Talk:Billy the Kid/Archive 3

New online photos
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/15/why-experts-say-a-2-photo-from-a-california-junk-shop-is-the-holy-grail-of-western-americana/?postshare=4301444920218864

The photos and info in the world article could be useful for this wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:FB01:8E00:6518:927D:FDF5:7FBF (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

IMDB references
The article uses IMDB sources, which are not reliable (see Citing IMDb). This ought to be resolved, given that this article is a GA nominee and reliable sources are a WP:GACR. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 22:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly this is really a waste of other people's time. The IMDB source was not sourcing a piece of controversial information. It was not sourcing biographical information either. So there really is no problem for the article. And even if there were you could have actually resolved it in considerably less time than it took you to slap a tag on it, write this section and dump the job on someone else, by simply removing the unnecessary imdb link. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's information that I have challenged, and challenged information must be presented with "inline citation to a reliable source" (WP:MINREF). Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 22:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You didnt challenge the information, you challenged the source. And thanks for proving my point by demonstrating that you are a lazy, sloppy (and apparently also selfrighteous and santimonious) editor who prefers making other people work than taking two minutes to fix the problem yourself.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from name-calling, as it doesn't help in improving this or any other article and only makes fellow editors (me) feel bad. You and I probably have different, and equally valid, ideas about the purpose of pointing out problems in articles via talk pages and templates. My idea was that regular editors of this article are probably more familiar with the structure of the article and relevant literature. I was pointing out an obvious flaw in the article, something that if isn't fixed, might render the current Good Article nomination 'a waste of people's time'. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 23:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

All IMDb reference citations have been removed. Reliable sources can be found if claims are challenged. Be prosperous! Paine 04:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

References, etc.
I've just begun to spruce up the references since I've noted many minor inconsistencies. Just letting everyone know; I've done all I'm going to do today. L8RG8R (and) Be prosperous! Paine 04:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

User, Jack DeMattos removal of photos uploaded by OSMOND PHILLIPS and calling them bogus.
You are a published writer, but that obviously does not make you a knowledgeable on identifying photos of the people you write about. Especially since there are not many photos available to compare to. It does take some experience to properly identify these people. It cannot be done with just a quick glance and judgement as you have done. You are not known as having any experience in identifying photographs. This collection is getting known as credible and submitting credible photographs of our old west lawmen and outlaws. I may not be able to write well or impress anyone with my words, but these photos I know. The collection that these photographs come from was put together before you were born, received from family and friends of the deceased people back when there were very little photos to use for comparison. Collectors, typically with money, could afford to buy their hearts desire. Museums have great artifacts, R.G McCubbin has a fantastic collection of old west photographs. Isn't it possible that someone else could of also amassed such a collection? This collection is backed by some influential people and is growing in credibility and popularity everyday. Photos from this collection have been requested by prominent film producers for use with their further investigation to be certain it is of the person claimed. You will soon see some of the photos you dispute on Discovery and National Geographic. You add to our history. Do not block others who may also know their business and contribute to history in their own way. I have attached below the photos with comparisons you dispute to help you identify the people you write about. You can click on the photos to enlarge them for analysis. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

style of address
I think there should be a consensus on the style of address used throughout the article, whether it's 'Billy', 'McCarty', 'Bonney', 'the Kid', or something else. Perhaps using 'McCarty' until the Lincoln County War, 'Bonney' for that section, and 'Billy' after that? Not a huge fan of using 'the Kid' but if I'm in the minority, I'm good with it. Katietalk 13:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , hello again. I think that currently that is what the editors of this article are doing: changing the surname used appropriately, i.e. Bonney after the Lincoln County War, as you suggested. I also don't personally think "the Kid" sounds too good either. Ches (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Article is getting shorter all the time / The Birth of the Kid
Why is the article getting shorter all the time? There are lots of details of some specific issues and events. Not a word about his influence on the Hispanic people of New Mexico. Jack DeMattos's work was good, though too detailed and the article was getting too long; there's no need to present everything. But is it better now? Shorter than ever.

Frederick Nolan and Robert M. Utley do NOT believe, as somebody, that BTK:s birth has been found out. Mr. Nolan's latest suggestion (www.truewestmagazine.com, May 17, 2015) was that BTK was born in Utica, New York: http://www.truewestmagazine.com/the-birth-of-an-outlaw/ In Mr. Utley's latest book of BTK and Ned Kelly BTK:s age dating from November 1859 is accepted.

Image tube (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not new research
A user's comment: "hiding lede description - looking through LOC images of Las Vegas Gazette for December 1880-January 1881, and there is no such article (http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn93061631/1880-12-28/ed-1/))"

Wikipedia is not, as far as I know, new research. The above mentioned interview of BTK at the Las Vegas jail, December 1880, is presented in many books of BTK, for example Mark Lee Gardner's "To Hell on a Fast Horse" and Michael Wallis's "The Endless Ride". So, to me it seems that there is no need to remove the quotation and citation (the Kid's interview) from the article if the source (Wallis, Gardner etc.) has been mentioned.

Image tube (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Billy the Kid Claimants
The subject of Billy the Kid claimants is a valid one and deserves to be mentioned in a factual article, especially Brushy Bill Roberts. There are a tremendous amount of people who do not believe Pat Garrett killed Billy the Kid, including former President Harry S. Truman and Mr. Bill O'Reilly. To exclude them completely shows non-academic bias. Please stop deleting this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:564c:400:69b1:268:3479:a7c8 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 12 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Please see "Rumors of Survival." Display name 99 (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a curiosity that deserves mention, but which should not be given any credence or undue weight. More than one or two paragraphs would be too much.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the purported image of John Tunstall
The of Tunstall has no provenance that I can find, and was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by a user who claims to be employed, apparently, by the "Phillips Collection", part of a non-scholarly online magazine, so there may be a conflict of interest problem as well. The user's claims of veracity seem dubious. The same user has uploaded other images of persons that he asserts are genuine, but he has provided no provenance for any of them, other than claiming they are from the Phillips collection.

There was a discussion on that user's talk page about this issue, which has been raised by other users, where he has stated "I also have a signed contract from the owners that allows me to promote the collection. I can submit a copy of the contract." Has he done so? He says, "I have completed the OTRS process.", but provides no link. I see no indication that the problem has been resolved. There is a better quality of Tunstall with provenance, curated by an academic source, unlike the disputed image, which also presently resides at the John Tunstall article. Carlstak (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Given your evidence of a better, more reliably sourced image, I would recommend using the second (Russian titled) image. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I did give my evidence. It's this page on the University of New Mexico site, published by the Center for Southwest Research, University Libraries, University of New Mexico. May I ask what evidence there is for the disputed image, other than some apparently unsubstantiated claims by a possibly pseudonymous user? Carlstak (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You've misunderstood me. I recognize your evidence. I agree with you. Your suggested image should be used. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. I saw "Given" as "Give". My apologies. Thank you very much. I raised this issue on the John Tunstall talk page and never got a response. Many of the images uploaded by "OSMOND PHILLIPS" have the same problem, and this really should be addressed. Carlstak (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

We would need more definitive evidence to remove the image,. Your personal doubts that the editor, Osmond Phillips, is not who he says he is as a representative of the Osmond Collection is not enough. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually I think any resonable doubt should be enough to remove images that may not portray what they are currently claimed to portray.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not the only one who doubts their authenticity; my doubts aside, your preferred image has no provenance except the claims of a mysterious personage who has uploaded images that other editors have called into question. An expert should be consulted. I will contact the UNM for an expert's opinion. Carlstak (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not my preferred image. It's an image that you haven't proven is inauthentic.  You comments at the Tunstall article in regard to the image came from your personal opinion.  That's WP:OR and certainly not enough to declare inauthentic a photo that is said to be authentic and from the renown Phillips Collection.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  18:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , I should have mentioned it's not from the renowned Phillips Collection, it's from the not-so-reknowned" "Phillips Collection". The so-called "Osmond Phillips" (oh, dear me, I forgot the ALL CAPS) is from the not-so-reputable collection of the online magazine, Texas Escapes. This is exactly the confusion that the mysterious OSMOND PHILLIPS appears to be seeking to perpetuate. Carlstak (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, not from the same collection. And this proves, what?  It certainly doesn't prove the photo isn't of Tunstall.  So far, just your claim that it's not Tunstall based on the shape of his lips.  WP:OR isn't enough, sorry.  Until you come up with something definitive and irrefutable based on reliable sources, I won't be responding further in regard to this.  Doing so is just a frustrating waste of my time.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  19:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Saying "your claim that it's not Tunstall based on the shape of his lips isn't enough" is disingenuous, as I've shown that one image is authentic with a known provenance, whereas your insisting on including a challenged image with no provenance or supporting information other than the claims of an unknown uploader is WP:OR. No one has shown that the Osmond image is of Tunstall, and we know that the other is. This is a serious matter, and should be pursued. Carlstak (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Purported image of John Tunstall is not present on the website of the collection that supposedly contains it
This inferior quality image, with no associated provenance other than the unsupported claims of a pseudonymous user, does not appear in the online collection that the uploader claims to be employed by, but yet has produced no proof to authenticate it. A search of the website and its collection for "John Tunstall" or "Tunstall" yields no results. One editor of this article insists on retaining it, when an alternative image with a known provenance curated by the University of New Mexico is available. There is no reason to keep this challenged image in the article, other than the intransigence of said editor. Carlstak (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * is quick to accuse and short on goodwill. He accuses me elsewhere of "fighting and behaving aggressively", but he is the one who has invaded my talk page and made unfounded accusations.


 * I made some bold edits from a sincere desire to improve this article, and he reverted them wholesale. u|WikiDan61 agreed with my edits, and reverted Winkelvi's. Winkelvi accuses me of "poor editing and word choices", but I made edits that any conscientious copy editor would have made, including corrections of obvious grammatical errors, i.e., not capitalizing "Supreme Court", leaving the second "s" out of "in various ways", "Unknown to the Bonney", "found guilty for the murder", "-nickname, Brushy Bill -", "to consider Bonney's death can be officially certified" and writing "in February 8, 1981" instead of "On February 8, 1981". I also caught the "Before 1877, McCarty had his horse stolen" error, where the the source referred to clearly says "in 1877". In fact, I would characterize these and other errors in the article as "poor editing and word choices". It is not as if I am some rogue editor looking for a fight. If you look at the talk page as well as the history of the Gregor MacGregor article, which is a featured article, you will see that my edits and suggestions to improve the article were welcomed. I think Winkelvi's user page tells us all we need to know about him. Lest anyone misread this, I am diagnosed as bipolar. Carlstak (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)