Talk:John Wilkes Booth/Archive 2

Booth escaped theory
If the addition of the theory that Booth may have escaped, then should other theories be allowed, or should we not allow any theories? I have heard this argument before. Booth may have escaped, but I also heard Elvis is living on the moon. Unless there is clear hard evidence, then the section should be removed. Unless there is a consensus otherwise, the section needs to be removed within the next 7-10 days. I will not remove it until there is at least a chance for discussion. All comments are welcome, but please be civil.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Although, it has only been two days since my original comment, I researched a policy, and came to the conclusion that the section violates the policy on fringe theories. that being said, it needs to be removed straight away, and I will do so. Any further discussion can be directed to this section. thank You and Happy Editing.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Even fringe theories may deserve brief mentions. In this case, we should probably at least mention the theory even if we don't give the details. The JFK assassination theories are fringe too, but that doesn't mean we should ignore them entirely.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is true for theories that have not been debunked or proven wrong, like the Kennedy "Grassy Knoll" stories, but this theory that Booth escaped has been proven wrong so many times that only a few handful perhaps believe it.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it's useful to mention a fringe theory just to say that it's been thoroughly debunked. The earth centric view of the cosmos has been debunked, but Wikipedia still reports on it. In this case it could be as simple as "Some believed that Booth escaped but this has been proven wrong." ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying "Some believe" would be WP:Weasel, but if it can be added using correct wikipedia policies, then there shouldn't be a problem with it.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Re-reading the material that was deleted, it appears to describe the matter correctly and with no more weight than it deserves. I'm inclined to restore it as it was. Since a book was written to propound the theory it has some substance, and the supposed Booth corpse touring the country is a historical fact. I don't think the material left readers with the impression that there is any credence to the theory. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Will Beback, there are a number of reliable sources cited to establish that such a theory has been the subject of books and TV shows. As such, its omission from this article is objectionable. This was discussed before (see "The Lead", above) and the article passed WP:GAC with this included. A good Lead should mention all major points covered in the article, so saying "some believe thus and so" is not an instance of weasel.  JGHowes   talk  17:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Will and JG are correct here. I dig where you are coming from, Jojhutton, but I think you are incorrectly interpreting WP:FRINGE, as well as our specific purpose as an encyclopedia. The litmus for inclusion is not necessarily fact or truthiness, but instead the verifiability of the statements being made. FRINGE is meant to assist in utilizing our NPOV policy of avoiding undue weight. Did Booth escape? I don't know, any more than I know if Prince Albert Victor was Jack the Ripper. Both seem pretty absurd on the face of them, but it doesn't take a Face on Mars to illustrate that the theories have are notable in that they are discussed by a significant number of people (which avoids the undue weight argument, unlike some goof who thinks that Booth was a time agent sent here to off Honest Abe before he could discover cold fusion with the help of the telepathic Ice Witches from Europa). :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Booth did not escape. The theory has been PROVEN wrong. It should not be included as if it is still a possibility. Read William Hanchett's The Lincoln Murder Conspiracies If you want to add some other form of the theory, then it needs to be much shorter and not have it begin with Some individuals and writers have advanced theories...., as this is a weasel phraase, and should have no part of any wikipedia article. If you can find a specific source naming the actual author, then perhaps a new version of it should be readded, otherwise it needs to go.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To say "some individuals....", and then list those individuals in the parapgraph isn't a weasel, it's a topic sentence. We describe hundreds of theories in Wikipedia thar have been debunked. That doesn't mean the theories never existed, or aren't notable. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It needs to be rewritten and it needs to be shorter. Currently it is 8-9% of the article not including the lead. That is not balanced according to NPOV.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the mummy bit is interesting. The book is described briefly. I suppose we could trim the name of the judge and leave off the appeal outcome, and not mention that the FBI had no evidence, but I don't see a good reason to exclude those as they help to debunk the theory. Frankly, the material looks harmless to me. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to get broader input on this there is a noticeboard. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Will, here. You aren't seeming to find a lot of traction for your viewpoint here, so maybe the noticeboard might afford you some more insight. Arcayne   (cast a spell)  11:07, October 25, 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that the theory is proven wrong doesn't alter its notability for inclusion in the article, as a subject of several books and TV shows. Ample citations to reliable sources have been provided, so I've restored the sentence to the Lead as, "In later years, some writers have theorized that Booth escaped his pursuers and subsequently died many years later under a pseudonym" per consensus.  JGHowes   talk  16:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Two issues here
There are actually two issues here, as I see it. Well, to the first point, I tend to agree with Jojhutton; this has been so thouroughly debunked as to merit exclusion altogether. Like someone said, there are people that think Elvis is still walking around, but we shouldn't give that credence in our main articles. Perhaps a separate article to placate the loons, but not here. Still, I can see the argument for inclusion here, I just don't think it's a very strong argument. And if it must be included here, it must be minimized. Which brings me to point #2.
 * 1) Should a section be included in this article on whether or not Booth escaped, and
 * 2) Should a reference be made to this in the article's lead

There is no way that this garbage should be referenced in the lead. Per WP:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT, this does a tremendous disservice to our readers. The reader of the lead should come away aware of the most significant points about the subject of the article, and ridiculous theories about the escape of Booth do not qualify. As such, I am removing the reference to his improbable escape from the lead; I will leave the section pending debate. Unschool (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I've done a better job (as I should have earlier) of reading the comments here. The only thing anyone is saying about the lead appears to be that it merits inclusion because the lead is supposed to reflect the major points of the article.  Balderdash.  If the escape theories are a major point of the article, then the problem is the article, not the lead.  Simply put, the escape theories have no place being a major component of this article.  I leave aside the issue of whether they should be included, but they are NOT a major part of the historical record, they are a fringe oddity.  The article on Elvis includes nothing about his sightings in the lead, because that is in the realm of nutcases, and it violates WP:WEIGHT to put it in the lead, as does anything about Booth escaping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unschool (talk • contribs)
 * And I've undone it. Unschool, when you are making an edit which is clearly going to spark negative response, you should post your intentions, await response and build a consensus. At the very least, when your edit is reverted, follow WP:BRD, as I have learned from personal experience that you are not going to force us to accept your edit via revert - all you serve to do is to close off civil discourse. Build a consensus first. :)
 * That aside, one man's "garbage" is another man's treasure. As per WP:LEAD, the Lead serves as both an intorduction to the subject of the article as well as an overview of the article's contents. As we have a substantial portion of the article devoted to the various conspiracy theories, it is not balanced to remove it from the Lead - perhaps less so than calling it garbage in the first place. Dial back the defensiveness, Unschool, and I can guarantee you will find a more engaging editorial response. -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your counsel is wise, Arcayne, and I'm embarassed that you had to correct me; I actually do know better. Regarding my edit, I at first thought it was okay because I thought that it was a separate issue from that which had already been discussed. I should have undone it myself when I came back here and realized what I had not realized before—that the topic of the lead had been discussed by itself.  And as for the term "garbage", I just can't believe that I threw that out on the stoop.  I apologize to all. Unschool (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, Unschool - I could give you many instances of when I haven't been in the best of form when I posted here, and people walked away with bruised feelings and egos. Pobody's nerfect, my friend. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  01:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have never referenced another wikipedia article for information before, but I use the article on Elvis Presley to prove a point on editing style and not on information. Elvis is most likely the most famous dead person still alive. We hear it all the time in print media and movie references, yet not only is this still alive theory not mentioned in the lead, it isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. I reference this to show that the editors who work on that article actually get it. They understand that obsurd and ridiculous theories have no place on wikipedia.
 * How far should we go with theories? If we add this unproven one, why not add others? Michael W. Kauffman wrote American Brutus. I am sure at least some of you have read it, since he is cited a few times in this article. He says that Booth may have not broken his leg when he leaped from the balcony, but injured it much later that night, while heading south. He points to the fact that not one witness was discribed Booth as having a limp, until after of course the authorities found out that Booth had his leg set at Dr. Mudds. After that information was released, almost all of the witnesses discribed how he limped away, and one even went as far as to say the the bone was potruding from the skin (which never happened). Kauffman goes on to say that Booth was required by law to walk his horse across the bridge into Maryland and never limped once. Dr. Mudd said that David Harold told him that Booth fell from his horse. The only information supporting the fact that Booth broke his leg while jumping onto the stage is the diary entry when he says he leaped from the balcony, breaking my leg. Yet that diary was chalked full of lies to begin with, so why would that be the only truth in it.
 * I personally believe this theory, but I did not add it. It goes against the established facts of the case, just like the Booth lived theory.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, while you sound knowledgeable on the subject - indeed, maybe even chock full of info on the subject - we cannot cite you. We can cite sources that speak of the Booth lived theories - noting only those which are widespread, and not going into specific detail about any one of them, except where cited specifically by a reliable source. I understand your concern about allowing undue weight arguments and/or speculative efforts to remain, but it appears that they are neither undue nor speculative. I am unsure what you are seeking to have happen here. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You say that it appears that they are neither undue nor speculative. I disagree, those theories are both speculative, and derserve mention in a book of fiction rather than an encyclopedia.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT
As I indicated before, if this truly must be included in here, then it must not be dwelt on too much; WP:WEIGHT was designed to address just this kind of issue. I've just done a quick quantitative analysis. It's crude, and the analogy is imperfect (yet not totally lacking in merit), but I think it helps illustrate my concern here. Let's look at two theories that history is not necessarily what the history books tell us. So clearly, if WP:WEIGHT is being followed, that given the enormous amount of attention paid to the first theory, more attention would be given in that article to the alternative theories than would be provided in the second alternative theory. Right? After all, WP:WEIGHT says, Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all.
 * In the first alternate theory, Lee Harvey Oswald was not the lone assassin of JFK. Many books have been written on this specific subject, some of which have become best sellers.  This theory is believed by thousands, perhaps millions of Americans, despite a major investigation headed up by the Chief Justice of the United States and a later investigation by a Senate (or was it joint?  I forget) committee.  And since Oswald was never actually seen doing the killing, and was himself killed very shortly afterwards, and denied even being the assassin during the short time afterwards that he lived, these theories have sparked the imagination.
 * In the other alternate theory, we have this notion that John Wilkes Booth might not have actually died in that barn. A few books have been written, touching upon the subject, but Booth's body was found and buried, so these theories have not only escaped general public awareness, probably far less than 1% of all historians give them any credence.

Well, by my crude calculations, 5.7% of the words in Lee Harvey Oswald discuss the questions surrounding the true nature of JFK's assasination, but in the article on Booth, 7.1% of the words are devoted to the question of his possible survival. That may not seem like a huge difference, but given the astronomical difference in attention that historians and other experts have considered these ideas worthy of, at the very, least we would expect that the LHO article would have more than the JWB article, and indeed, much, much more so. Yet it is reversed.

I think I can predict the response, but I will leave it to others to reply. Unschool (talk) 06:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.
 * What would be the definition of extensivley in this case? Would three references be considered extensively? The first theory would not pass the individual that is independent of the theory part. That leaves us with two citable theories, niether of which detail the same information,--Jojhutton (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent point, Joj. What we have here is an amalgamation of theories; there is no one theory that has been put forward for our consideration.  Even with the JFK situation, where there are multiple theories, many persons (some with official capacity) have investigated several of them.  There's nothing approaching that here. And yet we give it more weight than the conspiracy theories get at Lee Harvey Oswald.  Unschool (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Three sentences from the policy on undue weight
 * Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all.
 * Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
 * So few actually belive this theory that it has no place in wikpedaia at all.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's sophistry (and I should know, since I can do that so well that your eyes would gout blood at the witnessing of it). Let's cut to the chase: you think that "an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" espouse this theory. Wrong. Enoguh people believe it that books have been written about it, and television programs have been dedicated to discussiing it. Whether it is true or not - as per the info you thoughtfully provided - is immaterial. That it is notable is inescapable and reason enough for its inclusion. I am sorry that you personally consider it an affront, but that isn't a good enough reason to remove it.
 * And that's the second time I've removed the wikifying of the section; we dont do that here, and the presumption is that if one cannot come up with a better title, Just ask a question and move into the section. Don't wikify, as per WP:TALK - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  01:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your tone is now coming across like you think that this is so obvious that anyone who doesn't see it your way can't be considered reasonable. (Sounding a bit like Jojhutton, to tell you the truth.)  I'm only mentioning it because I'm sure that you don't mean to sound that way.


 * Anyway, there is more to consider here. You argue that because books and TV shows have been built around this theory that it merits inclusion in this article.  Hmmmm.  I remember about 25 years ago coming across a hardcover in a used book store called The Hollow Earth.  It caught my eye because as a teenager I had (like so many others) been caught up in the old von Daniken stuff—you know, the Chariots of the Gods—and this had a similar size and font to von Daniken's book.  Well, it had nothing to do with von Daniken's stuff, but I loved it anyway.  It was positively wonderful nonsense, and I shared it with friends in the pre-internet age who were shocked that anyone could believe—let alone write a book about—a theory that the earth was hollow and had a sun in its interior and that people lived in there.  Since the advent of the internet, I've learned that there have actually been several books published on the subject, and I wouldn't be surprised if Science Channel or someone like that has done a program on it.  My point?  Despite the fact that "serious" books have been written on the subject, the article Earth contains nothing about these theories (plural because there are several variations of the Hollow Earth concept).  Do you think that if I try to introduce a section on these theories into that article (let alone the lead) that it would remain in there for more than 90 seconds?  By your logic, such information should be included in Earth.  If it weren't for WP:POINT, I'd do it right now.  Now perhaps these theories do belong in Wikipedia.  But in this article I would recommend little more than a link to John Wilkes Booth escape theories.  After all, there is an article at Hollow Earth.


 * Hey, one more thing: I've never heard about that not wikifying the section heading (and indeed, it took me a while to figure out just now what you were talking about); I'm always happy to learn more about policies, and now should never do that again.   Sorry about that; I wish only that you'd told me the first time. Unschool (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the weight issue, I believe this is the only article in which the "Booth escaped" theory is discussed. On the other hand, there is an entire category devoted to the John F. Kennedy assassination, in which there are several articles dealing with various Oswald-related theories. The amount of space devoted to this theory on Wikipedia is probably one or two orders of magnitude smaller than the amount of space devoted to the Oswald theories. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That, Will, is what I was expecting as a reply. My point is that there is no reason not to have an article on these Booth theories.  The section herein is already much larger than thousands if not tens of thousands of stubs.  These relatively obscure theories are still enjoying a larger share of Booth's article than the much more widely believed and supported theories on Oswald have at LHO.  Pray tell, what would be the objection to spinning these unlikely theories into their own article, and only providing the means to link to them from here? Unschool (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We have Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Are you suggesting Lincoln assassination conspiracy theories? I suppose that'd work. As for how widely-believed the respective theories are, I'm not sure we're in a position to judge that accurately. If Oliver Stone had been making movies back in 1893 who knows how this might have been covered. At it's base, it's a notable theory and should be discussed somewhere on Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Enough people believe it. Who and how many? At the very least it is a weasel word to say Some historians believe...
 * I counted four references in the section about Booth escaping. The first reference is from a man who claimed he knew Booth in the 1870's and then toured the country with Booth's remains. No doubt making money in the process. There is no proper citation for this information and it is easily challenged. The next theory mentioned is the only one properly cited that cannot be challenged at this time. The third theory is from a man who claims to be a great-grandson of Booth, whose only proof is what his grandfather told him. The final theory is also uncited, and says: Another is that a man claimimg to be Booth lived in the 1900s in Missouri. Thats it, no citation, nothing. As for the Bates and the Nottingham theories (1st and 3rd references), they are easily challenged authors who have something to gain, outside of book sales, if people believe the theory, and are not independent of the theory per WP:FRINGE. The second theory is properly cited. The final addition is without citation and is very questionable.
 * Now I don't understand you reference to sophistry or to wikify. Please clarify for me.
 * The material references I provided before are wikipedia policy. Please read WP:Weight again. I know that you feel that this information is believed by enough people, that it merits inclusion in the article. I respect you opinion on that idea, I just don't agree that more than a handful of people believe the theory.. Booth surviving his ordeal and living a long and fruitful life is a romantic notion. The stuff good books are written from. I even considered adding this to a noval I am thinking about writing about Booth, but I write fiction, so its inclusion would be based on fiction. It sounds like a nice story, but not enough people believe it to include it in a wikipedia article.
 * Perhaps, and this is just my humble suggestion, we should create a seperate article and iclude a wikilink the the survival article on the main article about Booth. This is my suggestion as a compromise, and I hope that all editors will help bring this dispute to a requitable conclusion. Everyone have fun and Happy Editing.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Making a separate article to cover the theory would give it more prominence than a single paragraph in this article. "A requitable conclusion"? Do you mean "equitable"? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya equitable. Something happened when I moved my comment earler. As for the other things, Wikipedia allows such articles as long as it is NPOV.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe that that "r" was the one you lost in the earlier sentence "I respect you opinion". :-) Unschool (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia generally encourages articles on topics of slight notability be merged in with the more notable topics. I don't think an article about the Booth survival theory would be notable enough on its own. If joined with other theories it might make for a suitable catchall article like the Kennedy article. I on't see the problem with leaving it here. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia generally encourages articles on topics of slight notability be merged in with the more notable topics. Perhaps, but there is plenty of vagueness in that guideline—certainly more vagueness than there is in the guidelines that Joj and I have been citing to eliminate or reduce the appearance of this material in this article. I'd favor the creation of such an article, if only as a compromise. Unschool (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"Booth escaped" section
To bring some conclusion to this discussion, I've rewritten with due regard for WP:ASF and added additional cites from 1913 and 1931, for verifiability that this theory has been the subject of books and other writings for a hundred years or more. Forking this into a separate article is frowned upon as a practice and is completely unnecessary, given this article's moderate length. Prominence of placement is a consideration with fringe theories, granted, and I agree that mentioning it in the Lead is undue weight for a fringe theory. The Elvis Presley example is not really apt for comparison, since that's only assessed as a B-class article whereas this is peer-reviewed as one of Wikipedia's Good articles! Better examples would be September 11 attacks, John F. Kennedy, and Attack on Pearl Harbor, where conspiracy theories are mentioned and sourced, but that's all.  JGHowes   talk  05:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Noting the examples that JG provided - and in keeping with ASF, I've tweaked the lead to allude to the content presented within the article, borrowing from the Kennedy article's lead the most (as the Pearl Harbor article only contained a See Also subarticle). I think it strikes a fair balance. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  14:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just an observation, but is adding length to the section a good idea, since one of the concerns with it in the first place wasWP:Weight? --Jojhutton (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This edit is highly objectionable, as it places far, far too much weight on the Booth theories, by saying that the subject "remains controversial". That verbiage clearly implies that the matter is subject to a great amount of debate, such as is the JFK assassination.  Indeed, this language would make a reader unfamiliar with either subject believe that the fate of JWB is more debated that the role of LHO, whereas in fact it is of barely marginal interest.  JG was much closer to the mark with his last edit. If Arcayne had not already demonstrated his belief in and adherence to WP:AGF, I would think that this edit was a ploy to get back to the version from about a week ago. Fortunately, I am confident that that is not the case, and that he simply thought that the safe thing to do was to mimic the JFK language.  Well, I can understand the thinking, but cannot approve of the result.Unschool (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am glad that you got a solid grip on AGF, Unschool, as failing to do so for the second time would have increased the likelhood of being seen as dickish. You've taken two swings at me, attacking the integrity of my position; maybe you could perhaps avoid that sort of commentary, okey-doke? I have almost twice as many edits as you; I think I've earned a bit of good faith.
 * That said, I re-read the bit I added, and am unclear as to where, precisely, you are seeing a greater amount of weight being given to the theory. What is clear that you don't want the mention of the theory anywhere in the article - would that be a clear assessment? If so, it would explain greatly your continued objection to its notation in the lead which - again - is an overview of the article. If we have a section on the topic, it belongs in the Lead.
 * Again, it doesn't matter whether its true or not, it matters whether it is notable, reliably referenced and given the appropriate amount of weight. Apparently we differ on the interpretation of weight and veracity - they are different things; I think the theories have weigh in the wiki, and don't give a rat's ass abut the veracity of the claim. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate the break the flow of the discusion by adding this here, but I could see no other place to properly put it. Perhaps this editor should reread the section on Don't call a spade a spade. Although only an essey, and not an official wikipedia policy, it is still good advice to follow, especially the section called Muddying the water.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Before I reply to the content of your comments, let me just say that I apologize if my comments came across as anything but well-meaning. I was completely taken aback with what appears (to me, I could be wrong) as a really irritated reply by you.  Was it the point about the "ploy"?  If so, you have misinterpreted me.  I meant exactly what I said, I don't think it was a ploy, but I would really be considering that if I did not have faith in your good faith.  I guess, looking over it, that it could have been interpreted as litotes, but please, believe me, it was not intended that way.
 * I sincerely want to continue this discussion, but I first want to know that we're really going to listen to and consider one another's positions. I think most of the time we have done so, but right now it appears a few hours of reflection wouldn't hurt either of us.  Again, my apologies if I've misstepped.  Unschool (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I mentioned September 11 attacks, John F. Kennedy, and Attack on Pearl Harbor, as examples of articles where conspiracies or fringe theories are mentioned and sourced but not necessarily in the Lead: September 11 attack (another Good Article) has a subsection about the crackpot conspiracy theories, but no mention in the Lead. Likewise, Attack on Pearl Harbor has a subsection mentioning the conspiracy theory that FDR knew in advance about the attack, but again no mention of it is made in the Lead. JFK, on the other hand, does mention in the Lead the controversies about his assassination.


 * What we have here is a need to strike a balance between WP:LEAD on the one hand and WP:UNDUE on the other, in addressing this WP:FRINGE theory. I disagree with Jojhutton that the "Booth escaped" theory be expunged from the article entirely. "Adding length to the section", Jojhutton, did not add weight or importance to the fringe theory. On the contrary, a comparison shows that what was added was mostly footnoted material and: (1) new content debunking the theory including eyewitness accounts not previously in the article; and (2) reliable sources concerning the theory said to be lacking. Bottom line, as a fringe theory it meets notability requirements for inclusion according to Wikipedia guidelines because "secondary reliable sources have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it". While you may disagree with that criterion, nonethless it is what it is and any attempt to overturn is certain to result in a WP:SNOWBALL outcome.


 * This brings us to the question, then, of how such a fringe theory about Booth can be properly addressed in his Wiki bio. I think we're on solid ground in simply quoting what the reliable secondary sources said, avoiding such slanted phraseology as "presumed corpse" and letting the facts speak for themselves to maintain NPOV. Because it is only a fringe theory held by a small minority and not supported by any credible historians or significant body of academic expertise, I do agree with you, Jojhutton and Unschool, to the extent that placing it in the Lead really elevates it to an undeserved importance likely to be construed as undue weight or, worse, give the reader the mistaken impression that the theory is being seriously debated in academia.


 * Therefore, as a compromise consensus, I propose:
 * The Booth escaped section, as rewritten last night with the additional secondary reliable sources added (see this version), be kept
 * Mention of the fringe theory be omitted from the Lead and relegated solely to the last section.  JGHowes   talk  23:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A compromise is desirable in all cases in which editors disagree, so as an addendum to the preceding suggestion, I humbly suggest that information be added to the section or a new section be created that discusses the unprecedented attempt by Booth's captors and other government agents to make sure that the man captured and killed on Garrett's farm was indeed Booth. This may take away some of the weight already created by the section as it stands now.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, JG, I am unsure that expunging part of the overview (which is easily half of the Lead's actual purpose) in order to address some nettlesome worry that we are giving undue weight to published conspiracy theories serves the interest of the article or of the encyclopedia. You noted that the 9-11 and Pearl Harbor articles don't mention the conspiracies surrounding them, whilst the JFK article does; think about why this article should more closely follow the JFK article - an article about a person - rather than that of an event.
 * I think we are on very solid ground noting, briefly, that a conspiracy theory exists - especially since we have a subsection of two paragraphs about it. As the Lead is an overview of the article, and we are not devoting the Lead to the discussion of that and only that conspiracy theory, it should remain.
 * I do not think that we should be so quick to drop WP:LEAD over a personal feeling that even mentioning the matter is wholly unacceptable. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  05:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Addressing some of Arcayne's points from above: I will try to explain. When I read the following two versions: to my mind, version #1 gives the impression that the proponents of this theory are small in number and that they are only proposing a possible alternate scenario (with soft terms like "suggested"), whereas #2 makes it sound like this is a red-hot topic (the subject remains controversial), ferociously contended by significant numbers of scholars on both sides (multiple theories debated to this day). I just don't see version #2 as being an accurate representation of the feelings of the historical community; it gives an innacurate impression of the impact of these theories, in my opinon. I would agree that the overview is half of the lead's purpose—the other half being to give a solid grasp on the subject to the reader who plans to go no further than the lead. But it doesn't follow that each section in the article gets mentioned in the lead, because there are certainly thousands of articles in Wikipedia where this has not been the case, including some examples given by JG above. Sometimes its a matter of practicality, perhaps, but sometimes I'm guessing it's a matter of WEIGHT. Just now, I randomly went to a President's article; I chose John Adams. The entire first two sections—totaling over 1300 words—on his Early Life and his Career Before the Revolution (including his opposition to Parliament and his role in the Boston Massacre trial) are completely unmentioned in the lead. Also, it does not follow, IMO, that just because this article is about a person that another article on a person necessarily provides a better model for us to follow (and, even if it did, LHO would be a more appropriate comparison than JFK). I think that a more significant indicator should be the prominence of the issue outside of Wikipedia. JFK conspiracy theories are positively huge—indeed, they may be at the heart of what the typical American thinks about when he thinks about the assassination, whether he believes in them or not. Booth escapes theories are clearly not as big. If I had to hazard a guess, (not that that carries any weight here), I'd bet my next paycheck that there are easily 1000 people in the US who believe that Oswald did not act alone for every one person who had even heard of the theory that Booth had escaped the barn alive. I simply would refer back to my Hollow Earth comments, to which no one saw fit to reply. I do not presume Qui tacet consentiret, but is the point not worthy of reply?
 * The current edit of the lead: I . . . am unclear as to where, precisely, you are seeing a greater amount of weight being given to the theory.
 * 1) In later years, some have suggested that Booth escaped his pursuers and subsequently died many years later under a pseudonym.
 * 2) Various authors over the past hundred years have proposed that Booth escaped, and the subject remains controversial, with multiple theories debated to this day.
 * The need to include a reference in the lead to each section of the article: the overview (which is easily half of the Lead's actual purpose)
 * The need to include these theories in the article at all: Enoguh people believe it that books have been written about it, and television programs have been dedicated to discussiing it. Whether it is true or not . . . is immaterial. That it is notable is inescapable and reason enough for its inclusion.

Okay, well that's all I have for now; I'm barely awake, and I just hope that this was halfway lucid. :-) Unschool (talk) 07:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least discussion is going on here. I've seen similar issues come up before and they generally get resolved by making a separate article (yes, I know some object to that) and develop it in full; in this case discuss each theory fully which would be UNDUE in this artilce. Copy the lead paragraph in the new theory article here with a "main" link in the escaped section here. The reason this works are: it gets the theories fully developed but doesn't give undue weight in the article it started from. A name could be "Theories of John Wilkes Booth's escape".  — Rlevse • Talk  • 10:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to discount Rilevse's advice (he is a pretty smart feller by most measures, and nice to boot), but I think we can find a middle ground here. As per Unschool's comment, I can see (through comparison) how the second version does make it seem more incendiary. While I imagine that Booth's possible escape was to conspiracy theorists the 19th century what JFK's assassination was to the 20th century version of the same, I think it is fair to say that the fire has sun has prolly set somewhat on that particular issue.
 * So, if the problem is one of the right language to ue, allow me to propose the following:


 * Over the years, various authors have suggested that Booth might have escaped his pursuers and subsequently died many years later under a pseudonym.


 * Is that more palatable? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  14:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's better than the first version, Arcayne. I'm in accord with Unschool's thoughts regarding its placement in the Lead, but I'm willing to go along with your reworded version there as an amendment to my proposed consensus (#2, above), if that will help us resolve the dispute. I also like Jojhutton's suggestion to add more to the section about gov't efforts to positively identify the body as Booth's. If you have some specific content and sources in mind, Jojhutton, please add them. In view of this, are we agreed there's consensus now?   JGHowes   talk  21:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a major effort at the time to ensure that the man killed was indeed Booth. Two of the feature distinctions were his tatoo on his right hand and the scar on the back of his neck. The letters JWB were on a tatoo on the back of his right hand between the thumb and index finger. The body did indeed have that tatoo as well as the scar. Both Michael W. Kauffman and James L. Swanson report this occurance in their books about Booth. They do mention the "survival myth" as they call it, and quickly debunk it, taking about half a page to mention and debunk the myth each, for books that are nearly 400 page each. That means that two respected historians devote less than one quarter of 1 percent of their text to the story. This article devotes almost 10% of the text to the theory. Anyone else see the problem yet?--Jojhutton (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My preference would be this edit by JG for the reasons listed above. While Arcayne is correct that the lead is a summary of the article, it has also been demonstrated that many articles have sections that are not mentioned in the lead.  To do so violates no rule, since by the very definition of "summary" some things (presumably the less important concepts) will be left out of any summary.  I also like Joj's idea of beefing up the stuff on the measures to verify the identity of Booth's body.  I didn't know that stuff before, and it weighs greatly on how much weight that I think that this whole matter deserves. Unschool (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is just a suggestion, but I suggest that everyone read two very good and rather recent books on The assassination and Booth's manhunt. The first is called Manhunt (go figure), by James L. Swanson. This Book paints Booth as the leader of many willing participants, while the other is American Brutus by Michael W. Kauffman. Kauffman writes Booth as not only the planner of the conspiracy, but as a person who brought in many other unwilling participants, who did not know of the plot. For example in regards to Mary Surratt, Kauffman says that she did not know of the plot to kill Lincoln while Swanson argues that she knew and went along, therby justifying her death penalty. Other authors who have contributed to this subject are Jim Bishop, William Hanchett, and Edward Steers Jr. None of these authors devotes any large numbers of pages to the escaped capture theory and although they are not the only writers on Booth, they are among some of the most prominent and in the case of Swanson and Kauffman, the most recent authors of Booth. I hope some of the other editors have read at least a few of these books. If not, go at it. If anything they are great reads and gaining knowledge never hurt anyone. (except maybe that guy from A Beautiful Mind,).--Jojhutton (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a long lead, and the sentence devoted to the "Booth escaped" theories section seems about right to me. The ideas seem notable enough for the article, based on number of books sold and the court having dealt with the issue. Yet, I do not know that relative extent of them. If it's a "tiny minority," don't include it at all. I doubt that applies here because of the stats mentioned. Since there is a section of the article, there is no reason to exclude it entirely from the lead, in an article with so few sections: the lead is supposed to summarize the article, and generally be in proportion. There is, per Unschool, no reason to talk about the current status of the controversy, as that is not covered in the section. Were it covered in the section, you might say something about current disputes. The sentence in the article as I write this "Over the years, various authors have suggested that Booth might have escaped his pursuers and subsequently died many years later under a pseudonym" seems NPOV. But I agree with Unschool that you probably need to beef up the ID of body content. But I think that the comparison to coverage in history books is not correct: we look at sources generally, and draw notability from there. If an historian chooses not to cover an idea, especially in works on the particular subject which don't cover popular reactions, then we can tell nothing about the notability. What we can tell is how much those authors credited the fringe idea, but that is not a measure of its notability. WP has to look a the whole arena, the entirety of the sources available to determine WP:WEIGHT. There might be lots and lots of news reports of the fringe idea, while the history books cover it hardly at all. Would this not be the case with JFK? —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Citation Verifiability
The entire section, plus the last sentence of the lead needs more verfiability. Every source that supports the claim is questionable based on several factors and certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources; reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended; claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them. Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Every source in support of the section is very questionable, and the entire section needs to be removed. Does anyone disagree on the sources?--Jojhutton (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree with the removal of the entire section. or tagging it as unreliable because you do not agree with the published theories. I am trying to maintain good faith, but the removal of the section immediately after we had a heated discussion over mentioning it in the Lead doesn't engender trust. Allow for the possibility that a theory that you do not personally endorse belongs. Books have been published about it. TV documentaries have, as well. It is notable. Does it require an entirely separate subarticle? No. Does it warrant mention? Abso-friggin'-lutely. Please do not remove it again. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jojhutton, well for one The Baltimore Sun is most certainly considered a reliable source, and your unilateral deletion of the entire section despite this, and in the face of apparent consensus to the contrary, could be considered disruptive editing. Please cease and desist.   JGHowes  talk  04:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove the section. I placed an acceptable tag on the section based on the three questionable sources. I will place it back, since no one has a right to remove it until the question is resolved. I spent a week searching for the books to check their facts. The Bates, Balsiger,and Nottingham sources are extremely questionable, based on the fact that they do not meet the criteria for acceptable sources. The Bates source is based on a death bed confession that only he heard. The Nottingham source is based on something his grandfather told him, and the Balsinger source is based mostly on the Bates source. They are not reputable sources that have a history for fact checking, and they are based on fringe theories as well. This is not a CNN or a New York Times story that we are discussing, they are highly objective sources in every way. This entire section needs to be removed until at least a compromise is reached.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed it yet again. Jojhutton, I am trying to maintain good faith here, but you do not place a tag on something after it has been removed. You come to discussion - as you have here - and talk about it, seeking either a compromise, or to change our hearts and minds. You do not post here, and change the info based on your own, personal interpretation.
 * And you did remove the entire section. I am willing to extend you that last dreg of good faith and presume it was an error. You don't want the info in the article at all. We get it. The majority of us do not agree. There it is. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof lies with the editor who adds or readds information. Please look at the three sources and determine if they meet wikipedias policy on verifiability.
 * As for the deletion, It was a mistake and I am surprised to find that you did not look at the edit history to determine that. I was immediatly accused of bad faith, although the section was untouched in the end. What a shame some editors did not look at the whole picture, but just at what they wanted to see.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, you are mistaken, on both counts. Since you have claimed that the info does not belong, its removal here, you left the distinct impression that you were removing the info you were concerned about. I am glad you reinstated it, but it doesn't erase the likely intent of the removal.
 * Secondly, the burden of proof has been met as to the notability of the information that was added (by someone else, and not myself); the burden of undue weight has also been addressed. The burden is upon you to provide contrasting information to act as counterweight to the conspiracy theories which you find so terribly objectionable.
 * I have again removed the tags you placed on the section. You need to argue here - and not via the pointy method of tagging info which you and you alone seem to take umbrage at - why that info doesn't need to be in the article at all. Thus far, your arguments have been largely unpersuasive. I would ask that you respect BRD and seek a consensus before adding a tag which casts a shadow over information which you have not yet proven deserves the shadow in the first place.
 * Bad faith, like good faith, is earned. You are getting good faith, but you are frittering it away via edit-warring. I would ask you to seek to follow the rules that all of us here choose to follow. As someone with twice as many edits as you, I would beg you to consider that I am not picking on you, but expecting you to step up and recognize that your opinion is not the only one that matters. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The section tag was created to inform readers and other editors about a current discussion. One dosen't add the tag after the discussion has been resolved. You may not agree with the tag, but I have a right to add it if I feel there is a problem with certain portions.
 * How is having more edits suppose to make you more right? It only makes a person sound elitist, and I have never seen the more edit policy on wikipedia.
 * The section has been nominated for a verifiability check, that is the reason why I added the tag, since it was reccomended to do so. The tag I used was a cut and paste tag and it accidently erased everything below the tag. I do not understand your persistance in bringing this up, since the end result of my series of edits did not remove the section. Your accusations to the contrary have been a disruption. Good Faith goes both ways and it seems that the feeling is mutual in that regard.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly, you and I disagree on the subject (among other things), so I am going to mostly disengage from talking with you. You don't want to even bother reading the relevant policies and guidelines, and your demeanor suggests that you aren't really willing to listen anyway.
 * Please provide a link to where you have "nominated the material for a 'verifiability check'" - that is, if it is somewhere outside of this talk page. I keep removing the tag, frankly, because you are the only one wanting it there. You all by your lonesome do not constitute a consensus. When your "verifiability check" comes back, let us know, and we can put the tag in place. Until then, leave it alone, or take the time to go and ask an admin why you don't get to exert your opinion over consensus just because you want to. You might find an education in the response you receive. You can find a large list of administrators at WP:LOA. Until then, please do not add the tag again; it's continued introduction seems disruptive, and might have some negative impact on you. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Part of the confusion about your edits, Jojhutton, is because you are not using the edit summary, which makes it difficult for others to follow what you're doing. I have added another cite, this one from The New York Times, to bolster the ample reliable sources cited in the section on the "Booth escaped" fringe theory. Again, a discredited fringe theory is nonetheless considered notable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article if it has been referenced in major publications. The New York Times and The Baltimore Sun articles cited debunking the theory are unquestionably reliable sources, therefore your repeated insertion of the "sources" tag is inappropriate. JGHowes   talk  03:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Though I have largely backed away from this discussion, I do need to point out that Joj is not the only one who has objected to this material—I think I've made it clear that I was less than thrilled with its inclusion. The primary difference between Joj and I lies in the simple fact that I lack the passion for this argument that he carries.  But it doesn't mean that I think that his point is not worth considering.
 * Additionally, I think that Joj is on the correct side of this issue of the tag. Now no one hates tags more than I do (Quick plug:  Read my all-time favorite Wikipedia essay, Why tags are evil), but it seems to me that Joj is perfectly within proper Wikipedia procedure to place that tag there and then expect a good-faith discussion to follow on the talk page.  What am I missing here?
 * And, just as a minor point, Arcayne, I too will frequently look up the number of edits a user has before engaging them in discussion. My primary goal when doing this is to ascertain their level of experience; if it is an editor with less than 100 edits or even less than 1000 edits, I gently allow them a bit more slack and try to teach them about policy.  Anyone with three or four thousand edits has a reasonable amount of experience, IMMHO to be treated on a relatively equal footing.  But even when dealing with an editor with, say, 300 edits, I would certainly never say to them, "As someone who has more than 30 times the edits as you . . ."  I mean, it reminds me of teachers who thought that, just because I had only taught for 12 years and they had taught for 20 years, that they were, by definition, a better teacher than I.  Guess what?  It ain't necessarily so.  And it does nothing to prove the superiority of one's argument to tout one's experience, at least in most cases.  The difference between 100 edits of experience and 1000 edits is actually more significant than the difference between 10,000 edits and 20,000 edits. Unschool (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding, Unschool. I am aware that you and Joj disagree with the very presence of this material at all, and you are entitled to that opinion. However, your personal opinions do not meet the litmus for inclusion or exclusion; if that sounds unduly harsh, consider that Joj kept referring to a mysterious "verifiability check" that seems not to have been introduced anywhere in the wiki-en until today. That he was using the presumably existing "verifiability check" as the sole reasoning for adding a verifiability tag (when the discussion here appeared to firmly - and correctly - note that the material was suitable for inclusion) seemed wholly inappropriate. It looked like he was using it as a noisy hammer to get his way, and that, frankly, was starting to piss me off. Someone seeking an end-run around consensus is going to expend all of my good faith towards them.
 * And when I compare edit counts, it isn't a 'Who's Got the Bigger Dick' contest - I am trying to point out that I have a bit more experience than them with the policies and guidelines than they do. I am not right all the time, nor have I represented myself as such (wel, I am something of a minor god when it comes to dispatching synthesis, but that's another story). I am not suggesting that Joj, you or I are on unequal educational or intellectual plateaus. I am saying that I have more experience when it comes to knowing what can and cannot be included, and that much of that experience arrived via trial and error. So, when that experience gets ignored, I mentally shrug and dismiss the (relative) newcomer as someone too thick to learn in a way other than the Hard Way.
 * I'm frankly bored of talking about this. Can we move on now? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  05:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * One more point, that I had forgotten to make: I was most disturbed, Arcayne, by your following comment:
 * Since you have claimed that the info does not belong, its removal here, you left the distinct impression that you were removing the info you were concerned about. I am glad you reinstated it, but it doesn't erase the likely intent of the removal. This comment bothered me because, first of all, it did appear clear to me that it was an innocent error, especially considering that he replaced the deleted material within two minutes, and without anyone else saying anything to him.  Secondly, when you speak of the "likely intent of the removal", I am wondering what you are thinking.  I mean, I am completely flabbergasted by your presumption to know Joj's intent, especially when he reverted himself almost instantly.  It sounds to me like you're holding Joj accountable for an error that he corrected before anyone else caught him making it.  Is this good faith?
 * Oh, before I respond to your most recent commments, I need to make one more point that I meant to make before, but forgot when I rambled on about the whole edit-count thing. I'm going to insert it above where it goes with my other points, if that doesn't violate any rules, okay? Unschool (talk) 05:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (←dent, EC) Nope, it doesn't violate the rules, but it a) makes it hard to follow the conversation and, b) suggests to the passerby that a part of the expanded response was ignored by the other contributor. This is why protocol suggests keeping one's answers either in chronological order, in a new subsection or, in the instance of a personal issue, off the page altogether and to the user's usertalk space instead. I have moved your response below, to chronologically follow the flow of the conversation.
 * Lastly, I am sorry that you are flabbergasted. Sometimes I am right and sometimes I am wrong. I am willing to admit that I might have looked upon Joj's edits with a gimlet eye, but at least I am willing to admit that I might have been wrong, and I was certainly tossing out a possible WP:SPADE argument. Now, can we finally move on? Do not see my unwillingness to engage in this personal discussion as a weakness on my part - it would be a tragic mistake for you to believe such. I just want to keep the discussion on point. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  06:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, now to respond to your points, Arcayne.
 * I don't completely reject the inclusion of this material. I am still open to persuasion on this point. I think that Joj is advancing some arguments worth consideration.  Unlike Joj, I do not think that this article is going to be ruined by the inclusion of this material.  Unlike you, Arcayne, I do not think that this article would be ruined by its exclusion.
 * I thought (and still think) that I understood your point regarding the edit count. I didn't think that you were being an ass parading his superiority, I just thought (and still think) that you place an inordinate amount of significance on the experiential difference between an editor of 10,000 edits and one of 20,000 edits.  In my opinion, from edits 2000 to 10,000, I gained only a small amount of additonal knowledge, whereas in edits 100 to 1,000, I learned a huge amount.  I'd guess that 99% of my knowledge about Wikipedia policy and procedures was gained before edit 2,000.   So I'm saying that the difference between you with 20,000 and me with 10,000 is unlikely to be of any significant consequence.  And it's a bit patronizing, IMMHO, to call an editor of 10,000 edits a "newcomer", relative or otherwise, since his contributions place him or her in the top 1% of all Wikipedian contributors.
 * And yes, I'm pretty bored with this too, that's why I stayed away so long. I only re-entered when I noticed that some comments were made to Joj that I felt were unwarranted.  You know, if you look at our edit histories, it's not too hard to find that Joj and I have had some serious disagreements in the past.  But I respect what he is trying to do, and just because he's holding the torch pretty much by himself doesn't mean that his opinions shouldn't be seriously considered.  He's operating in good faith, as far as I can tell, and has just asked that his reasoning be considered.  Okay, so that suggestion that we all read a book was a bit unusual, and I don't plan to read it, but this latest gambit of tagging the section for the quality of the sources seemed to me to be a perfectly justifiable approach to making his point.  I don't know if I would ultimately support him or not on it, but it's just not unreasonable, it appears to me. Unschool (talk) 06:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. However, tagging a section because you aren't finding consensus going along with you to "make a point" is in fact a pointy, antisocial behavior. It isn't a "gambit" - it's fucking arrogant and rude. Pardon my language, but trix are for kids, and despite our anonymity, we expect a level of maturity that you aren't going to find in some chuckle-headed internet chat forum. We don't always get it, but we sure as hell expect it. Now, are we finally done? If not, let's take it to the respective usertalk pages. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  06:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree with your characterization of Joj's tagging, but what I really came back here to say was that I was wrong about something. You referred to having "twice the edits" of Joj, which would mean that he had 9000-10,000 edits, which I regarded as an insignificant difference.  I see now that Joj actually only has about 1700 edits, and has only been editing since March of this year.  That amount of time on Wikipedia is significantly less than yours, and I would acknowledge that your greater experience could be (but would not automatically be) relevant.  (You might want to work on your math skills a bit there, Arcayne.  Saying 10-12 times more edits would have been a lot more accurate and to the point.)  Still I do NOT recommend using this as a point of comparison, it doesn't prove you to be correct, but it does give one pause.
 * Anyway, I'm bored of this as well. I encourage Joj to continue this discussion, but perhaps to give it a few months.  Sometimes consensus changes easier after the discussion has had time to settle.  There was one particular issue that I debated on the talk pages in my first year, and I got shot down.  A year later I tried again and got shot down.  But I kept the idea out there and eventually, what I regarded as right prevailed.  If it's important enough to you, stick it out, but stay calm.  Okay, I'm out of here. Unschool (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason for placing a tag on any section is to inform readers that there is an ongoing discusion on the talk page about a certain subject. This allows other editors a chance to voice their opinions. Why are you against that? If you are correct in your thinking, Arcayne, that the section is fine, then why are you so much against having other editors voice their opinions? You should welcome the chance to have others agree with you, unless you feel that perhaps the citations don't meet the standards of wikipedia's verifiability. Your constant removal of the tag is not in line with good faith and can be considered, in some instances, as vandalism. Asking others to join into a discussion is not pointy, nor is it anti-social. I take major offence at the way that you have portrayed me as some sort of immature disruption. And calling me arrogant and rude is not civil. It is you who have made major, and unwarranted, accusations toward myself and Unschool. Through out this whole process, you have not answered the question of verifiability. You have continued to skirt the issue with false and slanderous accusations about deletions, tags, edit summeries, edit counts, and when I asked for a verifiability check. Yet a week later, the question still remains, How do those three citations pass the verifiability test? I was willing to come to some form of compromise, but my original belief was to remove the entire section, and it was answered by increasing its size. That is unacceptable for a section that is not in line with at least three wikipedia policies, weight, fringe, and verifiability.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What he said. Unschool (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's address this point by point. I am going to do the new guy an enormous favor and avoid making it about him or I, and focus on his premises. The point of the tag is to not a significant difference of opinion regarding the verifiability, etc. of a particular item. As you are the most vocal opponent of the inclusion of the info en toto, I think it fair to say that the tag is actually distracting and non-representative of the current consensus. Were it an even split of folk wanting it in and out, you might have a reason for tagging it. One person stating that it should becompletely removed (as Joj has stated here and elsewhere on at least three occasions), the tag is being used for a purpose that it was not designed for. The information in the section is cited. It is reliably, verifiably, notablly cited; arguments contraverting that in the form of a tag is unsuitable.
 * As top the question of verifiability that Joj has repeatedly suggested that I have failed to address, I would point out the first paragraph of the core policy in question:


 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."


 * ...which pretty much extinguishes any such verifiability argument. Joj and Unschool, you may not think the material is appropriate, historical or accurate, but those are considerations without merit. As I haven't seen (or frankly, ever heard of) any such "verifiability test", and the only time inquiry was made was less than a day ago (the usage of the term began 5-6 days ago), I must presume that I am interpreting policy, and relevant guidelines correctly.
 * Jojhutton, if you feel I have been to harsh with your contributions, and have misinterpreted your attempted isolation of the Booth Escaped material, then accept my apology. If you did introduce that tag to indeed isolate the info prior to recommending its removal, my viewpoint stands. We don't do that here in Wikipedia - at least, not without getting a bucket of whupass opened up on oneself. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Since Arcayne only wishes to read the first sentnece of WP:verifiability, I will place the entire section here for him and others to read, since it was conveniently left out of his extinguishing argument:


 * Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources.


 * In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.


 * Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.


 * For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources, see Reliable sources (WP:RS). Because policies take precedence over guidelines, in the case of an inconsistency between this page and that one, this page has priority, and WP:RS should be updated accordingly. To discuss the reliability of specific sources, consult the Reliable sources/Noticeboard.


 * All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.


 * Reliable sources may be print-only, electronic-only or be available in both print and electronic formats.


 * The sentence that reads, Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. is the trump card in this debate. Those sources hardly have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, since the authors have questionable motives. As for the reliability of the other sources in the section, such as the Baltimore Sun, well those sources are just fine, but they were only added to produce weight to the section and would not be needed if the other sources were removed. Again the true question was skirted, but I think that Arcayne may have been confused on what I was really asking.
 * WP:RS has a section on Fringe theories and the entire section states:


 * Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudoscience or extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities. Any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources. An individual extremist or fringe source may be entirely excluded if there is no independent evidence that it is prominent enough for mention. The material taken from such sources should not be contentious and must not involve claims made about third parties. Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance.


 * Has anyone ever read the books theses sources are taken from? I took a few days and did research on the authors and the books and found that not only do the authors not have a reputation for fact finding and accuracy, but the entire theory is based on hearsay and not a shred of absolute evidence. Nottingham even makes the sole claim that his grandfather told him that he was a decendent of Booth. That is it, no other hard proof. Hardly reputable. The information by Finnis is poor, because it is based on a death bed confession that only he heard. The other book was written by a man who produces movies about conspiracies. His book also makes the claim that Stanton was in on the plot, but I don't see any mention of it on any page about Stanton.
 * And yes, Arcayne, you are much wiser at wikipedia than I am. I bow down to your infinite wisdom. I may be a newbie compared to you, but it doesn't take a genius to read wikipedia policy and see that flaws in your argument. And I have not mentioned it before, but since you continue to state just how many more edits you have than I do, I believe I have a bit more knowledge on this particular topic than you may have, unless I am completly mistaken. That in its self may even-out my lack of edits.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Citation verifiability - nth arbitrary break
This is fast growing tedious. I have again had to remove a massive number of edits by Jojhutton which (again) seek to undo the section; likely he's thinking that whittling away at the citations is going to do the trick. As being by turns clever and cruel haven't worked in educating the new user, and apology has failed to temper Joj's insistence that the section must go away, I will try being blunt. The section is cited. AS it is cited, it doesn't matter in any way whatsoever what you feel about the strength of its arguments. The only thing that contraverts a citation is another citation. You cannot attest to the "verifiability check" or whatnot, any more than you can tag those bits of the Booth escaped theory which apparently drive you bonkers. Wiki ruled and guidelines say the info stays. A consensus of your fellow editors says it stays, Guess what? It stays. Your evaluation of the books is not a factor in their notability, Joj. I repeat, you are not citable, and you pointing to sources that give the accepted historical record as proof that Booth did not escape is synthesis, a type of original research. You need to find books (or some other source) that pointedly, explicitly disproves the Booth Escaped theories. Without that, the info is going to remain. I am sorry, but that is Wikipedia rule. I am sorry you do not like the method by which I am delivering it to you, but it doesn't change the basic fact of the matter. No contraverting citation, no arguments for removal. Perhaps this has been overlooked, but it needs to be pointed out that the books and folk being cited are notable. No amount of railing about what clusterfuckery they have committed to the printed page is going to ever undue that. Perhaps Joj should write a book about how the other books are wrong; that would in fact be citable. Again, sorry for the bluntness, but I hate having to repeat myself. I don't need you to bow down to my edit count, I just need you to listen to me - to all of us. Just talk with all of us, and accept it if an argument is not currently going your way. If you cannot, ask for mediation, or Third Opinion. The consensus currently seems to be that the section remains. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I will remind you that I have already cited two books that have said just what you suggest. One by Michael W, Kauffman, the other by James Swanson. Neither of which gives these citations credence. How is it that you claim to have consensus and claim that I am the only one who wants these tags, but fail to remember Unschool's comments about the issue? Your own edit summery is a contradiction to your good faith as well. You have, on at least one occasion [], readded a tag that was removed, and did so without any consensus. One can surmise that you only place tags on articles that YOU think need them and take them off of articles that YOU think do not need them. You still have not given one reason why these citations are OK for wikipedia. Don't skirt the issue, stay focused, and look at the citations in question. They don't fit the criteria.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, don't worry about my focus, Joj; I think I have it covered. What you seem to think is that, because these books purport that the conspiracy theories are rubbish, it negates the notability of the books cited that discuss them.
 * They do not. I hope you manage to grasp this, because I and others are growing weary of you refusing to get the point.
 * Both sides of the discussion can - and should - be included, which is what you were told over two hundred lines and a week earlier. You do not remove the section. You do not argue for its removal. You do not disrupt the flow of the article with excessive, misleading or incorrect tags because it interferes with your sensibilities.
 * Instead, you use the contraverting sources and add text to the article. You can even note that the section is currently being discussed with this sort of tag:
 * Simple right? If only you had bothered to ask...
 * Simple right? If only you had bothered to ask...

Now, why don't you fo and add that contraverting text, instead of tagging things willy-nilly. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  05:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You first say:You need to find books (or some other source) that pointedly, explicitly disproves the Booth Escaped theories. Without that, the info is going to remain. I am sorry, but that is Wikipedia rule.
 * I give you two sources that disprove it, then you say: What you seem to think is that, because these books purport that the conspiracy theories are rubbish, it negates the notability of the books cited that discuss them. They do not.
 * Which is it, because you have contradicted yourself?--Jojhutton (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. If you had discovered information or sources that the citations in the section were not verifiable not verifiable, the content would need to be removed. You were asked to present those. You did not. You claim you have provided sources that counter the theories. If so, they belong in the section alongside the conspiracy information. They don't cancel each other out like matter and anti-matter. Now, do you wish to make any more attempts to find "holes" in my reasoning, or are you instead going to do a bit of work, and add the info you keep hawking? Without it, you are just wasting our time here. Again, please make absolutely sure of your info and citations, since the material will be scrupulously checked (sorry, you earned that scrutiny). In fact, being (presumably) unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines, you might want to take a little time and perhaps suggest the info here first - just to avoid any further hiccups in your edits.
 * In the future, if you perceive an error in my logic, please take a good deal more time to reconsider. I am not perfect, but your error was a completely avoidable one. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  07:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to reason with someone who only tells half truths and hardly ever cites wikipedia policy to suuport his position. I have cited several policies on why this information does not meet inclusion. I have been ignored on that. You continue to say that I am the only one arguing for this, which is outright untrue. You continue to put me down based on how much longer you have been on wikipedia, calling me a new user whenever it suits you. You say things about me but cannot back it up, with actual links. I continue to ask you to look at the sources yourself and make your own determination, and I have been ignored.
 * I ask you again, Do you think that those authors have a reputation for fact finding and accuaracy? I need a yes or a no. Do those authors make claims about themeselves? Yes or a No.
 * Just because someone has written a book, does not make that book or author notable. Not one other notable source suuports these claims about Booth. The other sources in the section clearly are there to balance the section, I know that. They are the debunking citations.
 * You need to tell the whole truth when describing how I comment. You are slandering me evertime that you lie about my intentions and my motives.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC) I


 * Sorry, I have already provided you with an answer. If you choose to refuse to get the point, I cannot see any further reason to respond. Responding to you calling me a liar would test the limits of my civility, and I'd like to avoid taking a metaphorical bat to your arguments. My time is valuable; you aren't worth my expending more than is necessary, especially considering your actions outside of this article. My opinion remains unchanged, the section should remain, and the wiki supports their inclusion. Buh-bye. -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So does anyone else want to answer the question? I read through the entire discussion, and did not find a single response that says that it has already been answered. the question has been skirted several times, but has not been answered. Perhaps if I restate the question in more literal terms. The question is:
 * Do the authors have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?
 * Yes or no will do. No one wants to hear about how many more edits someone has, how many times the section is cited, or how uncivil editors have been. Policy states that in order for a source to be verifiable, it must be from a reliable third party source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That is the point.
 * here is another wikipedia point that has been overlooked, from WP:Reliable sources:
 * Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudoscience or extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities.
 * Does anyone deny that these sources are Fringe? Yes or No? If they are fringe, then policy says it should go.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have answered that twice on this page. Yes, of course the claim that Booth "escaped" is a wacky fringe theory not accepted by any competent historian. But, in quoting from WP:FRINGE, you have overlooked the most salient point:


 * 1) The very fact that major newspapers and law journals have discussed and debunked the theory, in and of itself, is sufficient to establish notability for inclusion in Wikipedia.
 * 2) Secondly, Bates' book is not cited to say "Booth escaped", but merely that "Bates wrote that Booth escaped...". This is a crucial difference, because all we're doing is stating a fact without imputing any veracity to it whatsoever. Quite the contrary, most of the "Booth escaped" section actually is used to debunk the so-called theory, would you not agree?
 * 3) Thirdly, this article did pass independent Good Article review last year with this section intact, a status attained by less than 2/10 of 1% of Wikipedia articles. It would not have attained GA if the article suffered from undue weight, improperly sourced content, POV, OR, etc.  JGHowes   talk  23:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank You JGHowes. I see your point based on the proper quote from an actual wikipedia policy. It is nice not to be talked down to all of the time. In reading the policy that you have cited, all it says is that the theory is notable, but says nothing about the original source of the theory. Based on my interpretation of that policy, the Baltimore Sun citation is fine, but based on the idea that those three authors do not have a reputation for fact-finding and accuracy, they are in fact not in accordance with policy. Or does anyone think that the authors are reputable?
 * As in fact, the article did pass GA last year with the section, is it not possible that the citations were meerly overlooked? I'm just wondering how the policy that I have cited, works with the part of the policy that you have cited? All I am asking is that we look at the citations in question and determine whether or not they are notable based on the policy that I have already cited.
 * Could the section not be rewritten and retitled so as to keep in occordance with policy? I have suggestions in mind, and have wanted to reword it for some time, but anytime I do anything on this page it gets reverted, even edits that have nothing to do with the discussion.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest creating your revised draft of the section on this Talk page first, for discussion and consensus by other editors.  JGHowes   talk  00:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm back. Perhaps this is no longer of interest to anyone, but I'm here to sound off one last time.


 * I don't know if it's because I've had some time away, or if it's just because he's making the point in a far clearer way than anyone has done before, but with his little blue box and subsequent comments, User:JGHowes has pretty much convinced me. Joj, I don't know where you are on this right now, but I think JGH is on to something.  The article does not in any way come across as endorsing these theories, indeed, it does seem to debunking them.  More importantly, the very fact that others have taken the time to debunk them accords them a degree of notability.  If no one had ever tried to disprove these theories, then they would be less notable than they are.  I would still prefer it not be in the lead, but as others have pointed out, the lead is a summation of the whole article, and (in part because of the attention that has been drawn to it on this page) the section is now large enough that it would be hard to argue that absolutely no mention be included in the lead. Unschool (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Some questions
Arcayne,
 * Could you explain to me why you believe that this edit by Joj was a violation of WP:POINT but if he took your suggestion here to add this: that it would not do the same thing?  I am having trouble distingushing the two, as they both appear to be what a good faith editor would do if he wanted further discussion on the matter to take place.
 * Is it your contention that tags which which question whether an article or section violates WP:NPOV, WP:V or other such policis should be added only after the matter has been thouroughly discussed on the article's talk page? I ask only because what you write here and  here comes across to me as indicating that the tagging is inappropriate because first the matter needs to be discussed on the talk page.  Am I mistaken in thinking that tagging is something done initially?  And if discussion must take place, at what point is it appropriate to add the tags?  In the middle of discussion, as Joj has done?  At the end, when consensus has been reached?  And if that (after consensus has been reached) is when tagging is appropriate, what then would be the point?  Or do you think that such tags should be placed at the end of discussion, but only in the event that consensus has not been reached.  If so, what is the problem with what Joj has done?  Do you actually think that you have consensus for your perspective on this debate, or just a simple majority?


 * My point is this: when an editor or contributor notes a section/sentence/word/whatever that they don't like, they should make an edit to correct it. If it is reverted, WP:BRD is the guideline on point. Bold-Revert-Discuss. It doesn't mean keep adding it back in, hoping that the two lines of the edit summary are going to magically change someone's mind. It doesn't mean posting a comment where one explains their personal belief (not based on wiki policy or guidelines) and then goes back and adds the info to the article.
 * It means that after being reverted, you go to the article discussion and stay there until you work out a solution or are made aware of why it cannot be included. This prevents edit-warring and precisely the sort of ill-will Jojhutton has served to foster by dint of being new and, well, arrogant enough to think he knows better than the rest of us.
 * The process logically follows that if there is considerable disagreement in article discussion, the dispute tag is used to indicate ongoing discussion. Verifiability tags are used to indicate that the person adding the info may very well have faked the citations, or that the citations do not say what they supposed to say. In this case, they were used - clearly used - to cast a shadow on the section itself. As the user placing the tag had previously indicated a very strong preference for the material being excised en toto, it was a very short walk down to the end of Good Faith street.
 * Tagging is to be used to indicate a problem, not a belief. The user personally believes the Booth Escaped theories to themselves be unverifiable, and so used the tag, replacing it many times despite being told by at least two other, more experienced editors that (s)he was wrong to do so. Simply asking might have saved everyone a lot of headache. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And while we're on the subject of tagging (a creation, which once again, I must point out, I utterly loathe. Everyone please read tags!), are not tags justified at least partly on the basis that they help to draw additional people into the discussion? When I have argued that tags should be relegated to the talk page, I know that I have been told in no uncertain terms that leaving tags in place is a vital part of Wikipedia self-improvement—that without the tags in place, it will be harder to get other editors to chime in with their input.  Arcayne, you are interested in getting additional input into this discussion, are you not?  How else can this be done, short of violating WP:CANVASS?


 * I don't share your loathing of tags, Unschool. Far too many folk come to Wiki expecting it to be Holy Writ, and it is only the presence of tags which keep All the Crazy™ in check. The key is to use the tags knowledgeably and responsibly. If you don't know, ask. That is actually one of the cornerstones of surviving here - asking questions and weighing the answers.
 * And again, the right tag would have accomplished the goal that Joj claims to see happen. Were it really the case, I would welcome new input to the article, especially since I feel the stronger the group editing, the stronger the resulting consensus. :::Wiki majority (2/3's) consensus sticks in the craw of those who are on the losing end of the argument, and a constant source of irritation for those winning. It's a lot like bipartisan politics; there is a reason why so many folk in politics are bald. It's the stress. Verifiability claims cast a shadow on the info in the article. Bluntly, he is apparently confusing the verifiability of the claims made in the verifiable source, and thinking that the tag allows him to challenge the info on the same notability level as the author. It absolutely does not. -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And as one who hates big, bold banner tags, can I ask if you would be willing to consider if this version, with its minitags, might be a reasonable compromise for all parties? Is it not better for Joj to allow this statement: "It sold more than one million copies and was made into The Lincoln Conspiracy movie." to remain in place with nothing more than a notation of its factual inaccuracy rather than remove it altogether?  Is that not evidence that he is trying to work with you?


 * No, because it tags various parts of the same section redundantly with the word "unreliable", clearly telling the reader that the information is unreliable when, in fact, it comes from a reliable, verifiable source. If he truly wished to draw folk to the discussion, dispute would have accomplished the task. Despite being told of this, he choose to proceed with a method that attempted to undercut the section. I took umbrage at that tactic. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Would it be possible for you to pledge to make no more references to the relative edit counts of yourself and other editors? Each time you do so it slightly diminishes the automaticity with which I extend good faith to your comments, because it means that you are leaning on something other than facts regarding Wikipedia policy.  Please stop.  As I have said earlier, while it may be more likely that a more experienced editor will be correct than a less experienced editor, it is not by any means certain.  And it adds nothing to the strength of your arguements.


 * I am not going to make such a pledge. I've said before that I don't use it as a yardstick of intelligence, but rather one of a knowledge of Wikipedia. Some editors with tons of edits are functional morons, but when they speak of wiki policy, I listen, because they know their way around the neighborhood. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you explain why in this edit you "re-piped" the American Civil War link? For the life of me, it certainly looks redundant to me.


 * It is redundant; it merely got caught in the net that removed Joj's tagging. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you explain to me why you reverted this edit with no explanation, though when it was included it came in with a perfectly good edit summary explaining why it was made?
 * Could you explain to me why you reverted this edit with no explanation, even though it represents the consensus of all known sources, including those which you are arguing should be included in this article?


 * These are both the same revert, so the same reasoning applies for both: The removing editor failed to provide a source (known or otherwise) that noted the woman was not an actor. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it possible that the above three reverts on your part were simply made hastily because you've just decided to dismiss any and all contributions by User:Jojhutton as untrustworthy? Is it reasonable for someone who looks at the above three edits to question your good faith towards Jojhutton? Unschool (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Anything is possible, Unschool, but the tone of the question is accusatory. Were Joj to edit correctly, I wouldn't have the issue I do with him. I don't regard him as untrustworthy; I regard him as trying to end-run consensus and force his opinion of cited sources on the readership, and that will not stand. And, as I have addressed two of the three instances reverted, I would conclude that your assumption of my "dismissal of his contributions" is incorrect. He doesn't have my food faith, because he edit-warred and chose not to discuss it properly, instead choosing to excessively and incorrectly tag information, hoping it would be deleted. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It is no use Unschool, he won't answer the questions. He is always right and we are always wrong. He is the more experianced editor and has told us so on many occasions. He believes that those authors are reputable and have checked their facts. He also thinks that I am the only one who wants the tags.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Heading out
As I indicated earlier to User:Arcayne at his talk page, I have to sign off for a while now. It may very well be a week before I am able to return. I urge all to keep cool heads and to always assume good faith. Let's couch our comments in terms of edits and actions, policies and guidelines, and avoid any comments that reflect upon each other's motivations and experience. I wish you all happy editing, and hope when I return to find that tranquility has been established. (Hey, a fella can dream, can't he?) Cheers. Unschool (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"Escaped" redux
As far as I can see, the "escaped" theory is a tiny minority view as explained in wp:fringe, and as such does not even belong in the article. (My attention was directed here by the thread on wp:ani. looie496 (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for joining in, Looie496. It's nice to see that something good coming out of that fiasco. Can you explain, in your opinion, how the Booth Escaped theories section meets the criteria for WP:Fringe? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I agree. The sources making the claim do not meet verifiability as well, since none of them have a reoutation for fact-finding.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, looie496, as far as I can see as well. However, perhaps there is a more technical way to evaluate this- and there is the matter of his family having been involved, isn't there? If it is really what you could call tiny, leave it out.  I'm not sure whether it is or not.  —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 07:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that, for me, the problem is that Jojhutton - who might be simply misreading/misunderstanding/misapprehending the policy of verifiability - personally thinks that the 'Booth Escaped' theories are rubbish, and is seeking to have them removed as such.
 * First, he approached it as a verifiability issue (thus the repetitive tagging); he did not think the authors who wrote the books and the directors who created the documentaries could verify ''their information - and because of that, the info shouldn't be in the article. Of course, since we are not citable, we cannot act as counterweight to cited,notable information. It isn't a neutral method of evaluating the data.
 * The Fringe argument has a few more teeth, but this is a tactic as well, designed for - to my reckoning - the sole purpose of removing the info from the article because one editor disagrees with the assertions of a notable series of authors and filmmakers. That the Booth Escaped theories have been (or haven't been depending upon who you ask; I imagine in fifty years, folk will consider JFK conspiracies equally quaint) have been seemingly debunked doesn't diminish their notability. Indeed, WP:FRINGE specifically notes that debunking establishes notability. The yelling man in the concert hall isn't notable until the conductor stops the concert to tell the nutter to take a hike.
 * The material regarding JWB conspiracy theories is extensive and conducted in a serious manner; ie, not conducted in a light-hearted manner, It is therefore notable.
 * I think that Jojhutton might be confusing notability with a level of acceptance. Just because material is notable doesn't make it true. Inclusion in our encyclopedia is verifiability, not truth. It doesn't matter whether Booth escaped and is now a vampire (a la Romkey's The Vampire Papers or Buffy) or whether someone capped his ass shortly after the assassination; that the subject of Booth possibly having escaped has been covered by serious folk is litmus enough for inclusion. That there is a paucity of sources prevents the theories section from being launched as its own article (where, no doubt, the same editor seeking its removal from this article would seek its deletion almost immediately). - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have tried to look for ways of trimming the "Booth escaped" section, but there really does not appear to be any "filler material" in there. If this were the Lincoln Assassination article, I'd say throw it right out. But since this is about Booth, a minor figure in U.S. history -- because of that one infamous day -- and it is after all only a small portion of the Booth article and notability has been established, the sources are acceptable and the presentation is done right, I think the time has come to remove the tag. Other than that, how was your day Ms. Hutton? :X :X :X--Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The noticeboards for both RS and the Fringe Theories tend to agree with you. The information is being presented in a neutral way, without pandering either to one sde or the other. As more than enough "verification checks" have been conducted and taken up the time on not one but two noticeboards, I think we can safely remove the tag now. There appears to be a big, shiny consensus upon which to hang our stovepipe hat. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  22:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As there has been no further discussion for almost a month now, I consider the issue resolved and have archived it for future reference.  JGHowes   talk  20:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)