kilgallen will continue to try to hijack her article. The two most recent attempts were done by Wikipedia editors known as Doug Grinbergs (February 14) and Maurice Magnus (February 22). Very few, if any, of Shaw's followers cite the primary sources that he cites, when they are logged in to Wikipedia or social media. His multiple books include many digital scans that are too small to be legible.

The latest edit repeats the word "funeral" one too many times. I'm going to fix that. "Attended" can be a transitive verb or an intransitive verb. Another editor can revert my edit if necessary.Brent Brant (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bennett Cerf possibly skipped Dorothy Kilgallen's funeral.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Funeral attendees

What is the relevance of whether Cerf attended the funeral or not, Brent Brant? (Referring to these two edits:[23][24]) Schazjmd (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

According to conspiracy theorists, Kilgallen was supposedly working on a book about the JFK assassination to be published by Bennett Cerf's Random House. Maybe Cerf's nonattendance at the funeral is part of conspiracists musings? Don't really know, but such trivia isn't appropriate in any case, per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I was beginning to suspect it was something related to that, LuckyLouie. I've removed it again until there's consensus for inclusion here. Schazjmd (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

No, nobody has said Bennett Cerf’s avoidance of her funeral was conspiracy-related. He was visiting Liberty, Missouri to receive an honorary doctorate of letters from William Jewell College. Here is an RS with What’s My Line video in which John Daly announces Bennett Cerf will be at William Jewell College on Thursday. Why can it be relevant even though Cerf was never part of a conspiracy? Several possibilities exist, but Wikipedia editors should not make assumptions.

It is a fact that Cerf loved drawing attention to himself. It is a fact that he was a very influential book publisher and remained one after young Americans lost faith and lost trust in the federal government. Cerf’s company’s books included one that exposed dirty behavior of various CIA agents. CIA director Allen Dulles was pissed at Cerf for publishing it. Here is an RS in which Bennett Cerf discusses Allen Dulles’ anger about Random House’s anti-CIA book. His avoidance of Dorothy Kilgallen’s funeral could have resulted simply from his egomaniacal delight in receiving an honorary doctorate of letters. Whether or not it did, it is historically important that he skipped his longtime television colleague’s funeral.

Not every event is the result of a conspiracy, despite statements to the contrary from the Wikipedia editors known as “LuckyLouie” and “Schazjmd.”Brent Brant (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

it is historically important that he skipped his longtime television colleague’s funeral. We would need reliable sources to make this determination for us, citing their opinions and analysis rather than our own. As editors, we are restricted by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

LuckyLouie is correct: unless independent sources identified his absence from the funeral as important, it doesn't belong in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

it is historically important that [Cerf] skipped his longtime television colleague’s funeral. There is no evidence to support this claim. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Does the ‘In fiction’ section promote fringe sources?

Maybe someone should delete the following to stop promotion of theories from fringe sources.

• • A character based on Kilgallen appears in three novels by Max Allan Collins in his series featuring private detective Nathan Heller. Flo Kilgore first appears in Bye Bye Baby (2011) covering Marilyn Monroe's death. In Ask Not (2013), Heller investigates Kilgallen's death. **

Hmmm, why would Max Allan Collins arrange for a private detective to investigate the deaths of Marilyn Monroe and Dorothy Kilgallen? Wikipedia readers of this article might wonder what there is to investigate. People overdose on pharmaceutical drugs every day.Brent Brant (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

No. It’s clearly labeled as a fictional character, so your WP:POINT is lost on me. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

According to this article, a fictional character can’t investigate anything.Brent Brant (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

According to this article, a fictional character can’t investigate anything. I'm sorry, but...what? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Somebody had the text saying the fictional detective character was "investigating the death of Dorothy Kilgallen". Which was wrong, according to cited sources. So I fixed it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Referenced Source No Longer Available

Reference #40, the TV.com link to the What's My Line episode quoting Kitty Carlisle, cannot now be reached. Having just seen the quote in a YouTube video of that episode (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyU2ajkiLx0 @28:21), I can attest to the quote's accuracy. I'm not sure how to repair the reference, as I doubt that YouTube videos would be regarded as reliable, or as stable enough to be used as a reference. I'm hoping someone will be interested in making the repair. 50.39.226.216 (talk) 05:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Odd that the tv.com link shows as archived on the wayback machine but won't actually open. I can get to the parent page on the archive and open some of the seasons but not that one. Anyway, tagged it as dead. The actual episode on youtube can be cited so I added that ref (and also fiddled with the wording). Schazjmd (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories

Would be reasonable to add a section describing the fact that there are conspiracy theories around her death and indeed full books written on the subject? Not to lend credence to these theories but rather to inform the reader of their existence. 2601:140:9101:5050:D811:CE17:E7D6:3833 (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories fall under WP:FRINGE. Even though coverage of them may appear amplified by clickbait sensationalism, the theories themselves still represent minority viewpoints. The problem with this particular conspiracy theory is that there is zero critical analysis or commentary about it by WP:FRIND sources. This usually indicates the theory isn't taken seriously by independent sources and therefore not truly notable. Lack of critical analysis also makes it impossible for the encyclopedia to cover the conspiracy theory in an NPOV way. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Almost without exception, these theories are advanced in sources that are themselves, fringe. Absent extensive discussion in mainstream reliable sources, there is no way that we could include them in the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Part of the reason why the conspiracy theory is a recurring question at this Talk page are sources like howstuffworks.com. Notice that there's no actual journalism involved. Instead it's formulaic "we can't say if this is real we're just putting it out there" type fluff, i.e. some salacious details from one author's book promoting the conspiracy angle, complete with the headline: "Did Journalist Dorothy Kilgallen's Probe of JFK's Assassination Lead to Her Death?" (using a question mark in a headline is a classic hallmark of clickbait). - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Legacy section

Should this section use the singular or plural form of the noun star? An edit war about this issue took place on April 20. Here are the questionable sentence and the reference for it.

In 1960, Kilgallen was one of the initial 500 persons chosen to receive a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

"Hollywood Star Walk: Dorothy Kilgallen". Los Angeles Times. November 9, 1965. Retrieved March 12, 2018.

Anyone who questions the singular or plural use of stars should be here at the Talk page. This is the correct topic.Brent Brant (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

First of all, you need to find a source that demonstrates notability for the trivia that Kilgallen was one of the initial 500 persons chosen for a star. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie, that's a good point. "One of the initial 500" implies that the Walk began with a initial group of 500, which isn't true. It began with 8. Being in the first 500 (not supported by the cited source, btw) isn't significant. Article should just say she received her star on (date). Schazjmd (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Gossip columnist

Hello all- There is disagreement between two editors, one an anonymous IP editor, the other CityOfSilver, regarding whether the word "gossip" should be wikilinked to the Gossip column article. I'm creating this section so they can discuss the issue if they like.

My 2¢: Despite my tendency to de-link common terms (see WP:OVERLINK), I think there may be a good argument for linking this term in this article, as I would guess that the term is much less familiar to readers today, especially younger readers, than it was in Kilgallen's time. That said, in my quick glance at the gossip column article, I found it sorely wanting of at least some copyediting. Eric ^talk 12:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Eric that this could be a useful wikilink for some readers. "Gossip columnist" isn't linked anywhere in the article, but the article is in the American gossip columnists category. Schazjmd (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

CityOfSilver, could you explain why you still oppose linking gossip column? Schazjmd (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Funny, I was just finishing an episode of What's My Line when I saw Schazjmd's post. City, I second that emotion. While I'm disappointed in the IP's lack of constructive engagement despite my attempts to encourage it, and am a staunch de-linker, I do see an argument for linking this term. Eric ^talk 01:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I concur. She is identified as a gossip columnist and there is no reason it should not be linked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

My most recent edit summary was for the anonymous user (who I sure as hell am not going to call "the IP" or anything like that because that's a human being and not an internet protocol), who I believe to this second has not read WP:OVERLINK. Incredibly, I now feel, with 100% sincerity and not one iota of snark, that there are longtime users here who themselves have also not read it, or at least haven't read it in a long time. Couldn't be me! In fact, I've read it repeatedly over the past few days, including another dozen effing times while I've been banging out the message you're reading! I've read it over and over and over and over because ever since that user decided to just not let go of one of the many, many nothingburger reverts I do whenever I'm going through the pending changes log, I've been genuinely bewildered that citing OVERLINK isn't enough to let my correction stand. I keep going back to comb through it again and again and again because I must be missing something that others are seeing, right?

It doesn't seem fair that after I've explained myself three different times, I'm still being asked why I keep undoing that edit. I could just cut and paste my edit summaries but I won't do that since I know I've already gotten too mean and shitty here. At OVERLINK, a section in the Manual of Style, there's a list of things that "are usually not linked" and the very first entry is "Everyday words understood by most readers in context." The troublesome part:

Kilgallen's columns featured mostly show-business news and gossip, but also ventured into other topics, such as politics and organized crime.

I keep removing the link because I believe that anyone who came to this article not fully knowing what a gossip column is would have gained that knowledge upon reading this sentence. OVERLINK says "in context," meaning that we don't need a link when the article itself is enough to educate readers on an unfamiliar concept.

@Eric, Schazjmd, and Ad Orientem: Let's say a younger person who isn't familiar with the concept of a gossip column reads that sentence. Do you really and truly think that this sentence's use of the word "gossip" and the words surrounding it still wouldn't be enough for such a reader to understand what a gossip column is? Because to my mind, the only person who wouldn't be able to learn from that sentence what a gossip column is would be one who literally does not know what the word "gossip" means and I just, I don't get it. I say that if a reader doesn't know what a gossip column is, they learn what it is by reading the quoted sentence. Am I wrong? I'm sorry if all of this is patronizing but I don't know how else I'm supposed to defend what I did here. CityOfSilver 04:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not suggesting you acted in anything other than good faith so please don't take this personally. This is just a run of the mill disagreement over a link. Nothing more. I tend to err on the side of assuming that at least some of our readers are in fact, not well informed about things in the world. If that were not the case, why even have an article about gossip columnists? Ad Orientem (talk) 04:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

To clarify my view: I would not link gossip to define that standalone word. But my guess, which I did not make clear above, is that the notion of a gossip column might have faded from modern awareness since Kilgallen's day. My subjective sense is that this term carries less of a potential negative connotation than the simple word gossip, and that the wikilink pointing to Gossip columnist might be useful as a sort of explanatory note. Or it might be preferable to introduce the term another way, e.g. (if this is accurate) Although Kilgallen first gained readership as a gossip columnist, writing stories about the personal lives of well-known people, she later ventured.... Note: I just now realized that the phrase being discussed is repeated verbatim in the body, so some kind of rewording might be in order. Eric ^talk 12:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I like that idea, although the timeline of it is wrong:

Although Kilgallen later became a gossip columnist and TV personality on the quiz show What's My Line, she had first gained acclaim as an investigative crime reporter and took up the mantle again in the wake of the Kennedy assassination.[25]

However, it's difficult to find any reliable source about Kilgallen that doesn't describe her as a "gossip columnist", so it's baffling to me that the phrase doesn't appear in the article [edited to add:] with a wikilink to Gossip columnist. Schazjmd (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Pending any consensus on how to incorporate it into the article body, I've added Gossip columnist to See also. Schazjmd (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Dorothy's own words

Today's additions of two Wikimedia Commons files give Dorothy Kilgallen a voice. Here is what she said reacting to the guilty verdict for Dr Sam Sheppard. These are her own words. She is well-known as a wordsmith. Editors here have dismissed one particular Kilgallen biographer as a conspiracy theorist and his books as fringe sources. They are right. Can Dorothy the wordsmith play a part in her own article? Other Wikipedia articles have digital scans from very old newspapers. The New York Journal-American article is one of them. Dorothy wrote for that newspaper. It's time for her article to include her own words.Waring Waning (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

We are not here to promote an individual or provide them a posthumous platform for their writings etc. The front page image is a good find and adds to the article. But this is not an archive for her work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)