User talk:Gordontaos

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to The Education of Little Tree appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billy the Kid

Regarding these edits and these, there are several problems. You used the "ibid" cite, which isn't used on Wikipedia. You are referencing to an unknown book: "Nolan, The West Pg. 226". There's no clue about the publication or details about the book. There is a Frederick Nolan book given in the references, but it is not called The West or The West... or The West of Billy the Kid. When you returned content, you didn't even give that much detail. As for POV, your reference that said "However for all of the supposition, all that we have in the end is supposition, there frankly are no facts available about his birth and early childhood" is full of POV observation. That comment is synthesis - your interpretation based on what you said is on page 6. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Your note

I really don't want to go back through an entire page of discussion from nearly 3 months ago to see what all was discussed. However, I didn't just blankly revert everything you changed, and I did give rationale for the changes I made. I'm sitting here with the Michael Wallis Billy the Kid: The Endless Ride and checked what the book says against the article on the changes. Starting from the top, you added "although no records to prove this have ever been uncovered" in front of references and for the Wallis book, page 6 doesn't specifically say that. Then you changed "some researchers have theorized that his name was", a perfectly grammatically correct statement to "some researchers have hypohothesized the theory and conjectured that his name might have been" - complete with misspellings and ambiguity, although both statements say the exact same thing - one grammatically and logically correct, one replete with spelling and grammatical errors and weaseling. You removed a cited statement. If the link is dead, there are ways to address that besides removing the statement.

Actually, if you look at Wallis' book again you might see that he is the king of weasel and cites no sources for his statement that "the largest number of reliable scholars of western history contend that Henry McCarty was born...". Actually, neither Utley, nor Nolan, nor Jacobsen contend that to be a fact. Wallis also states that "no records that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he ever lived there have ever been uncovered", I believe that I said the same thing in a less ambiguous manner. I also merely placed all of Wallis' weasel words into one sentence. Wallis states "Although the identity of Henry's father remains total conjecture, those willing to hypothesize present us with some possibilities. On the basis of sketchyrecords, some theorize..." Also, how do I spell check?--Gordontaos (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Perhaps it would be better to say that no one knows who Henry's father was and quote Nolan.--Gordontaos (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Lincoln County war section, you changed the wording from New Mexico Territory to Lincoln, New Mexico. The problem there is that New Mexico didn't become a state until 1912 and the wording tends to imply it was a US state. You inserted the statement "and issued a proclamation invalidating the legal deputization of the Regulators" without a citation and which is not present in the cited material that was quoted as the Regulators "went from lawmen to outlaws" with a valid citation. It says they were no longer backed with legal authority quite clearly. However, you go on to insert that "Regulators sought the arrest of an old buffalo hunter known as Buckshot Roberts, whom they had a warrant for as an accessory to Tunstall's murder", chronologically around a month after they no longer had legal authority and the source states quite clearly that the warrants were no longer valid and Brewer no longer a constable. It makes it deceptive to say they arrived armed with a warrant.

Well, then we might change it to say Lincoln, Lincoln County, New Mexico Territory, since The Governor had already been in NM for some time and was not coming there to do an investigation. To say that he came to New Mexico Territory is misleading. Also, to say that the Regulators "suspected" Roberts is ambiguous because that is not what Wallis states, and Wallis does state that the posse had a warrant. One of the problems here is to which side was more legally constituted and perhaps that should be its own section, since the proclamation invalidating the warrants was itself illegal, as per Jacobsen, who is an attorney with the NM Attorney General's office.--Gordontaos (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Also, rather than use the word "suspected" we might change it to wording that stated that Roberts had been part of both posses and ergo had been involved, and quote Nolan or Jacobsen. Getting involved in the competing theories as to which actions taken by either side in this affair were legal or illegal is a very slippery slope. Essentially you end up debating good vs. evil, which in this case is also a slippery slope. Suffice it to say that the powers that be used illegal methods, and the opposing side saw those illegal methods as justification in enforcing their on brand of law, based upon South Carolina's Regulators, and not vigilante law. Its all extremely confusing, and there are no simple nor black and white answers.--Gordontaos (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Killing of Frank McNab" section, you removed a sourced statement with no rationale. In the "Lew Wallace and amnesty" section, you greatly reduced a paragraph and changed it to criticize Robert Utley directly, although nothing in that section prior to your inclusion of Utley was sourced to him, so that's a huge puzzlement to me. Why criticize something that isn't even cited in the section and remove the content from Jacobsen's book that actually does describe the incident? That makes no sense to me.

First, although the story was not sourced as Wallis, Wallis tells the story and sources Utley. Second, Jacobsen, (the source in this case) quotes the Utley story but also says " Bonney... was never prosecuted and the papers mentioned the killing in one-line police blotter reports, giving only the victim's name, which indicates by their brevity that the victim was not widely mourned. Robert Utley argues that the version presented in the ghostwritten portion of Pat Garrett's Authentic Life of Billy the Kid is true, despite its dime-novel neatness". So here the writer misrepresented the source's intent, by taking the story out of context and not printing Jacobsen's caveat. Finally, to call this a "well documented altercation,"as the writer does, is a very long stretch of the truth, if one is to believe Jacobsen. --Gordontaos (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Perhaps it might be better to state that although some suspect that the Kid had been involved in this killing, there is no evidence to support that theory, and quote Jacobsen--Gordontaos (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, at the end, I changed something that didn't correspond completely with what the Wallis book said - which referred to taking an hour to remove the shackles from his legs. I clarified that with what Wallis said. These are the more than detailed reasons for changing what I did. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Wallis says "The Kid did not take flight right away." It is actually Jacobsen who stated that it took an hour, but I am having difficulty ith the technical issues of footnoting in Wikipedia. Obviously I am doing something wrong. Perhaps I need a tutorial. One of the problems here is the writer incorrectly quoting Wallis who is not a very good source to begin with. Wallis treats every statement, no matter how poorly supported, with equal weight to fully supported facts. I also am trying to change as little of this entry as possible. The best sources to quote are Jacobsen (for legal matters), and Nolan for his great research. Both authors have been given independant third party awards. Although Utley can be good, he is can also be very partisan. Fulton has some interesting stuff, and is greatly admired by Nolan. Wallis falls somewhere behind this pack.--Gordontaos (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have difficulty in visual tracking and it will take me a while to work through your comments in italics. My verbal software doesn't read italics well. May I suggest that you respond in a block response rather than breaking up my comments? For the moment, let me suggest WP:REFB, which is a primer for referencing. As for spellcheck, I'm not sure. I was thinking Firefox at least has a spellcheck function for Wikipedia. I usually just copy & paste into a Word document when I need to spellcheck here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem, let me do it over real quick

Actually, if you look at Wallis' book again you might see that he is the king of weasel and cites no sources for his statement that "the largest number of reliable scholars of western history contend that Henry McCarty was born...". Actually, neither Utley, nor Nolan, nor Jacobsen contend that to be a fact. Wallis also states that "no records that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he ever lived there have ever been uncovered", I believe that I said the same thing in a less ambiguous manner. I also merely placed all of Wallis' weasel words into one sentence. Wallis states "Although the identity of Henry's father remains total conjecture, those willing to hypothesize present us with some possibilities. On the basis of sketchy records, some theorize..." Also, how do I spell check?--Gordontaos (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Perhaps it would be better to say that no one knows who Henry's father was and quote Nolan.--Gordontaos (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, then we might change it to say Lincoln, Lincoln County, New Mexico Territory, since The Governor had already been in NM for some time and was not coming there to do an investigation. To say that he came to New Mexico Territory is misleading and incorrect. Also, to say that the Regulators "suspected" Roberts is ambiguous because that is not what Wallis states, nor the facts of the situation, also Wallis does state that the posse had a warrant. One of the problems here is to which side was more legally constituted and perhaps that should be its own section, since the proclamation invalidating the warrants was itself illegal, as per Jacobsen, who is an attorney with the NM Attorney General's office.--Gordontaos (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Also, rather than use the word "suspected" we might change it to wording that stated that Roberts had been part of both posses and ergo had been involved, and quote Nolan or Jacobsen. Getting involved in the competing theories as to which actions taken by either side in this affair were legal or illegal is a very slippery slope. Essentially you end up debating good vs. evil, which in this case is also a slippery slope. Suffice it to say that the powers that be used illegal methods, and the opposing side saw those illegal methods as justification in enforcing their own brand of law, based upon South Carolina's Regulators, and not vigilante law. Its all extremely confusing, and there are neither simple nor black and white answers.--Gordontaos (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

First, although the story was not sourced as Wallis, Wallis tells the story and sources Utley. Second, Jacobsen, (the source in this case) quotes the Utley story but also says " Bonney... was never prosecuted and the papers mentioned the killing in one-line police blotter reports, giving only the victim's name, which indicates by their brevity that the victim was not widely mourned. Robert Utley argues that the version presented in the ghostwritten portion of Pat Garrett's Authentic Life of Billy the Kid is true, despite its dime-novel neatness". So here the writer misrepresented the source's intent, by taking the story out of context and not printing Jacobsen's caveat. Finally, to call this a "well documented altercation,"as the writer does, is a very long stretch of the truth, if one is to believe Jacobsen. --Gordontaos (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Perhaps it might be better to state that although some suspect that the Kid had been involved in this killing, there is no evidence to support that theory, and quote Jacobsen--Gordontaos (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

So Wallis says "The Kid did not take flight right away." It is actually Jacobsen who stated that it took an hour, but I am having difficulty ith the technical issues of footnoting in Wikipedia. Obviously I am doing something wrong. Perhaps I need a tutorial. One of the problems here is the writer incorrectly quoting Wallis who is not a very good source to begin with. Wallis treats every statement, no matter how poorly supported, with equal weight to fully supported facts. I also am trying to change as little of this entry as possible. The best sources to quote are Jacobsen (for legal matters), and Nolan for his great research. Both authors have been given independant third party awards. Although Utley can be good, he is can also be very partisan and picks and chooses his facts to support his own line of thinking as well as coming to conclusions not supported by the facts. For instance, in Utley's book on the Lincoln County war he says some very horrible things about Susan McSween, and then only in the endnotes does he state that the testimony backing up his claims is suspect. Fulton has some interesting stuff, and is greatly admired by Nolan. Wallis falls somewhere far behind this pack.--Gordontaos (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)