Talk:New Beverly Cinema

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Incarnations

I've tried to make the progression of the building's name more coherent. What I don't have is information I can cite about why or specifically when the successive establishments changed hands. Can anyone fill in the details? Also, has there been any details reported on the recent sale of the building? Justinkrivers 04:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1963

This year does not seem to be pivotal or specifically important to the history of the theater. Mentioning that Streetcar played there (or how old the film was) has no reason for being in this article. I'm going to remove it for those reasons. Although Karyn Kupcinet refers to the theater, these facts seem only relevant to be included in the article about her, which frankly strikes me as a strange article to begin with. The fact that a user keeps replacing this paragraph, which is poorly written and redundant, is very disappointing. Justinkrivers 15:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree; it struck me that it seemed the editor just happaned to have that day's edition handy and thought it could be used to establish the theater name and programming at that point in time. It's not really useful, though. MisfitToys 23:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the Karyn Kupcinet article more closely. Apparently that particular screening cited is circumstantially connected to someone's alibi. Frankly, that whole article sounds suspiciously conspiracy-nutty, but it's none of my business really. I tried to incorporate some of the info from the paragraph into the rest of the article, namely that it is the only citation available that the theater was called The New Yorker. The editor who insists on retaining this paragraph has so far declined to comment on why. I've left an explanation of my reasoning on their talk page. I guess the next step is ask for arbitration? I figured I'd wait a little while before doing anything. Justinkrivers 04:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Just saw your revert. Thanks. Justinkrivers 04:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I just happened to notice this as I was going over a discussion page for a suspected sockpuppet, which turns out to be the person involved in this 1963 issue here, and various issues elsewhere and everywhere throughout the last month. Another editor and myself have been working diligently to debug the Karyn Kupcinet article as much as we can in the face of constant reverts and such. If you have a moment, please stop over there and see if it is sounding less conspiracy-nutty. The only valid reason it should have any conspiracy theory is because her death did get caught up in the whole JFK conspiracy hoopla. Thanks. Wildhartlivie 08:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)