" 
 ::::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 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.  "