Talk:Dorothy Kilgallen

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)

Does this publisher sell only fringe sources? It has a new Kilgallen product.

Is a book a fringe source if it is published by PageTurner Books International? Here is how this publisher’s website describes the company.

Here is the Google Books page for the Dorothy Kilgallen book issued by PageTurner Books International.Brent Brant (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The book makes assertions that are widely regarded as fringe. Unless it is reviewed by multiple sources that are recognized by the community as being reliable, that in turn attest to the book's reliability, I would strongly oppose accepting it as a source for anything in the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Those reviews will be important. No one knows whether it makes fringe assertions unless they have read it. It might not agree with all the assertions in Mark Shaw’s books.Brent Brant (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I read a synopsis of the book's claims and they are patently fringe. Unless multiple independent sources recognized by the community as reliable in their own right, (ex the NY Times, Washington Post etc.) endorse the work, I don't see any chance of it being accepted. The synopsis strikes me as straight up tin foil hat nuttery. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Personal Life and Mark Shaw book

There doesn't seem to be much on her personal life. It appears that the Mark Shaw book "The Reporter who knew too much" may cover this if somebody has access. For example the Johnnie Ray article includes:

According to lawyer and researcher Mark Shaw, Ray's relationship with Dorothy Kilgallen produced her youngest child Kerry Kollmar, whom her husband Richard Kollmar disowned after Kilgallen's death in 1965. In two books that Shaw has authored, he claims that Kilgallen remained faithful to her husband for 13 years, ignoring rumors of his extramarital affairs because she did not witness evidence of any of them during that time frame. After years of infidelity, Kollmar became careless, to the extent that in 1953 he brought a male lover into the third-floor master bedroom of his and Dorothy's new home, a five-story townhouse on Manhattan's East 68th Street. After Kilgallen caught the two men in a compromising position, she and Kollmar decided to stay married strictly for business. Their business included a talk radio show they broadcast from home every day that brought them large salaries and that promoted Broadway shows produced by Kollmar. "Dorothy and Dick", as their radio listeners knew them, discussed Ray's singing style on their program, according to a profile of Ray in the Saturday Evening Post edition dated July 26, 1952.

In 1954, Kilgallen gave birth to a baby boy who was photographed for magazines and newspapers with her holding him, never with a father. Decades later, Ray often mentioned Kilgallen to his manager Alan Eichler and remained devastated by her unexpected death in 1965. According to Eichler, Ray never spoke about or acknowledged the rumors that he fathered Kilgallen's third child. Throughout the 1980s when Eichler managed Ray, historians of popular music did not consider Ray important enough to research his private life, so Eichler was not familiar with the eyewitness accounts that Mark Shaw discovered years later, and Eichler did not ask Ray about possible fatherhood.

Some of this should probably be included here.

- SimonLyall (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Many previous discussions on this Talk page have established a WP:CONSENSUS that the Mark Shaw book is not a reliable source: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, although I might have missed some others. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Shaw's book has come up so many times here, might it be helpful (if allowed by PAG) to create a banner for this page along the lines of "Numerous discussions on this Talk page have established the consensus that "The Reporter Who Knew Too Much" by Mark Shaw is not a reliable source"? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Capitalization of the word mass

Hello all- User natemup would like to have us capitalize the word mass in this article, where it currently appears in the first paragraph of the "Death" section: "Her funeral Mass took place...". I undid his capitalization, and he has reverted my undo, with the summary "clearly a proper noun, per the dictionary and its wiki page". He does not specify a dictionary. This prompted some research on my part:

• The American Heritage and Cambridge dictionaries both give the capitalization as either/or (see links), and my OED shows its modern usage in lowercase (I don't have online access).
• Our MOS reads "...only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia"; See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters.
• Comparing "funeral Mass" to "funeral mass" with Google's ngram search (1800–2020) shows a preference for the latter, except for the early 1920s to the early 1960s.
• The wp article does capitalize the term throughout (though some of the titles cited there do not). While I would take issue with some of capitalized instances in that article text, I can at least see an argument for preferring capitalization in an article specifically about a liturgical celebration.

If I were writing about "Christmas Mass" or "Easter Mass", I would capitalize the term; but for a person's funeral, I would write "Dorothy's funeral mass". Eric ^talk 13:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Curious as to why you draw a style distinction between a “Mass” said during religious holidays (Christmas/Easter/etc) and a “mass” said during a funeral? Isn’t it the same ceremony during both? Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It is. And the wiki for the specific Mass we're talking about (a funeral or Requiem Mass) capitalizes the term. natemup (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Blueboar: I find it challenging to give a purely objective reason, but I see the context of this article's passage as different from, say, a more titular presentation of the term. In presenting the title of an event, I'd go with cap, for example in a poster or announcement: "All are invited to celebrate Easter Mass at Notre Dame next week". At the same time, I'd write "For me, a mass conducted in Latin has a more hallowed feel to it". Eric ^talk 15:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I get that. What if the announcement read: “All are invited to attend a Funeral Mass in remembrance of Jane Doe at St. Cuthbert’s Church next Friday at 2:00 PM”? Blueboar (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Egads, man, don't you know there are civility rules here? I would certainly gasp and break out the Holy Red Pen of Saint Pedanticus! Eric ^talk 20:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I note that our article Capitonym uses this word as an example of the difference between mass and Mass, and that the Wikipedia articles I checked consistently capitalize the religious ceremony/event. That means there is a lot of precedence, but I can't say I support it. SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It was once explained to me that the Mass is a single event occurring continuously since the Last Supper and that as single event it is a proper noun. If one is a believer, that explanation would make sense grammatically. SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

As a matter of practical reality, I think either way has become de facto acceptable practice in modern times. However almost all of the guidelines I have looked at, including the Chicago Manual of Style (which I personally accept as being one step removed from scripture), state that reference to specific liturgical practices such as the Catholic Mass and/or Orthodox Divine Liturgy are proper nouns and therefore should normatively be capitalized. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the input. Has everyone looked at the links I provided above? SchreiberBike, I see that precedence as well, but I (like you?) don't think wp usage should preempt what I perceive the MOS guidance to be. Ad Orientem, I agree that either/or appears to be the modern practice (as per AHD & Cambridge)*, while my possibly confirmation-bias-afflicted self likes the OED entry. I too would probably write "Catholic Mass", though with the same pen I would write "her funeral mass". My impression is that modern usage sits on the fence. But my read of the MOS (see above) would have us avoid changing mass to Mass in this article's context, just as it would advise against badmintonning (word?) center and centre. Eric ^talk 01:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that until there is a firm consensus that something long accepted as a proper noun is not, that it should be treated as such. In this case we have the added potential for causing offense to those who may perceive the failure to capitalize as a form of disrespect. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

To that point, surely it's not hard to think of a reason why a British dictionary (OED) might not capitalize "Mass"... natemup (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

My admittedly non-exhaustive research did not show long acceptance of this noun being proper as opposed to common; rather it showed the word being treated both ways, weighted towards common. Eric ^talk 15:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)