This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Illinois B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Chicago B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography: Actors and Filmmakers B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance). United States: Texas B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance). Journalism B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's History B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Template:Vital article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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:[[1]] (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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]