Talk:Dorothy Kilgallen/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 an archive of past discussions about Dorothy Kilgallen. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

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 . 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." 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." 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 - Location (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)