Talk:Brushy Bill Roberts/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wild West magazine article

The Feb 2007 issue of Wild West magazine (one of the magazines of historynet.com) contains the following article:

• The Controversial Inquests and Burial of Billy the Kid

There currently is no online version of the article since this is the cover story of the current issues (printed Dec 2006), and it probably won't show up on their website until the issue comes out, perhaps after Jan 2007. Someone should watch this and add the link after they put it up on the web. And use some of the information from the articles to improve the Wiki article, too, of course. — Loadmaster 16:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Court case

The section "Court case" was recently added (2007-07-16T06:54:20) and begins with the following text:

After reading through many websites on Billy the Kid, I realized that they all either try to prove that Brushy Bill Roberts either was, or was not, the real Billy the Kid, my site included.

I suspect that this whole section was copied from another website, and the mention of "I" and "my site" are inappropriate. So should this section be removed, or just reworked to conform to encyclopedic standards? — Loadmaster 18:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, the external links need to be double-checked. — Loadmaster 18:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Confusing / ambiguous "Con" listed

The following line is listed as a "con" to the theory that Billy the Kid survived: "The real Billy the Kid spoke Spanish fluently; in fact, his very last words were in Spanish. Roberts apparently could not speak Spanish. If he could, his family and acquaintances would certainly have known it in a small West Texas town like Hico. However, when Morrison took Brushy to visit with Severo Gallegos, Brushy spoke with Severo's Mexican neighbor, Josephine Sanchez, in perfect Spanish."

This line appears to state that both Billy the Kid AND Brushy Bill spoke fluent Spanish, while also claiming that Brushy could not speak Spanish (using "Roberts" and "Brushy" interchangeably). This is confusing and does not make sense to be listed as a "con", and should in fact be reworded and listed as a "pro" if the latter part of the statement is true. 75.67.216.65 (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Longrod_von_Hugendong

I think what it is trying to say is that Brushy not speaking Spanish is always used by critics as a point to deny his claim. However Morrison noted that Brushy spoke fluent Spanish which refutes this. Despite this, the critics continue to repeat the claim, probably assumming it's true because, apart from Morrison, there are no reports of Brushy speaking Spanish. It's the same with the "Brushy was left handed while Billy was right handed" claim. Critics ignore that Brushy was ambidextrous and Billy was believed to be ambidextrous as well. I'm ambidextrous myself and over the years my hand preference has changed occassionally. For example, when playing sport I will play mostly left handed for a few years then switch to mostly right handed for a few years for no apparant reason, so even a hand preference is not an argument. Wayne (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Photographic analysis

It is asserted that studies comparing photographs of Roberts and Billy are subjective in nature. This is true of some methods of analysis, but it is possible to have software analysis tools which can objectively (if with some degree of uncertainty) perform the analysis. It sounds like Snow used such software.

In any case, whether Snow used such software should be clarified and a link given to Snow's work. Also, the fact that objective analysis techniques exist is implicitly denied in the article, and it should not be.76.180.192.82 (talk) 05:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That might depend on when the analyses were made. Much of the stuff we see on TV still hasn't been invented, yet.

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I added the sources for both studies and edited to include the techniques they claim were used. The Snow reference did not say when it was conducted but the context indicates it was around the time of Boviks'. The Lincoln County Heritage Trust conducted a symposium in September 1989 where a photographic study by Snow was presented, although it was not reported in enough detail to say conclusively it was the same one, so it looks like it was earlier than that date unless he conducted two. Also, Snow used a VAX computor and I believe they were renamed in 1990 which sort of supports his study being earlier. Bovik claims his study was the first to look at how closely pictures matched as all previous comparisons concentrated on showing that they did not. However, Snows' earlier study likewise looked at how closely they matched although the dates indicate Bovik may not have known of his study. Both studies Pixilated the images and measured the exact distances between features rather than simply overlaying. Snow apparently didn't correct for facial positioning as his source mentions that this reduced his accuracy. Bovik did correct but compared fewer features (15 Vs 25). The source implies that this is standard for facial recognition techniques where the face is not in an identical position. I'm guessing here, but I assume that the FBI etc only use 15 points because they exclude those that may change with age.Wayne (talk) 08:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Confusing Tag

I put the confusing tag on the article because the lede and title refrence Ollie P but the article uses a different middle initial in some places.--Adam in MO Talk 07:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're in good company. Brushy Bill was rather vague, as indicated early in the first section, about whether he was Ollie P. or Ollie L. Granted, rather than exploit this confusion as this article seems to do, it could at least be written a little more clearly. Rather than tag it, why not try your hand at making it clearer?

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Page blanking

Not for anything, but why would anyone want to delete a page that has been around for nearly six years, meaning that the subject has been considered "notable" for that length of time? No offense, and I most certainly AGF, but isn't that just taking the "easy way out"? (I've very tired, so I'm going to bed, now.)
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  12:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

An article lasting six years doesn't mean it is worth having.--Adam in MO Talk 16:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct. However it might mean it is worth saving if coupled with other reasons. The most important reason for any article to be in this encyclopedia is the notability of its title subject. Is there any reason for you to contest the notability of Brushy Bill Roberts?

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  10:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

PS. I would very much support a name change of this article to "Brushy Bill Roberts", which is the "notable" and common historical name of the subject. Please see this reference. It would be wrong to make that move while your Merger proposal is open and discussion is still active.

This person is notable enough to have his own page. They made a movie about him which adds to notability. I agree that the common name "Brushy Bill Roberts" is a more appropriate page title.Wayne (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Why (and how) are edits blanked in the history page? It makes it a bit more difficult to work on the article.Wayne (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I blanked the pages in the edit history, because of a copyright violation. It's a pain, but I can't selectively redact paragraphs. It was done with WP:REVDEL. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

IP edit

The recent IP edit that removed a lot of content cited that the material came from Angelfire.com. I checked, and the text does come largely from Angelfire. I don't think they're on our blacklist (I'll check it), but I also don't think Angelfire is thought of as a reliable source. So I shall look around into alternatives. Might take a little time.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  23:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem wasn't if it is or is not a reliable source, but that is was a copyright violation. (haven't checked into the reliability of the source though) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well the edit war should stop now! I've userfied the material to one of my subpages and will see if anything is usable.

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  11:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Angelfire is just the host. From checking the author (Nick McCarty), the information itself appears to be high quality as he has contact with many decendants of those involved with Billy who have given him access to documents and photographs and he still updates the site frequently. The deleted material is a copyvio only if there is no permission for its use and I believe McCarty may have originally added the text himself. This makes it only a WP:SPS violation which allows it's use if the information is reliable. The text deleted by the anon is however not encyclopaedic so should be rewritten which can be done more easily if the text is still available on the page.Wayne (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no indication that the anon originally adding the text is the copyright holder. It can only be donated to wikipedia trough an OTRS, or by placing the original content under a compatible licence. WP:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I had a thought that copyright law does allow "excerpts", and the material can be considered a small excerpt from the large amount of similar material on the Angelfire website. In any case, the material is probably from a book, and until that book is found, the text probably should be kept out of the article.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  09:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Exerpts are allowed by law in some situations as fair use. Wikipedia also allows for some fair use, though less than is legally allowed. For our policy on fair use, see WP:FAIR. Key here is the following part

Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited.

. This would be used to quote a specific source, indicating that it is the opinion of the quoted source. If this is done, it is usually be somebody considered to be an authority in the field, for brief quotes, or possibly in the case of biographies of the subject itself. You can see an example use on Bombing_of_Hiroshima#Choice_of_targets, and a few other places in that article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like sound policy. If the passage can be saved, it should either be put in an editor's own words and reliably sourced or quoted in the manner you described (or a little of both).

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  02:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Just as a note, be mindfull of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing though. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I find it interesting that the author of the Angelfire page is named McCarty. Wasn't someone else named McCarty? 108.218.237.195 (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I've read a lot of that site, but I've never read if there is any relation between Nick McCarty and the kid. I would think NM would mention it if there were a relation. Maybe he once saw that Billy's name when young was McCarty also, and felt compelled to open a website about him? Anyway, I wish there were more to add about this, but so far I've found no info. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 04:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Maintenance tags

The maintenance tags have been removed because they no longer apply, in my opinion. There are more references, the article's been renamed and clarified, and the confusing parts talked about in the section above have been dealt with. If there are any claims in the article that you think should be sourced, then please either search for a source yourself, or add a ^{{{citation needed}}} tag to the claim to let other editors know that a reliable source is needed. Thank you very much!
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  21:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That show also raised the possibility that history could be wrong.

This has got to be the most hilarious sentence I have ever seen on this site!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.8.81 (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)