Talk:Poker Alice

Rewriting the Poker Alice article
The article on Poker Alice is in need of a major revamp, which I plan on doing. The vast majority of the information on the page is incorrect, and is a rehashing of legends and myths about Alice that aren't supported by the data. There are only 2 citations, prior to my editing, on the page. Those citations are 1) to a webpage that has no citations, or mentions of sources. The author of the page isn't a historian, and is mainly just rewriting stories that are found on dozens of other pages, which never actually check their sources. The other citation is for a tv show.

I'm proposing to rewrite the Poker Alice article, with proper citations. While many of these citations will be newspaper articles, I also propose to use my website as a source. The reason being that no other proper historical study has been done on Poker Alice. The articles and works on her, outside of the ones I've done, have relied on myths that don't agree with each other. Most of these myths developed after the death of Poker Alice, or are rooted in sensationalist reporting about Poker Alice that was done at the end of her life, which simply disagree with the known historical record. The articles I've produced were meant to correct the previous errors, and produce proper historical articles on Poker Alice. That being said, outside of the articles I've produced, the research simply isn't there, and thus, in order to provide citations for this revamped article on Poker Alice, I feel it is necessary to cite the articles I've written when appropriate. While newspapers will be the primary source, at times, diving into the history of Poker Alice means looking at and comparing things such as wedding certificates and death certificates. Or by addressing the lack of evidence for some claims, while weighing other evidence.

Two examples to demonstrate this point is 1), the name of Poker Alice. While she is popularly known as Alice Ivers or Alice Tubbs, the only marriage certificate that can be found of hers lists her name as Eva Tubbs. The U.S. Death Index also lists her as Eva Tubbs. And because of the other details in both records, we can be certain this Eva is one and the same as Alice, and that her legal name was in fact Eva. No other historian has went through the trouble to uncover this though, so the only citation for this, that explains the data, is my article on the subject. 2) Alice was born in Virginia, not Devon, England, or the other half dozen places it is claimed she was from. While some other articles will make the claim Alice was from Virginia, no citation or reasoning is ever given. The article I produced doesn't simply guess at where she is born, but discusses the different possibilities, rules a number of them out, and comes to a clear conclusion based on the available information, including census records.

With that said, I argue that the articles I produced are thus appropriate for citation on Poker Alice page, for the corrections that I will be making, as there simply aren't any other credible article, or work, that dives into the history of Poker Alice. Historicalsturgis (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Historicalsturgis


 * Am I missing something? If there are no credible sources except your website, where did the information on your site come from? to a webpage that has no citations, or mentions of sources - This seems equally applicable to your site. This is sounding like WP:OR and WP:COI. --John B123 (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am retracting the proposed use of my own articles for the Poker Alice page. Instead, there are enough previously published, reliable sources to draw upon. In that regard, I will also propose for sections in the Poker Alice article that will reflect a number of controversies, ones of which has been spelt out down below, dealing with her birthplace, as if one is going to be neutral, making the claim that Alice was born in England simply doesn't fit the bill. Historicalsturgis (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Throughout my articles, I make reference to census material, marriage certificates, death records, some oral history, and the like. I also explain the information and why various stories can be trusted or not.

As mentioned above, it's not there aren't credible sources, it's that the articles and other works written about her don't use those sources. For instance, I mentioned that newspapers were a credible source, or implied that when I mentioned I would be using them. I also mention things like marriage certificates in one of the examples I gave. So there are some primary sources, but you aren't going to find them cited in anyway in the articles and other works on Poker Alice, as most of articles on her are regurgitating previous articles written about her, that rely on myth, not actual history.

To sum up, there are credible sources, which are mentioned above and in my articles, including various government issued certificates, census data, and even newspapers. However, those sources haven't been used in virtually any article written about Poker Alice, as the vast majority simply repeat the same unsubstantiated myths about her.

Historicalsturgis (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I sorry but don't see anything on your site that is definitive. You go through the various conflicting accounts and draw conclusions. Whilst you may well be right in those opinions, that is no basis for an encyclopaedic article.


 * Looking at her place of birth, there are multiple places in England called Sudbury, not just in Suffolk, although not in Devon. There is however a Sidbury in Devon. As you have talked about misspelling, then Sidbury could be misspelled Sudbury. There are multiple sources that give her birthplace as Devon, such as . You would need to present overwhelming evidence that conventional thinking is wrong and that she was born in Virginia. --John B123 (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources you give for her birth place though never cite a source. I can find multiple sources that give her birthplace as New York, Virginia, and multiple places in England, yet none ever give a source. If one looks at claims made by Poker Alice herself, she can't even keep it straight. So there is no conventional thinking here. There are just sources that repeat what the sources they looked at said, without ever citing a real source. Historicalsturgis (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As I wrote earlier, You go through the various conflicting accounts and draw conclusions. This is WP:OR. --John B123 (talk) 07:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's the issue. Even when I cite multiple sources, you still claim that I'm just voicing an opinion or something like I'm just drawing conclusions. At this point, it is clear that evidence doesn't matter to you, because you ignore it. You keep pointing to the idea that other sources say something, so they must be right or must be considered. Yet I can guarantee you haven't read those sources. I can guarantee you can't point to the evidence they provide for the claims they are making. The reason is that they don't provide any evidence. Most of those "other sources" are simply regurgitating what others have said. This current page is a clear example of that. The Poker Alice page makes the claim that George Huckert died in 1913, as do many other sources. The issue is, his tombstone, and death certificate show he died in 1924. So does the fact other sources say otherwise mean anything? Of course not. Historicalsturgis (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Why do my edits keep on being removed?
I've edited this article multiple times. Each time, I've added more citations and references to support the changes I've made. I've clearly states why the changes are made.

Yet, the article gets reverted to a place where there are no sources cited for most of the information given, and the one source that is given isn't credible as its a blog post by someone who is in marketing, not history. Historicalsturgis (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Alice's Name
I'm proposing that Alice Ivers' name is changed on this page to Eva Ivers. Her legal name, as shown on the existing government documents we have available, was Eva. The two documents we have, which are: ''South Dakota Department of Health. South Dakota Marriage Index, 1905-1914, 1950-2013 and South Dakota Marriage Certificates, 1905-1949, 2014-2018. Pierre, SD, USA: South Dakota Department of Health. Certificate 66239, and South Dakota Department of Health. Index to South Dakota Death Records, 1905-1955. Pierre, SD, USA: South Dakota Department of Health. Certificate Number 128190'' show her name as Eva Tubbs.

The first document, certificate 66239, is the marriage certificate between a George Huckert, and an Eva E. Tubbs. This certificate was issued in Lawrence County, on December 23, 1918. It is an established fact that Alice Ivers, later known as Alice Tubbs, was in fact married to George Huckert. The article, as it stands now, confirms that, as does every source mentions Poker Alice.

The second document, certificate 128190, records Poker Alice's death as Eva Tubbs. Poker Alice passed away on February 27, 1930, in Pennington County (specifically in Rapid City). This is an established fact that is also confirmed in the article as it stands today. That is the date in which Eva Tubbs is recorded, on that certificate, as having passed away. There is no Alice Tubbs, Ivers, Huckert, Duffield, or the like being recorded in the South Dakota, U.S. Death Index, as having been reported to passing away on that date. The conclusion then is that Eva was the legal and accepted name of Poker Alice.

Being that, that the official name as recorded on government documents regarding Poker Alice is Eva, the name should be reflected as such on the Poker Alice page. The surname of Ivers is not challenged here as it is accepted to be her maiden name. Historicalsturgis (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)HistoricalSturgis


 * I'm still not convinced your arguments are conclusive. On your site her saying she was English and from Devon is put down as her lying. Equally she could have been lying at her time of marriage. In these situations, per WP:NPOV, the article needs show there are different points of view (of her birth name). Per WP:COMMONNAME, we should be referring to her through the article as Poker Alice, except of course where we give her various other names. --John B123 (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't use my site as a source, so what my site says or doesn't say is irrelevant here. What I showed here is that according to government documents, which I cited, her legal name was Eva. Yes, she should be referred through the article as Poker Alice; however, that does not negate the fact that according to government documents, again, which I cited, and never did I mention my site, show her name as legally Eva. The record of her death is under the name Eva. So as far as the state was concerned there, her legal name was Eva.
 * While she could have been lying on her marriage certificate, it doesn't negate the fact that there are two government sources that provide this same information. Historicalsturgis (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Birth Place of Poker Alice
I propose that the birthplace of Poker Alice is changed to Virginia, as the evidence and the credible sources we have, confirm that.

The birthplace of Poker Alice is said to be numerous places, but the evidence available make Virginia the place that is most supported. First, looking at England, where there are multiple places where Alice is said to have been born, we can rule it out as a legitimate area as there simply is no credible evidence to support such. 1) The Births and Deaths Registration Act of 1836 made registration, through births, marriages, divorces, and deaths, compulsory. Yet, for 1851, or the years surrounding 1851 (the accepted birth year of Alice), there is no birth certificate for an Alice Ivers, or Eva Ivers (which was her legal name). 2) There is no passenger list, or other immigration records that list Alice Ivers, Eva Ivers, or a family that would fit the description of her family, from 1851-1865, that makes mention of her. 3) The claim that Alice was born somewhere in England rests solely on Alice having possibly mentioned it; however, she also mentioned else where that she was born in New York, as she told to Glen Ghere In Mildred Fielder's book on Poker Alice, Fielder says, based on accounts from people who knew Poker Alice, that she was born in Virginia. Virtually every modern book on the subject, or that mentions Poker Alice, mention that sources differ as to whether she was born in Virginia or England.

At best then, the article, as it stands now, is incomplete as source after source state that it's also a possibility that Poker Alice was born in Virginia, and Poker Alice herself mentioned that she was born in Virginia, as seen in Fielder's work, or was born in New York, as according to Glen Ghere. To make the statement, as the article does, that Poker Alice was born in England just isn't accurate, and is incomplete. As it stands, the article makes a statement, that isn't supported by any credible source, and is only part of what the majority of sources are saying. At the very least, to represent that sources also say she was born in Virginia, and possibly New York, should be added to the article.

However, we can go a step further in demonstrating that Poker Alice was born in Virginia. The fact that Poker Alice had family or was from Virginia is well attested to. For instance, in 1927, it is reported that she traveled to Virginia for an extended visit with relatives. . We are also told that she had brothers who died in the Battle of Malvern Hill That same article tells us that her father fought for the Confederate Army, and we can be certain her brothers did as well. The Confederate Army that participated in the Battle of Malvern Hill was the Army of Northern Virginia, which again suggests that her family was from Virginia. That the family was from Virginia is nearly universally accepted.

We can go one step further, and through government documents, show that the family didn't move to Virginia from England, but in fact, Alice was born there. In the 1920 Census, in Sturgis, Meade County, Document: Roll: T625_1723; Page: 10A; Enumeration District: 143, we have Eva E. Huckert, wife of George Huckert. In a separate topic on the Name of Alice, I demonstrated that her legal name was in fact Eva, based on her marriage certificate to George Huckert, and South Dakota Death Records which also list her as Eva. Demonstrating that this Eva Huckert is in fact Eva Tubbs, who is better known by her pseudo name, Alice Tubbs or Poker Alice, we can move on to definitive proof that Poker Alice was born in Virginia, as per census data. The 1920 Census data here indicates that Poker Alice was born in Virginia, and that both her father and mother were also born in Virginia.

There is no credible source showing that Alice was born in England, and the evidence we have, or more that there is a lack of evidence of her being born in England, even though we should expect such evidence, should reasonably discredit the idea that she was born in England. The sources clearly don't support such a view. What the sources do support is that Alice's family was from Virginia, fought for Virginia in the Civil War, and that official government documents, specifically the 1920 Census, lists Alice's birthplace as Virginia. Thus, her birthplace should be listed as Virginia.

Historicalsturgis (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Historicalsturgis


 * As above, where various birthplaces are given the article should neutrally show what the different sources show. Ie we can have that some sources birthplace as England and other sources as Virginia. --John B123 (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * So then actual sources don't exist? Because if we are just going to list every place that she could have been born, we need to also list New York, as I cited above, and then multiple places in England. Even though the evidence is clear here. The only concrete evidence we have of where she is born is the 1920 census, which places her birthplace as Virginia. At the very least then, since that is the only place that shows concrete evidence, it should be mentioned as such. That according to the government records, she was born in Virginia, while other claim half a dozen places in England, and another claims New York, even though both are not supported, and in the case of England, highly improbable.
 * You're not taking a neutral position here. Historicalsturgis (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * If not taking a neutral point of view means I don't take what you say as gospel then yes I'm guilty. Other authors give her place of birth as England, as I've previously pointed out, we can't just dismiss what they say because you don't agree. --John B123 (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Other authors gave her birth place as New York. I didn't simply say no, this isn't right, so believe me. I provided a vetted argument, which included various sources, that show that the most likely place she was born was Virginia. Can you point to a single author who has evidence that she was born in England? Certainly they should be able to point to a birth certificate, which were mandatory at the time? Or census data that shows she claimed to be born in England? No you can't. But I provided a clear and concise reason why it's improbable she was born in England, and government documents, as in a census, where she specifically claimed to have been born in Virginia, and where she claimed her parents were born in Virginia.
 * Simply saying other authors claim something isn't being neutral if they don't provide any evidence. I can point to many authors who said the Holocaust didn't happen, does that mean a thing? Nope. The fact you can point to an author who says something, without citing a source or providing any evidence, means nothing. Historicalsturgis (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems to me you are saying virtually everything that has previously been written about her is wrong and you are right. --John B123 (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If that was the case, why would I cite Fielder? Why would I cite many different news sources? And I'm not simply saying someone is wrong, or a view is wrong. I'm saying this is not historical, here's why, and here is what is historical based on actual evidence.
 * The fact is, people can write whatever they want. That doesn't mean that it should be taken seriously. On the Poker Alice page alone, there are points that are verifiably wrong. Where there should be no debate. I mention one with when George Huckert died. The page, as it stands now, says he died in 1913. I don't think the person who wrote that simply made it up. In fact, where they got that claim is clear; it's the legendsofamerica source. And that person who wrote that source didn't make it up either, as it can be found in a number of different articles. Does that mean we should simply accept that as a possibility or as being true because a source says so? Of course not, because we have verifiable and clear evidence that he died in 1924, as per his death certificate, and even his tombstone.
 * The issue is that there are hundreds of these same types of articles, these "sources," that simply regurgitate information for the simple reason as by them doing such, it helps drive people to their webpages. They aren't doing research on someone like Poker Alice. They are simply rewriting the same articles that are already there. They don't cite any sources, because they don't know what the sources are. And yes, I I'm saying most of those are wrong because they don't care if they are right or wrong.
 * Now, if you do any work in the wild west, historically speaking, what you will see is that much of what is said about these figures was myth, it was fictional. Calamity Jane is a great example of this, where much of her biographies were based on the tall tales she spun. And once historians started looking at them, those tall tales quickly fell down. Poker Alice is no different besides her never rising to the same fame someone like Calamity Jane did.
 * So yes, a lot of the information about her simply is wrong, because it was sensationalized, it was fictionalized, it was the product of dime store novels, that were meant to entertain. Yet, what I'm doing here is looking at the actual data. Looking at actual primary sources, citing them, and making an argument from them. I'm using the historical method in order to present the most probable image of Poker Alice. And to do that, I'm actually citing sources to back what I'm claiming.
 * I don't get why that is a problem? Why we must take every source at face value and pretend they are some how equal so we can say we are neutral? I don't get why doing actual history is frowned upon because it may mean that some other author is ignored because they are wrong? I've presented many sources backing what I'm saying. Primary sources, government sources, sources that are deemed credible in any institution of higher learning. In any school. Really in any venue. And I'm suggesting we use actual sources to inform this article, instead of relying on random writers who never cite where their information is coming from, who are verifiably wrong, simply because they are a "source." Historicalsturgis (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is your conclusions. For example, your section below Alice was not Married to Duffield. Because you can't find any records, it's not recorded that she ever used the name Duffield etc doesn't mean she wasn't married to him. Multiple other editors state she was married to him. I can't believe you expect us to ignore everybody else because you don't agree with them. --John B123 (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me where those multiple editors got their information? I can't, because they never cited a source. I'm not expecting you or anyone to ignore everyone else because I don't agree with them. I expect people to believe the facts, regardless who says them. And those facts should be bolstered by actual evidence, not just because multiple people repeated something.
 * Just because multiple people repeat an idea, it doesn't make it valid. What I'm proposing is that we actually allow the sources to speak. I'm proposing we follow the historical method, and not just accept something because multiple people repeat it. Again, I will point you to the fact that the article as it stands today says George Huckert died in 1913, which multiple editors passed on, and multiple sources say. Do we simply accept that as fact then? Or do we allow the evidence to speak for itself? What you're proposing here simply is illogical. Also, my argument wasn't because we can't find any records, or because she didn't use the name. You're being facetious here. I mentioned the flaw in using just that reasoning, and then expanded on the argument. (Historicalsturgis (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand Wikipedia. Where multiple established sources give an event happened, then a new theory that it didn't happen is put forward, it is regarded as WP:FRINGE. Also see FORUM: Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge. I have tried to reach some sort of compromise, for example some sources give her place of birth as England and others Virginia, but you have been intractable and suggest the article should only reflect you views. --John B123 (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What multiple established sources are you talking about? Before you added a bunch of questionable sources, there was one source that the article was based on, and as pointed out, there were major flaws, such as it claiming George Huckert died in 1913. The "established" source this article was based on was hardly established. Seeing that it cited no sources itself, it at best was hearsay. In that regard, it wasn't verifiable. The information I've discussed here isn't "fringe," as what I've posted here is actually the only verifiable information that has been posted on Poker Alice. As in, it's the only information that has sources that support it, and isn't based on just hearsay.
 * More so, this isn't original research. Sure, my site could be claimed as such, but I've dropped that. What I've posted and proposed in these topics in the talk section has been all based on verifiable sources, that are decades old. None of it is original in anyway. Especially since I have cited numerous sources that back up what I've said.
 * As for your compromise, you largely missed the point I made in refutation. If any source is considered credible, and thus we have to accept what it says, then where do we stop? I've cited sources that say both Virginia and New York as her birth place. The article says it is in Devon, England. Other sources name half a dozen other places in England. Do we give them all equal attention even though none of them actually provide any support for their claim? Where do we stop. Historicalsturgis (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Alice was not Married to Duffield.
I'm proposing that the article be corrected to show that Alice was married just twice, that she was never married to Frank Duffield, and her name should not reflect a non-existent marriage.

While popular recollections of Poker Alice state that she was married to a Frank Duffield, no evidence of such a marriage exists, and the story in which is told, specifically that Frank died in a mine explosion, goes against the evidence we do have.

First, there is no evidence of any such marriage having occurred. There are no news articles, marriage certificates, or any mention in any source, such as Census data or even local directories, that would suggest a marriage occur. While a lack of evidence is not evidence in and of itself, this lack of evidence becomes greater when considered with the facts that can be gathered. Alice never uses the Duffield name, as she does with both Tubbs and Heckert, and virtually never mentions Duffield.

The story she does tell of Duffield, that he was a mining engineer who died in a mining explosion appears to be fictional. No such mining fatality appears to be recorded. A Frank Duffield is not found in any recorded accident. No close variations of a Frank Duffield appear in any recorded accident. The closest we can get is a John Codizio, who was a mining engineer and was killed in a explosion in Lake County; however, there is no evidence Frank and John are the same person. There are no death records, burial records, or the like in Colorado from 1860-1880, for a Frank Duffield. If a Frank Duffield did die in a mining accident, the company he worked for never recorded it, Alice never recorded it anywhere, he doesn't appear to be buried in any known cemetery in the area, the government was never informed, as there are no death records. Alice herself even appears to contradict the story when she reportedly told Glen Ghere, a local who would spoke with Alice, that she wasn't married before Warren Tubbs.

As there is no evidence presented in the article, no citation for the claim, that Alice was married to a Frank Duffield, and since there is no evidence that such a marriage occur, and since the story that Alice relates appears fictional as the lack of evidence in this case is overwhelming when we should expect some verifying records, and since she appears to have even contradicted her story about having been married before Warren Tubbs, the article should be able to be corrected in order to reflect what the facts tell us. That Alice was not married to Frank Duffield, and she never took his name. That it was a non-existent marriage.

Historicalsturgis (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Historicalsturgis


 * Plenty of sources give her as married to Duffield. --John B123 (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Plenty of sources, such as the Poker Alice page, says George Huckert died in 1913. Doesn't mean it's correct. It means they are wrong. The sources you cited never cite a primary source. They cite no evidence for the marriage. So is that really credible? Does that make it so? And if you want to believe those sources without any evidence, then why not believe Glen Ghere, who I cited, that states that according to Poker Alice herself, she was never married to Duffield? At this point, you're simply picking and choosing what you want to believe without evidence.
 * I laid out an argument, supported by facts, that demonstrate that Poker Alice was not married to Duffield. No credible evidence to the contrary has been presented. At best, what this leaves us with the claim that some said she was married to Duffield, but the marriage at best was short lived and led to nothing. Historicalsturgis (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Alice was not known as a poker player, but as a faro player.
I propose that the article on Poker Alice should reflect that she did not become known for her poker playing, but for her faro playing. That it was the game of faro, not poker, that she participated in, made a name for herself with, and provided herself by.

In Alice's earliest recorded recollection, she billed herself as a faro player. By her own admission, it was the game of faro that she dealt, and it was specifically cards from the faro box that she brought to every camp. . In the article, she consistently says that she dealt faro at the camps, at the bars, in the gambling halls.

She was also known as the "Queen of Faro," which she tried to bill herself early on.

Since faro, not poker, was her game of choice, the game that she dealt, the game she billed herself as Queen of, and the game that brought her from one mining town to another, the article should reflect that. She was not known as a poker player, but as a faro player.

Historicalsturgis (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Historicalsturgis


 * Oppose --John B123 (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * On what grounds? I've supported my position with credible sources. On what grounds do you oppose such a change? Historicalsturgis (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your sources support she played Faro, they don't support she didn't play poker. There are many sources that give her as a poker player. --John B123 (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We can assume Alice played many card games. But do we list them all? I don't think so as it wouldn't add anything to the article. The point was that she was known, or became known for being a faro player. That she was known as the Queen of Faro. Really though, that she was a faro player or poker player could probably be deleted completely as it was not the reason she really became known nationwide. Her claim to fame is largely that she lived during the Wild West. So maybe the intro should be changed in order to reflect that instead. Historicalsturgis (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Personal Life section largely should be deleted and rewritten for lack of citations, and being historically inaccurate
I propose that the entire section, titled Personal Life, needs to be rewritten as it is historically inaccurate, and lacks any citations. I will break it down paragraph by paragraph.

1) As discussed in another topic, there is no evidence Alice was married to Duffield. Instead of hashing that out here, I will refer to that topic in the talk page. At the very least, it should be mentioned that there is no evidence of a marriage.

2) No citation is given to this claim. The claim is often handed out as a reason why Alice wasn't wealthy, because she spent it all. Such a claim should not be presented as fact, as there are no records from her winning big, from any of the places she claimed. Her earlier accounts of her travels directly contradicts this later claim that she would head out to New York on a fairly regular basis. And the earliest records we have of her, which are newspaper articles from the Black Hills, presents her as a thief. There is nothing that suggests she was known for splurging or dressing well besides much later explanations as to why she wasn't wealthy at the end of her life.

3) Alice did not meet Warren Tubbs and marry him until much later that 1890. By Alice's own account, she would not reach Deadwood until 1893 at the earliest. By the details she sets out in her first recollection, which she sticks to in later recollections, 1893 is the earliest could have been in Deadwood. That recollection is the Easy Come, Easy Go article cited below. The earliest known account of Alice in the Black Hills is an account of her being charged with assault in 1895. In addition, Alice, at that time, while known as Poker Alice, used the surname of Cummings. Up until the fall of 1899, at the very least, she was known as Poker Alice and Alice Cummings. More so, up until at least 1905, according to the 1905 Census data, Warren G Tubbs was single. As there is no wedding certificate, we can be sure they weren't married until at least 1905. The drunken miner story could certainly be true, but the date of their marriage, and the time when they meet up, simply is not according to the records we have.

4) Alice and Warren had no kids. Alice did have at least 2 kids, a son and daughter. According to Warren Tubbs obituary, he had two step-children (one step-daughter and one step-son), that were Alice's children. Warren had no kids of his own. In addition, we know that Alice's son was born in 1869, as he was 65 years old in 1934. This means Alice had her son long before she moved to South Dakota, and before meeting Tubbs. Also, per Tubbs obituary, as well as his tombstone, he died on December 31, 1909, not in 1910. The claim that house painting was the most likely cause for his tuberculosis is speculation, and is not supported by any evidence.

5) George Huckert would be the second husband of Alice. Huckert did not die in 1913. He was not married to Alice until 1918, as per their wedding certificate which is cited below. Huckert was still living in 1920, as per the 1920 census, which is cited below. As per: South Dakota Department of Health. Index to South Dakota Death Records, 1905-1955. Pierre, SD, USA: South Dakota Department of Health: Certificate 94153, George Huckert died on October 12th, 1924. His tombstone also shows he died in 1924. The fact this was so off in the current article should be a testament to how flawed and historically inaccurate the article currently stands.

Edit: Later citations were added to this section; however, I propose they largely be removed as they often don't make the claims that they are supposed to support, and the sources are unreliable.

In paragraph 2, citation 7 was a reference for the claim that Alice was known to splurge here winnings, and she spent all the money she earned in New York to keep up with the latest fashion and to distract her opponents. The sources is Upstairs Girls, which elsewhere on this talk page has been shown to be unreliable. The specific issue here is that the claim as made in the source relies on rumor. The claim is not verified or reliable. To make matters worse, this particular work often rests on rumor or legend, for many claims that it makes, making it a questionable source.

In paragraph 3, citation 4, Women of the Western Frontier, is used to support the claim that Alice met Warren Tubbs in 1890. As pointed out above, according to the 1905 census, Tubbs was single. It was also pointed out that Alice was known as Alice Cummings up until 1899, and that by her own account, she was not in Deadwood until at least 1893. Further more, the source never cites any evidence of them meeting in 1890. And as has been pointed out in the section about questionable sources, this source is not reliable, and makes major historical errors such as claiming that Alice spent the last 10 years of her life in an old folks home, when, as pointed out not only in the Poker Alice article, but elsewhere in this talk page, that she was still being arrested as late as 1925 for running a house of prostitution. For that reason, as this source is not reliable, it should not be used to support any claim.

Still in paragraph 3, citation 6 is used twice, to reference that it was in Bedrock Tom's saloon where Tubbs and Alice met, and that they were married shortly after Tubbs was attacked with a knife. Coincidently, this source disagrees with when Alice and Tubbs met, as it places Alice in Arizona in 1891, in Colorado, and Bob Ford's saloon, in 1892, and only after that, to Deadwood. While the story of the shooting and meeting with Tubbs could be true, it couldn't have happened in 1890 as stated in that paragraph. As Poker Alice herself seems to support at least the basis of the story, it should be included, but the details have to be cleared up.

Still in paragraph 3, citation 8 is used as a reference for the claim that Alice brandished a .38 at Tubbs' attacker. The source, Frontier Gambling does not support that. Instead, it goes further, saying that Alice shot the man, and didn't just threaten as the article here states. Citation 6 also says Alice shot the man. If we take either of these citations seriously, the article should thus be changed to say that Alice shot a man in the arm, not just threatened them.

Paragraph 4, citation 6, from Frontier Gambling, is used to make the claim that Tubbs and Alice had 7 children, and they moved to the Moreau River to be away from the world of poker. As shown above though, Tubbs' obituary said he had no children of his own, and only 2 step children. Further, the source claims that Tubbs and Alice were married for 3 decades, an impossibility based on their own account, as they have the two married after 1892, and Tubbs dying in 1910. Not even a full 2 decades. As this source can't even remain consistent in their own narrative, it's clear it is not reliable. The statement about moving to Moreau River is most likely historical, as it can be found in other reliable sources, and land records has Huckert living in that area, and it was said he lived near Tubbs. However, more credible sources will be needed to demonstrate that as Frontier Gambling is clearly not reliable.

Citation 6 is also used to reference that Tubbs died in 1910. However, as per his obituary, and his tombstone, he died in 1909. As citation 6 can't get basic facts straight, it should be removed as unreliable.

The story about Alice driving to find her husband a proper burial is most likely true, but will need a better citation as Frontier Gambling is not a reliable source. The portion about Huckert has also been partially updated already to properly reflect when he died.

Historicalsturgis (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Historicalsturgis


 * Oppose --John B123 (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? On what grounds do you raise opposition? Historicalsturgis (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the sources for the existing text are unreliable. Where sources disagree we should be adding both accounts to the article. --John B123 (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Simply saying I don't disagree isn't a real argument. It adds nothing to the discussion. I've demonstrated why those sources are not reliable. If you don't have a reason for them being reliable, then there is no reason to assume they are reliable. I've detailed how they are historically inaccurate, how they contradict each other, how they even contradict themselves, and how they clearly didn't do any proper research.
 * Just because a source exists, doesn't mean it needs to be represented or deserves to be represented. If you can't offer a reason for why they are reliable, then there is no reason to assume they are. Historicalsturgis (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Let me put it another way then, I find your arguments that these sources are unreliable unconvincing. --John B123 (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's perfectly fine. But you need to express why. We can take it point by point if you want to. Simply saying I disagree is not entering into a discussion in good faith.
 * Let's start with Frontier Gambling. It states Tubbs and Alice were married in 1892, and that Tubbs died in 1910. It also says they were married for 3 decades. Is that accurate or reliable? I don't think one can legitimately make an argument that such a clear error could be reliable.
 * Moving forward, I've cited multiple sources here, as well as on the actual Poker Alice page, ranging from Tubbs' obituary, to official government documents, as in death records, that list his death in 1909. That is established fact, that is easy to verify. Can one reasonably claim that Tubbs died in 1910 then, and remain reliable? I don't think so. If it disagrees with established and verifiable facts, then how can it be reliable?
 * Or, say Upstairs Girls. How is it reliable if it states clearly it is relying on rumors and legend? Both of which they imply can't fully be trusted, or we have to be careful in trusting? That clearly doesn't pass what Wikipedia states is reliable.
 * It's okay you're not convinced, but simply saying I don't agree isn't a real discussion point, nor is it a discussion made in good faith. Historicalsturgis (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok, lets try this another way. You say various sources are unreliable because of discrepancies. Having looked through your website, I find discrepancies there. Using your logic, then what you say is unreliable. Limiting it to this page, you state that Alice didn't play poker giving sources that show she played faro. There was nothing there to support she didn't play poker. You also state she was not married to Duffield based entirely on your own research, because you found nothing isn't the same thing as she wasn't married to him. With regard to George Huckert, there is a death certificate for 1924, but no evidence that this the same person.


 * Obviously you have spent a lot of time researching Alice's life and no doubt your findings can enrich the article. However, on Wikipedia, where different authors disagree we either present both/multiple points of view or the most commonly held view. There are no doubt various myth and legends about Alice and the lines of reality are blurred, as is common with other biographies of this time. I suspect you have tried to sort out what is fact from what is fiction. I can only commend you for that, but where you cannot find evidence that supports previously written biographies I disagree that this shows certain events or facts are wrong. What I am saying is that where you have found new facts they should be added to the article, but where you haven't found evidence to support widely held beliefs then lack of evidence from your research isn't enough to remove those parts from the article. --John B123 (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Bringing up my website, or making it personal by saying what I say, is unreliable, has no place in this discussion. I'm not citing my site, nor am I simply voicing my views. That is uncalled for and has no place in such a discussion.
 * 2) On this page, I never said Poker Alice didn't play poker. I said she wasn't known for playing poker, but she was known for playing faro. That her early claim to fame was being a faro dealer, and that is why she was billed as the queen of faro. More so, I stated that yes, she played poker, and probably played many card games.
 * 3) I didn't state she wasn't married to Duffield just on my own evidence. I cited Glen Ghere, or example, who met with Alice and said the same thing. And if you read my last response there, I was willing to accept, for this article, that she may have been married, but it was short lived and led to nothing. For a revision of this article then, it would be better to state that her marriage to Duffield is not for certain.
 * 4) There isn't just a death certificate for 1924. I've laid out this multiple times. His tombstone, which I've linked a photo to (and I can certainly go take another photo of his tombstone) says he died in 1924. It's also clearly marked as being the Huckert who was married to Alice. More so, it has been clearly established by his marriage certificate and the 1920 census that he was living in 1918 and 1920. Also, if you need, I can lay out the reason why we know this death certificate is George's, as in it agrees with his tombstone, and he is the only known George Huckert who was living in the area at the time.
 * 5) Wikipedia policy never states that points must be accepted, or that all authors and sources are reliable. I've called into question the reliability of the sources you gave. Arguing that my website isn't reliable is not a defense for other sources being reliable. At best, it would make both sources unreliable.
 * 6) Finally, when the sources contradict themselves, they shouldn't be considered reliable, as they clearly didn't even fact check their own work. When they make such glaring historical errors, as saying someone died a decade before when they are officially registered as having died, it's clear that source isn't known for fact checking. When those sources make original claims, found no where else, that disagree with every other account, they can't be considered reliable. And if you can't defend the sources you provided, there is no reason to accept them. A challenge has been placed on those sources for their credibility, a challenge that has been clearly laid out, so they shouldn't simply be accepted. Historicalsturgis (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * In response:


 * 1) I'm not saying you have cited your site, but it obviously states your views so is relevant.
 * 2) On this page, I never said Poker Alice didn't play poker. But you did remove it from the page.
 * 3) This illustrates why I am having problems agreeing with you. Alice stating she wasn't married before Tubbs is accepted yet Alice stating she was born in England isn't. Either we accept what Alice says or not, we cannot cherry-pick what fits in and reject what doesn't. Following your logic on other sources, if we reject part of what she said then we should not rely on it on other occasions.
 * 4) The photograph of findagrave only shows 'George Huckert 1855-1924.
 * 5) You have questioned the reliability of every other source that has been put forward. Although you have denied it, it really comes across as where other people disagree with your views they are wrong and unreliable.
 * 6) I agree that where a fact or event is only mentioned by a single author it shouldn't be accepted. If multiple authors mention it then it's a different matter. Conversely, where multiple authors mention an event or fact, that shouldn't be overridden by a single author with a different view. You have outlined why you think certain authors are unreliable based on certain discrepancies. Even accepting they were wrong on a certain point, I don't agree that makes them unreliable in total.


 * --John B123 (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) That's a personal attack. My site is irrelevant. My views are irrelevant, which is why I've accepted a number of compromises.
 * 2) I removed it from the intro of the page as the intro is understood as listing what a person is notable for. That she played poker is not what made her notable. What made her initially notable was that she played faro, as it was the game that allowed her to make a living, and is a key portion to her life.
 * 3) Actually, I've created a section here awhile back that suggested a new section be created to address the controversy of the life of Alice. In that section I make it clear that she claimed to be born in every place. Obviously then, her claims in this regard can't be trusted as she contradicts herself. That doesn't mean she can't be trusted elsewhere. It doesn't invalidate her completely. It makes her human and a primary source. That's also why I don't rely on a single source for claims. Secondary sources should differ in that regard though as they should be able to analyze the information and fact check it. If they fail to do that, then by definition, they aren't reliable secondary sources.
 * 4) It has a plaque on it that says he was Alice's husband. I suggest you look more closely. And even if we ignore that, we still have verifiable and concrete evidence he was living in 1918, and 1920. Again, making the claim that he died in 1913 an exceptional claim, and without evidence, we can't accept it.
 * 5) I've given clear reasons why those sources should be questioned. Have you personally read those source you linked to? Or did you simply search for any source that could confirm a point? I'm guessing it was the latter, as often, as I've pointed out, the sources don't even confirm ideas. I'm not even disagreeing all the time with what the sources are saying, but pointing out how they can't be trusted as a reliable source because they don't pass the standards. If I'm wrong, please support any of those sources. You continually avoid doing so so there is no reason to accept them reliable.
 * 6) You cited one source that said Alice lived her last 10 years of her life in an old folks home, and that she was born in New York, to a wealthy family, where she learned how to play poker. Virtually every claim made in that source, as I pointed out in the Questionable Sources section is pretty much unique to that source. Yet you still cited it because in one case it supported a view you wanted it to support. How can you possibly claim it is reliable if the vast majority of it is unique claims that aren't supported by anything? Another source, as I've pointed out multiple times, clearly states that many of its claims are based on rumor and legend. That by definition is not reliable. If a secondary source can clearly be shown as to lack fact checking, then it's not reliable by definition. If those sources are reliable, then please offer a reason why. Historicalsturgis (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

1) You were the one who made a point about your personal views, I simply replied.

2) Only in your view. Every other work about her I've seen gives her as notable as a poker player.

3) There seems to be so much about her that is controversial about her that I doubt there would be much left in the rest of the article. I would suggest it needs to be addressed throughout the article. I think that would be a good idea. You have already pointed out that every point from every author doesn't need to be included. I would suggest multiple authors need to state something for it to be included.

Obviously then, her claims in this regard can't be trusted as she contradicts herself. That doesn't mean she can't be trusted elsewhere. It doesn't invalidate her completely. It makes her human and a primary source. Yet authors are invalidated total over one part. You are being inconsistent.

4) Having enlarged the picture it does.

5) As above, you are being inconsistent. I don't need to defend them as your argument to disbar them isn't convincing.

6) When I added the references I didn't support anything, I simply added references to what had already been written.

We're clearly going around in circles here. I've no objection to you expanding and improving the article. Given the controversies, myths and legends that surround the subject, the article has to be balanced and neutral, taking into account the various views commonly held. You obviously know a lot about the subject and feel you have got 'to the truth'. That may well be the case, but until that is universally accepted then the article needs to reflect the other viewpoints. Wikipedia is not the place to right the wrongs of written history. --John B123 (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Section on Alice's Death needs a rewrite
I propose the section on the death of Alice needs a major rewrite as it is historically inaccurate and lacks any citations.

Alice was never forced to retire because of the military. The implication made by the article is that Tubbs, after having a run in with soldiers in 1913, was forced to close the doors of her house of ill repute. However, in 1915, Tubbs had another run in with the military at the same house. The fact that the previous section even says that Alice had to receive a pardon for bootlegging in 1928 suggests that she never stopped because of the military or any religious issues. What the record shows is that her "resort" continued to operate as late as 1925 After that, she seemed to have abandoned the resort because of her conviction, but at late of 1928, she was still running part of that business, which was bootlegging.

As for her death, Alice did go in for an operation for gall stones during the first week in February, 1930. By the 8th, she was improving from the operation and was going to be allowed to go home. However, she would be confined to her hospital bed until she eventually passed away.

So while the account of her death, in the current article, is basically right, it lacks citations and is incomplete. The first part of the section on her death is simply wrong, for the reasons shown above.

Historicalsturgis (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Historicalsturgis

Poker's Palace and Jailtime revision
I propose that the section titled Poker's Palace and Jailtime is seriously revised as it is historically inaccurate, and it lacks any citations.

There is no citation for "Poker's Palace" opening in 1910. The earliest reference to Poker's place is July of 1913. A later article mentions that the trouble had started a week or so prior to that incident. While one would reason that the establishment had existed prior to such happenings, a citation would be needed to establish that it was in 1910 that it was founded. At best, we can say in the early 1910s, Alice founded her resort.

Moving to the name of the resort, there is no citation to support it was called Poker's Palace. The articles about the shooting in 1913, cited above, don't give a name for the place, often just calling it the resort of Poker Alice. In the 1920s, it was commonly referred to as "Poker Alice's" resort.

The establishment was not in Fort Meade, as such an establishment would have been prohibited on a military reservation. The building originally sat on the south side of Bear Butte Creek, where Sturgis City Park now is, which meant it was on the road to Fort Meade, but still on the edge of Sturgis. It was not in Fort Meade.

The comments about the 1913 shootings aren't accurate. Two articles on the are cited above. What is documented is that 10-11 days before the actual shooting, some trouble had formed between Alice and members of Troop K. That trouble was rekindled later in the week, and then again on the night of the shooting. The shooting was not on a Sunday, but on a Monday. So the Sunday thing just doesn't factor in. The issue, as described in the articles, is that a number of soldiers went to Tubbs house and wanted to start a "rough house." They were refused admittance, and the soldiers started attacking the house. Alice then opened fire, and 5 people were shot. One was killed by a shot to the head. Another was shot in the lung, and it was thought he would die, but ended up recovering. And three others were hit, including a civilian. Alice was arrested, along with six "inmates."

There is no citation that suggests that Alice passed her time reading the Bible and smoking cigars. None of that appears in the primary sources. Alice would not be charged in the killing or shooting, as it was deemed that such force was justified as she was defending property. She was charged with keeping a house of ill-fame. There was no trial, as there was no complaint made as per the article.

Alice's saloon was not shutdown after the incident. Evidence for it's continued operation is substantial. In 1915, there was another altercation with soldiers at Alice's resort. As referenced above, Alice's resort through the early 1920s was known as Poker Alice's resort. In 1925, Alice would finally be convicted of charges of operating a house of prostitution, and that appears to be the end of her running a house of ill-repute as it isn't mentioned again. The big issue here with the article as it stands is that it is contradictory. While it claims Alice shut down her saloon after 1913, it then goes on to say that Alice, into her 60s, would continue to run the Poker Palace and in 1928, was finally arrested for running the establishment. The article, as it stands, simply makes no sense.

The pardon portion is correct though, at least in part. In 1928, Alice was arrested for possessing liquor. She was found guilty and sentenced to a short time in the state penitentiary. When she received her pardon the next month, the charge, as claimed, was in regards to operating a house of ill repute, which appears to be related to the 1925 incident. Her pardon was granted on December 20th, 1928.

Edit: Later sources were added to this section, but I propose they be removed as they do not make the claims that the article states. The first reference, which is citation 11 which goes to Bad Boys of the Black Hills, is used to support the claim that Alice opened her resort in 1910. The reference does not state that though. It references that Warren Tubbs was died in 1910, and then incorrectly claims that George Huckert died in 1913. It is only after that, 1913, that it is mentioned that Alice opened her resort. The first mention of her resort in the source is in 1913, and in reference to the infamous incident with the soldiers. However, it does not state that she opened her resort in 1910, and the only reference there to 1910 is the death of Tubbs. However, even this is incorrect, as Warren Tubbs died in 1909 as per his obituary, and as recorded on his tombstone. These serious flaws in the work should also disqualify it as being accurate or reliable on the subject.

The second reference, with is citation 4, Frontier Gambling, is used to support a statement that Alice opened "Poker's Palace" in Fort Meade, that offered gambling and liquor downstairs, and prostitution upstairs. The source says none of that. It directly contradicts the idea the resort was in Fort Meade, which would have been impossible anyways as such establishments were not allowed in military reservations, by saying that the resort was on Bear Butte Creek, near Fort Meade. It does not give a name to Alice's resort. In addition, it claims that Alice was doing land office business, which is a unique claim, that no other source makes, and is not cited. Alice is never said to be in the work of land in anyway. The stories, as cited above, about the shooting also place it on Monday, not Sunday, as this source puts it. Also, it is well established that 5 shots were fired, not one, as this source claims. This source also makes a weird claim by saying that only one shot was fired and it happened to kill one solider and hit another solider. As per the cited articles above that detail the shooting, the soldier who died was shot in the head, and the one who was seriously wounded was shot in the chest. This account would almost imply a magical single bullet caused the damage. These serious flaws in the work should also disqualify it as being accurate or reliable on the subject.

Citation 12 in this section also references Bad Boys of the Black Hills, as as established above, is neither reliable or credible. However, in this particular case, it lacks information. Only 2 shots are mentioned, when it's established, in the citations above that deal with the shooting, that 5 shots were made, and 5 people were injured. There also was no murder trial, as explained above, as no charges were made to begin with. This is more reason to not treat this source as reliable.

Citation 5, which goes to Upstairs Girls also doesn't help the case. While it does say that Poker Alice and her girls were arrested, it relegates much of this to legend. As in, it opens the section on this 1913 incident by saying, if Poker Alice legend can be believed... The story is far from legend, as it was covered quite well by local sources at the time. The account in Upstairs girls suffers reliability because it suggests that none of this can be believed, as it is part of a legend. That is hardly a credible source.

Citation 4 is used to support that Poker Alice claimed self-defense in the shooting and was acquitted. As shown above though, there were no charges brought up against Alice as it was deemed she was acting in defense of her property. So the case was dismissed. To further complicate this, this source contradicts itself as it says the identity of the shooter isn't known, or is unclear, but then moves to say that Alice was seen as acting in self-defense, which would make her the shooter. I've also previously dealt with this reference above, and thus won't continue on as why it isn't reliable.

Citation 4 is used a final time in regards to the pardon of Alice. While it is established that Alice received a pardon in 1928, the source does not fully back up the claim made in the article, as it only focuses on her being a madame, while the article cites running a brothel and bootlegging as the charges against Alice. This is a minor issue, but as shown above, the source lacks general credibility, and these minor issues are only exacerbated by that.

Historicalsturgis (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Historicalsturgis

Questionable References
I propose that questionable references be removed from the Poker Alice Page as they are neither historically accurate, cite their sources, and are generally unreliable. I will break them down below.

1) The Old West Legends source is an unverified website. It's not produced by a historian, but by an individual who's background is marketing. The site is a collection of similar articles that never include citations, and are largely copy and pasted from other similar websites. A great example of how this site is historically unreliable is the claim it makes that George Huckert died in 1913. Yet, he wasn't married until 1918 according to his marriage certificate, was living in 1920 according to the 1920 census, and didn't pass away until 1924, as per his tombstone and death certificate. It's a major oversight that shows how the source lacks credibility.

As the Poker Alice Page is primarily based on that article (later sources were only added recently, and as we will see, are not credible either), which raises serious questions about the entire page.

2) The Women of the Western Frontier source again does not cite any sources for their information. The first place it is used as a citation disagrees with a prior claim made on the page. The page initially claims that Alice was born in Devon, England, but this source makes the claim she was born in Sudbury, which is in Suffolk County, England. It claims the Ivers family lived in New York, where there is no evidence for such a claim, and contradicts most accounts of Alice's story. Alice herself never made the claim to be from New York. It also again contradicts the page by saying she learned to play cards in New York, when the page says she learned in Colorado. It also claims that the Ivers settled in Deadwood, a claim no other source makes. It also claims she married Warren Tubbs in 1890, however, as demonstrated in a previous topic in this talk page, Tubbs was single until at least 1905, as per Census records. The final major error in the source is the claim that Alice spent the last 10 years of her life in an Old Folks residence in Deadwood. This is verifiable false as she died in 1930, and in the 1920s, as even the Poker Alice page says, she operated a brothel where she lived. The source not only contradicts the page, but doesn't cite a single source, and is verifiable wrong on many cases.

3) Poker's Strangest Hands is another source which doesn't cite any source for their information. This source shows the problem with the birth place of Alice, as it names to possibilities. It provides no sources for its claims about Duffield and Alice's life together, and the years that are mentioned can't be rectified with the account she gave to Courtney Ryley Cooper, in the article that has already been cited below. This source also claims that George Huckert was a gambler, which there is no evidence for. Generally he is portrayed as a handy man, or farmer. Gambling is never mentioned in regards to him. One of the biggest errors, besides the timeline that doesn't work, is the claim that she shot a soldier in 1920 for wanting to enter her establishment on a Sunday. In the Poker's Palace topic on this talk page, I dove into the actual sources for what happened, and showed that it was in 1913 that she shot and killed a man, and that it was on a Monday. The story of her being acquitted for this is also fictional, as she was never charged for murder, as discussed in the section about Poker's Palace.

4) Frontier Gambling once again offers no citations for it's claims, and thus isn't credible. The source starts off instantly being incorrect when it says she worked in Charley Ford's dancehall. According to her recollection recorded by Cooper, which is cited below, it was Bob Ford's hall. The Poker Alice page also attaches Alice to Bob Ford. According to the Wikipedia page on Charley Ford, he died from suicide, and was not gunned down in his dance hall, as this source claims. The source also repeats the false claim that she shot a soldier on a Sunday. As presented on the topic on that subject above, it was on a Monday, according to the original news reports. This article also makes the claim the she was doing land office business, which none of accounts mention. It also says she only fired one shot, which killed one man, and injured another. However, again, referring back to the topic on Alice's Palace, the actual story says she fired 5 shots, and hit 5 people, with one dying.

5) Upstairs Girls, yet again, no citations. The first error this account makes is that it says she was a poker player. According to Alice, she was a faro player, as is outlined in the topic above about her being a faro player. The work is also very speculative, by suggesting folks must have talked about..., and similar phrases, while never showing that was ever the case. It's simply mere speculation. It also romanticizes her life, such as claiming that Alice found love with George Huckert, when virtually every other source says it was more for business reasons. As in, she owed him money, and getting married was cheaper. It also makes the claim that George died shortly after they were married. But according to their wedding certificate, they were married in 1918, and remained married until he died in 1924. The timeline is also severely questionable as it presents Huckert dying, and then in 1913, business increasing at her brothel, which led to a shooting. However, Huckert didn't marry Alice until after that incident. It also talks of the event as part of the Poker Alice legend, implying that it may not be accurate, but the incident is well documented, as presented in the topic above about Poker's Palace.

6) 100 Oklahoma Outlaws still adds no citations. It lists her as the only daughter of a schoolmaster, yet by her own accounts, she had a sister and two brothers. It also makes the claim that they moved to Virginia when Alice was in her late teens; however, Alice own account has her brothers dying in the Battle of Malvern Hill, in 1862. This would make Alice at most, 11. To the credit of this source, it says Tubbs and Alice were married in 1907, which would line up with the census data, even though most other sources would disagree. I would say those other sources are wrong though as they aren't supported by actual data. As with many of these other sources, it claims that the incident with her killing a soldier happened in the 1920s, but as covered already, all the primary sources put it in 1913. As in the Poker's Palace topic above, it is not true that this incident led to her closing her house of ill-repute, as in 1915, she would have another run in with soldiers. And even in 1925, a decade after the incident, she was still in business.

7) As with all of these sources, Bad Boys doesn't cite any sources (at least for the most case, there are exceptions). This source makes an argument that she was born in Virginia, which is the argument I've made. And to it's credit, it does cite a work by Mildred Fielder for this claim. This work makes the claim that Tubbs and Alice had 7 children. At best, the two were married in 1905, as the 1905 census still lists him as single. He died in 1910, which makes it virtually impossible for them to have 7 kids. More so, according to Tubbs obituary, cited below, he had no children, but had two step-children. It also makes the incorrect claim, as pointed out multiple times now, that George Huckert died in 1913. Huckert died in 1924, as has been shown multiple times. It also claims she was acquitted of murder. However, as shown in the Poker's Palace topic above, she was never tried, as no charges were brought against her.

A number of errors in each work have been overlooked, as it would become even more redundant to continually point out the same inaccuracies in each work. For the most part, no claim in any of these works offer a citation. The one interesting exception is citation in the Bad Boys work, which cites Mildred Fielder as showing that Alice was born in Virginia. Since the vast majority of claims made in these sources are either wrong, as shown here, contradictory, or lack any evidence and citation, their verifiability is questionable and they can't be considered reliable. By Wikipedia standards, they are questionable at best and should not be considered reliable.

Since most of the references were also added only recently, the motivation for their addition is also questionable, and one can reasonable assume that their inclusion is based on confirmation bias, instead of actual research or their veracity.

With all that said, I propose said sources are stricken from the article.

Historicalsturgis (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Historicalsturgis


 * Part of your complaint about the article was, justifiably, that it lacked references, so I have added references. Your claim of bias is unjustified and offensive. Now please stop trying to use Wikipedia to further your theories. --John B123 (talk) 06:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Does adding references, that are unreliable according to Wikipedia standards, make an article any better? Does adding references who never cite their sources add anything? I don't think so. Having unreliable references, that don't cite their sources add nothing to the article, and thus still means this article is lacking actual references.
 * I think my claim of confirmation bias is pretty clear. Your goal wasn't to add substance to this article, but to prop up claims that you align with. This is especially clear since the references you cited often contradicted the article as a whole, were clearly historically inaccurate, and lacked citations, yet in key areas, they agreed with what you wanted them to agree with. Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt, the references were not added in good faith, as, as I've pointed out above, they are filled with historical inaccuracies, do not stand up to the standards that Wikipedia has set out for reliable sources, and often contradict severely parts of the Poker Alice article. The fact you can't defend those sources also speaks a lot.
 * I'm also not trying to use Wikipedia to further my theories. I'm simply trying to make an article historically accurate. I've drawn out all of my proposals, and have cited primary sources to back up the changes that I'm proposing to make. None of the positions that I've taken are new or unheard of. The positions I've taken here are well supported with actual sources. They are positions that were around long before I was born. So to call them my theories is unjustified.
 * The fact is, the references you attached to the article are not credible. When they make such serious errors such as claiming that George Huckert died in 1913, when his death certificate and tombstone say 1924, is a mistake one shouldn't over look. When your references say that Alice lived the last 10 years of her life in an old folks home, when clearly she was still running a brothel and being arrested for that through the 1920s, is a mistake one shouldn't over look. Ironically though, the one time one of your references does cite a source, it's to make the argument that Alice was born in Virginia, as per Alice's biographer, Mildred Fielders, who makes that claim based on what Alice actually said.
 * I think my positions have been supported exceptionally well, and I think it has been demonstrated that your opposition is unjustified, and uninformed. Because of that, I will move that my changes be allowed to be made. Historicalsturgis (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This conversation is a waste of time, and I'm not prepared to continue listening to your insults any longer. I suggest you go to Reliable sources/Noticeboard and try to convince them that virtually every other author on the subject is wrong and you are right. --John B123 (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't insulted you. I've tried to make corrections to this Article. You've insulted me multiple times by falsely implying that I think everyone else is wrong, even though I'm citing other people when I make a proposal. You've also falsely misrepresented what I've said elsewhere, and you refuse to actually deal with anything I say. Instead you just repeat the same false claim, that since people say something is true, it must be true, even though the evidence points otherwise. Case in point, even though I've cited numerous sources that show George Huckert died in 1924, you decided it was in the best interest of this article to cite a source that says he died in 1913. Even though his tombstone says he died in 1924. I think his tombstone, as well as his death certificate, which has been cited by me many times, is a good example of a source that shows that previous authors are wrong when they make the false claim that he died in 1913.
 * Again though, I'm not saying every author is wrong and I'm right. To suggest such only shows that you haven't paid attention to what I've posted, as I've cited dozens of sources, from a wide variety of authors, in order to demonstrate the points I'm making. And unlike you did with your references, my sources are considered reliable. Historicalsturgis (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Changes to Early Life and Addition of New Section
I propose that the section titled Early Life is revised as it currently contains unreliable sources, sources which contradict other areas of the article, and it contains historical inaccuracies.

I also propose that a new section be added that addresses the controversy or disagreement about the birthplace of Poker Alice.

Concerning the birth place of Poker Alice, the article as it stands states that she was born in Devon, England, at least in the intro portion. The Early life section also states she was born in England, but they lack citations as to where the information came from, and they demonstrate part of the issue with her birth place. Source 2, Women of the Western Frontier, states that alice was born in Sudbury, England. Sudbury though is in Suffolk County, and not Devon County. Source 3, Poker's Strangest Hands, claims that Alice was born either in Devon, or in Sudbury, either in 1853 or 1851. As I've shown elsewhere, and is citation 1 below on this page, Glen Ghere, a local of the Black Hills who sat down and chatted with Poker Alice, says that Alice herself said she was born in New York. According to Mildred Fielder, in Poker Alice, Alice is said to be born in Sudburg, Devonshire, England. This is a town doesn't exist, but multiple sources have repeated this claim that can't be true. Adding to the confusion, source 8 on the Poker Alice Page, Bad Boys of the Black Hills, makes the claim that Mildred Fields (a misspelling of her last name) says that Alice was born in Virginia, and puts extra emphasis on Mildred, by calling her Alice's biographer, and even implies that the reason for the change was to seemingly disguise that her parents were Irish, as the Irish were seen as less desirable. As I've shown elsewhere, the 1920 Census, in Sturgis, Meade County, Document: Roll: T625_1723; Page: 10A; Enumeration District: 143, lists her birth place as Virginia, and her parents' birthplace as Virginia.

Adding to the issue is that there are no birth certificates to confirm the details. This also causes an issue for the claim she was born in England, as the Births and Deaths Registration Act of 1836 made registration, through births, marriages, divorces, and deaths, compulsory in England. And this is all complicated as various sources, for all of these claims, make the assertion that Alice herself confirmed that she was born in each place. Because of this controversy, and the mess behind it, I propose a section be created to showcase the conflicting reports, to compile the primary sources, and to refrain from making a definitive statement about her birth place, besides that it is challenged.

Moving forward, the article claims that Alice moved to Virginia when she was 12. This is a historical inaccuracy regardless of where she may have been born. First, no citation is given for this, and the claim is never made by Alice herself in any of the sources we have. It also is contradicted by other sources, such as source 2, Women of the Western Frontier, which says the Ivers family moved to the United states in 1865. This would make her 14 years old, as the accepted date of her birth is February 17 of 1851, as is referenced on her tombstone. She was also accepted as being 79 years old, which makes 1851 the plausible date. If one would argue that the 1853 date is more likely, then we run into the issue that we must also enter in to the equation other supposed birth dates. Such as, according to her marriage certificate (South Dakota Department of Health. South Dakota Marriage Index, 1905-1914, 1950-2013 and South Dakota Marriage Certificates, 1905-1949, 2014-2018. Pierre, SD, USA: South Dakota Department of Health. Certificate 66239), in 1918, she claims to be 52 years old, which puts her death in 1866. Which throws all of this off. However, we do know that she was willing to fib with her age, as she claims to be 74 in 1927, as per sources 6 below on this talk page. To make matters worse, source 7 on the Alice page, 100 Oklahoma Outlaws, says Alice moved to Virginia in her late teens, which square up with none of the above. And to further complicate it, she would be reported at being 75, 77, and 79 in various reportings of her death.

The main issue though is that by having Alice move to the US when she is 12, or in 1865, it contradicts her own story. According to Alice, as referenced in source 3 below on this talk page, she claims her brothers died in the Battle of Malvern Hill. A battle that occurred in 1862. This would mean that Alice and her family, if they were not in fact born in Virginia, had to move there prior to 1862, meaning Alice was a young girl, no more than 11 years old.

The last historical inaccuracy, and really confusion, is whether Alice went to a boarding school and when. As the article stands now, there is confusion. It states that as a young woman, she attended boarding school in Virginia, but the very next sentence says that in her late teens, her family moved to Colorado. While a young woman can be in her teens, it does cause confusion by referring to her in two different manners so closely together.

That is a minor point. The bigger issue is that Alice never said she went to a boarding school. What Alice says is that she went to a school, and graduated from a woman's college, but she would not identify the college as she said they wouldn't be proud of her. Her own claim lines up with her birth being in 1851, as it would give her enough time to go to school before her family moved to Colorado by 1870 by most accounts.

Splitting this section in to two parts, would allow the controversy around her birth, and even age, to be addressed, while also correcting the historical inaccuracies in the section. It would also allow for credible sources to be added, while removing the non-credible references. This portion could also be expanded to include more of her family, such as how her father, and two brothers fought for the Confederacy, and how those two brothers passed away at the Battle of Malvern Hill.

Historicalsturgis (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Historicalsturgis


 * Please stop with your original research and reseal to accept multiple sources that you disagree with. --John B123 (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not doing original research. I've supplied multiple citations for everything I've said. I've provided evidence for my claims. If what I'm saying is original research, then show that it's original research, and how I'm not using actual sources for the claims that I'm making. Historicalsturgis (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

George Huckert died in 1924, not 1913
George Huckert died in 1924 not 1913. The claim for 1913 offers no primary sources as citations. It is patently false and unverifiable.

That George Huckert died on October 12, 1924 is an established fact, see: South Dakota Department of Health. Index to South Dakota Death Records, 1905-1955. Pierre, SD, USA: South Dakota Department of Health, Certificate number 94153, page 434.

George Huckert's tombstone says he died in 1924:

The 1920 Census shows he was living in 1920: 1920 Census, in Sturgis, Meade County, Document: Roll: T625_1723; Page: 10A; Enumeration District: 143

His marriage certificate to Poker Alice shows he was living at the time of his marriage, in 1918: South Dakota Department of Health. South Dakota Marriage Index, 1905-1914, 1950-2013 and South Dakota Marriage Certificates, 1905-1949, 2014-2018. Pierre, SD, USA: South Dakota Department of Health. Certificate 66239

All of these sources are open to the public. To make the false claim that Huckert died in 1913 simply can't be supported when the actual data shows otherwise. It is clear Huckert died in 1924, as all the evidence shows.

Historicalsturgis (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Historicalsturgis


 * Please understand how Wikipedia works. If you make a change to an article and somebody disagrees and reverts it you should not simply change it back. This is called edit warring. If you look at WP:BRD it should be discussed at that time not reverted back to how you think it should be. --John B123 (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added it to the discussion. I've cited multiple sources for it. I've explained why saying he died in 1913 is historically incorrect. You refuse to enter into the discussion. You have refused to address any of the points made, thus making a discussion impossible. And for someone who is always saying this is how Wikipedia works, maybe you want to brush up on what is considered a reliable source. Because the ones you forced into the article are not historical.
 * So, as is clear, I've added a topic on this talk page. I've shown why clearly Huckert died in 1924, not 1913. You have added nothing to that discussion or any reason to doubt Huckert's tombstone, or official government documents. So if you have no discussion point, why shouldn't the page be changed in order to reflect history? Historicalsturgis (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You've added it to the discussion, that does not give you the right to change it back again without agreement. Until you stop dismissing other sources as unreliable then there is no point in discussing things with you. I can provide probably 10 sources that state he died in 1913, which you will no doubt dismiss as unreliable. All the changes you want to make are based on your original research, as displayed on your website, and inline with WP policies I will oppose them. --John B123 (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Me writing an article is not original research. To claim such is ridiculous. And I've dropped the whole website thing. I don't reference it in anyway. The fact you keep bringing it up shows that you're not acting in good faith.
 * You can add 10 sources that state he died in 1913, but where are they getting their information? Are they reliable sources, as per Wikipedia guidelines and policies? No they aren't, as they don't cite any source for their claim. I've addressed all the sources you've provided thus far, and showed why they were not credible, and why they aren't reliable. You've never offered a reason to believe otherwise.
 * Do you seriously think unsubstantiated claims that he died in 1913 are more reliable then say his tombstone? Then U.S. death records? Then the Census or his marriage certificate, which are government issued, and showed he was living long after 1913? Are unverified sources truly better?
 * Your opposition has nothing to do with the facts, but a personal grudge. There is no place for that in WP. I've clearly shown that he died in 1924. You've shown no reason to doubt that, but instead have shown that you're not working in good faith. Historicalsturgis (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Please stop making this personal and making offensive accusations because I don't agree with you. --John B123 (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * One, you've made numerous personal and offensive accusations. You've clearly said you're going to block me on nearly anything on this page. That's personal. And I don't care if you agree with me. But willfully ignoring evidence because it comes from me is an issue. The fact you refuse to actually have a discussion, as you've stated you won't discuss this, is an issue. That's why I'm saying you're acting in bad faith. That and while you have a tendency to cite WP policies when they suit you, you ignore them when it suits you as well, such as the policies on reliable and verifiable sources. I'm happy to discuss the actual history here, so we can see what is what, but to simply say no, nothing you do is going to be accepted, is ridiculous. So why not actually address the discussion at hand if you think it's necessary. Pray tell why sources that provide no citations are more reliable then government documents and an actual tombstone.--Historicalsturgis (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Please point me to the policy that states that reliable secondary sources need to cite sources for their content. --John B123 (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Their page on reliable sources. They need citations. What you have posted is no better than a random blog post. You haven't even established in anyway the sources you referenced are reliable anyway, as I pointed out in the section addressing questionable sources. But please, just state why unsubstantiated claims, that have no citation to a primary source, are better than the sources I provided, or are better than his actual tombstone. Actually enter into this discussion, and explain why we should go with a date of 1913, instead of 1924, even though there is a mountain of evidence showing he died in 1924. Historicalsturgis (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources says nothing of the sort, in fact most works used as references on Wikipedia don't cite their sources. Published works are generally regarded as reliable sources unless they have been shown to be unreliable. Ie you need to show a source is unreliable so it can't be used, not that you need to show a source is reliable before using it. The place to establish whether a source is reliable or not is at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Whilst primary sources can be additionally used, verifiability (of the facts) is based on secondary sources. BTW, FindAGrave that you cite above is user-generated and therefore not a reliable source. --John B123 (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) I've shown your sources to be unreliable. That is under questionable references, and I went through each of those sources showing why they were unreliable. You haven't offered a rebuttal, so as it stands, the discussion shows those sources to be unreliable. 2) FindAGrave may be user-generated, but is not posted on the actual Poker Alice page. So it's not being used as a source for the actual page. It was used as a demonstration to show case the photo of Huckert's grave. If you want, I can walk over to the cemetery later on, take a photo of his grave, and post it here if that suits your case better. 3) Why not deal with the actual topic at hand? Again, I ask, is an uncited claim that Huckert died in 1913 more credible, more reliable, then his marriage certificate and a census that shows he lived after 1913? Is it more reliable then the actual government death records, that show he died in 1924? If not, you have no case here.
 * The fact you refuse to address the actual topic, and show why we should reject the established fact that he died in 1924 for a claim that is unverified and clearly false, says a lot here. So, simply, is 1924 not the more accurate date of his death as the evidence shows? Historicalsturgis (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Please read my previous post. There is no requirement on WP for sources to be referenced themselves, so no you haven't shown the sources to be unreliable. I'll repeat my earlier comment, facts need to be verified by secondary sources. --John B123 (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's ignore reliability (certainly if you think you have reliable sources, you can address that in the proper section, which is questionable sources). Are you making the claim that the claim Huckert died in 1913, where no actual citation is given as to where that date came from, no source ever cites a source as to how they came to that date, is contradicted by the fact he was alive in 1918 according to his marriage certificate, and in 1920 as per the census, is more reliable and credible then the claim Huckert died in 1924, which is supported by his tombstone, by government issued death records, and the fact he was clearly living after 1913? Or is it clear that 1924 is the more accurate date of his death? Historicalsturgis (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Multiple secondary sources give her death as 1913. Where that comes from I have no idea and don't need to know. As previously stated, verifiability is based on secondary sources. --John B123 (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You keep avoiding the question. Are you saying that 1913 is more accurate, even though you can't verify that date but solely rely on it being listed in secondary sources, than 1924, which can be verified by his tombstone and official U.S. death records? Are you saying 1913 is more accurate, even though we can establish that he was living in 1918, as per his wedding certificate, and in 1920, as per the census? Are you saying that simply because multiple secondary sources, that never verify the information, that never cite where they found the information, and that clearly contradicted by actual establish fact that shows he was living long after 1913, we should still assume he died in 1913?
 * I think we both know the answer there, as the answer is incredibly obvious.
 * Also, if you just want secondary sources, here are a few:  which actually makes the claim it was 1925,  So do multiple secondary sources really matter if they never cite their sources or verify their statements? Because if the fact it simply mentioned in a secondary source means it's true, regardless of all the evidence against the claim, there are even larger issues with this article. But again, I think we both know what the obvious answer here  is.  Historicalsturgis (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Please understand that on Wikipedia firstly, sources are acceptable without giving their sources and secondly facts can't be verified from primary sources. --John B123 (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not just answer the questions? Why keep avoiding them? We both know that to claim Huckert died in 1913, even though it is established fact he lived in 1918, and 1920, and officially died in 1924, is ridiculous. You have to know it's a ridiculous claim, which is why you won't even address it. The fact is that Huckert died in 1924. It's exceptionally clear, and in order to make the argument he died in 1913, because unreliable sources state otherwise is not logical in any sense, is not taking a neutral stance, and simply doesn't pass what WP lists within verifiability. To have Huckert die in 1913, you have to create some wild conspiracy as to why all the evidence shows he lived long after that, and died in 1924. So please, just stop with this ridiculousness. Clearly, he died in 1924.
 * Since that is true, and verifiably true, we then have to conclude that at least in part, the sources you provided are not reliable as they make such major mistakes. I've pointed out their mistakes elsewhere else. To keep using them makes no sense, and to demand they be treated equally, or preferably, is ridiculous.
 * So let's settle this matter. Huckert died in 1924. It's as simple as that. Historicalsturgis (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm done with your attitude. I give up. Everybody but you is wrong and I'm just ridiculous, does that make you happy now? --John B123 (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, never said everyone was wrong. That is a false claim and a logical fallacy. I've cited many sources, and thus their authors, that obviously I would think is right. You keep making this attack, but it is ridiculous. I'm also not saying you're ridiculous. I said the stance you're trying to make is ridiculous. As in, when all the evidence shows that the position you're holding up clearly shows it to be wrong, one would should assume they are wrong. The fact that everything shows Huckert died in 1924 makes the claim that he died in 1913 ridiculous. The fact that you refuse to address that glaring discrepancy is immensely telling.
 * The fact that you refuse to actually enter into a meaningful discussion is also immensely telling. If 1913 is the reliable date, then explain why it is clear that Huckert lived in 1918, 1920, and died in 1924. I've provided the evidence for this.
 * And before you make claims about secondary sources, as WP states: "Secondary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "good" or "reliable" or "usable". Secondary does not mean that the source is independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, or published by a reputable publisher. Secondary sources can be unreliable, biased, self-serving and self-published. Identifying and using primary sources That you're using secondary sources has largely been your argument, even though I've shown those sources are not reliable, and as WP points out, it being a secondary source does not automatically mean it is reliable or useable.
 * More so, primary sources can be used: Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources. Again from the above Wiki link.
 * So to simply dismiss primary sources, as you've tried to do also isn't justifiable, and since government issued death certificates, while primary, are very reliable, again, we have all the reason to see that Huckert died in 1924.
 * And yes, my attitude may be a tad bit sour at this point, but after multiple insults from you, ad homniem attacks (as in saying I believe everyone is wrong and only I'm right when clearly that isn't true), your misuse and cherry picking of WP guidelines, as shown above, and your refusal to enter into any meaningful discussion, such as answering a simple answer, isn't is more reasonable to assume that Huckert died in 1924 as that is what the evidence shows, I've grown a bit tired.
 * But I also believe this article needs a serious rewriting, so I stick at it. Historicalsturgis (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said I'm done, your further hurling of insults does nothing to change that. --John B123 (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I never insulted you and to make that claim is offensive. The fact you're gaslighting now is offensive. The fact you refuse to even have a discussion but instead avoid it is offensive. If you're not willing to make this article better, then it's probably best you leave. Historicalsturgis (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * If sources variously give his death as 1913, 1924 and 1925 then the article should reflect that.--John B123 (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If a source is clearly historically inaccurate, is clearly unreliable, then there is no reason the article should reflect that. It is an established and verified fact that he died in 1924. It is established and verified that he lived past 1913. To suggest that we should mention he died in 1913, when everything tells us that he lived past that, makes no sense. Instead, what we should assume is that the source that claims he died in 1913 is not reliable, as it clearly is not based on historical reality. The same goes with 1925.
 * This wouldn't be found acceptable in any other article. I can't go to the page on Hitler, and say that since there are many sources that say he never died on April 30, 1945, that we need to add something about that. I can't say, oh, here are these sources that say he escaped into South America, and assume anyone would take me seriously, as it is established fact he died on April 30. Just because a source says something means absolutely nothing unless it is reliable.
 * Here, I've consistently shown that the sources that claim he died in 1913 are unreliable, and that we have clear evidence he died in 1924. To make the claim he died in 1913 is an exceptional claim, and thus needs exceptional evidence, as per Verifiability It's an exceptional claim as it disagrees with established facts such as he was clearly living in 1918, 1920, and officially died in 1924. Even his tombstone says 1924. It is an exceptional claim to say that those making his tombstone got it off by so much.
 * And just since a claim appears in a secondary source, does not make it reliable, as per Identifying and using primary sources As I've demonstrated, the sources you provided do not have a history of fact checking as they clearly are getting some major facts incorrect. Historicalsturgis (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Concern about verb tenses
Does Wikipedia have a style guide for verb tenses? This article uses “would” a lot, as in “the sheriff and his deputies would arrive at the scene.” It seems like basic past tense might be more effective: “ the sheriff and his deputies arrived at the scene.” 136.24.139.110 (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Citations 34 and 35 are incomplete
Per the State Archives listing of newspapers, there was no paper named Argus in 1928. The Sioux Falls paper at the time was called the Daily Argus-Leader.https://history.sd.gov/archives/NewspaperInfo.aspx?ID=86071490. Same with the Lead. Is that the paper in Lead or the Argus-Leader again? 164.154.175.215 (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)