Talk:Billy the Kid/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

New online photos

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

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

IMDB references

The article uses IMDB sources, which are not reliable (see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb). This ought to be resolved, given that this article is a GA nominee and reliable sources are a WP:GACR. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 22:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Honestly this is really a waste of other people's time. The IMDB source was not sourcing a piece of controversial information. It was not sourcing biographical information either. So there really is no problem for the article. And even if there were you could have actually resolved it in considerably less time than it took you to slap a tag on it, write this section and dump the job on someone else, by simply removing the unnecessary imdb link. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It's information that I have challenged, and challenged information must be presented with "inline citation to a reliable source" (WP:MINREF). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 22:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

You didnt challenge the information, you challenged the source. And thanks for proving my point by demonstrating that you are a lazy, sloppy (and apparently also selfrighteous and santimonious) editor who prefers making other people work than taking two minutes to fix the problem yourself.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from name-calling, as it doesn't help in improving this or any other article and only makes fellow editors (me) feel bad. You and I probably have different, and equally valid, ideas about the purpose of pointing out problems in articles via talk pages and templates. My idea was that regular editors of this article are probably more familiar with the structure of the article and relevant literature. I was pointing out an obvious flaw in the article, something that if isn't fixed, might render the current Good Article nomination 'a waste of people's time'. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 23:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

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

References, etc.

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

User, Jack DeMattos removal of photos uploaded by OSMOND PHILLIPS and calling them bogus.

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

• 
  John Tunstall comparison
• 
  William Antrim comparisons
• 
  James Dolan comparison
• 
  Fred Waite comparisons

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Billy the Kid/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 18:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Query

• Prose is clear and readable, though could do with tightening up in places. A copy edit is recommended. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Stability. While there are no edit wars, there have been recent reverts, and in a short space of time the article has been taken from this state in November 27 to the more concerning state it is in today. Neither version meets GA criteria, but the earlier version has the advantage of being easier to work from as it more closely meets MoS requirements, and is easier to read. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Fail

• Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• MoS - Layout. Sub-sections are too short per MOS:BODY. Section headings should use sentence case per Wikipedia:Manual of Style # Article titles, headings, and sections. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

General comments

I like Billy the Kid, so I took on this GAN to learn a bit more about him, while reviewing it, and hopefully moving it toward GA status, but an overview of the article indicates it is not yet ready to be listed as a GA. There are a number of obvious issues before getting into any deeper research. For an article of this size and complexity, the lead does not provide an adequate overview. There are too many short sections, giving this article a poor and cluttered appearance that looks messy, and inhibits reading flow. Sections are written in title case rather than sentence case. The prose is readable, though could do with tightening up in places, such as "A young lawyer named Alexander A. McSween (1844-1878) had once served as the lawyer for "The House."", "The birthdate of Billy has been disputed for many years.". The sourcing is haphazard - The Regulators section is unsourced. Most of Selected references in popular culture is unsourced, and has been tagged as needing sourcing since last month. There are images unevenly presented in the article resulting in bare sections, while other sections are cluttered. There are three separate pictures of his grave, for example.

I like to give every nomination a chance, so I won't quick fail this; but I would like some reassurance that the nominator and/or significant contributors are willing to work to bring the article up to meet the GA criteria: WP:GA? and basic WP:MoS requirements. There is a lot of work to be done, and I am hesitant about getting into researching the topic, and analysing the article closely without some sign that my observations are going to be read and acted on. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The article has been substantially edited since it was nominated for GA. The content added is not encyclopedic quality and the GA nom should be quickfailed. The article unfortunately now needs a lot of work. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 01:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I've checked the history and agree regarding the changes since nomination, so I will roll back to that date, and look again. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it has already been rolled back and improvements made. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm closing this GAN as there is too much work to be done, and there are now clean up tags on the article, both of these things are grounds for quick failing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Article is getting shorter all the time / The Birth of the Kid

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

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

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

Wikipedia is not new research

A user's comment: "hiding lede description - looking through LOC images of Las Vegas Gazette for December 1880-January 1881, and there is no such article (http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn93061631/1880-12-28/ed-1/))"

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

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

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Billy the Kid/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Display name 99 (talk) · contribs) 02:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

There are some places in which I find the article to be a bit difficult to understand. However, this was the only significant defect that I noticed. Therefore, I decided to raise it to good article status. Display name 99 (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment

I'm not quite sure what went wrong with the creation of this nomination page, which was named incorrectly and missing all of the standard material up top. Perhaps Display name 99 did not use the supplied review link from the GAN page or the article talk page based on the "GA nominee" template, and thus didn't get the usual boilerplate.

In any event, the review is extremely short, does not mention the GA criteria at all, missed some major and minor issues related to these, and was prematurely passed. It is very rare that there is nothing to correct in a nominated article, and this was not an exception. Since this is an inexperienced GA reviewer, I have reverted the actual passage, and reopened the review so the reviewer can assess it against all of the criteria. There are templates that can be used which list the individual criteria and allow a check-off as the review progresses.

There are issues with the first three GA criteria at least. In particular, I believe the third paragraph of the Death section is too closely paraphrased with the given source (italics show where they match): Garrett allowed Bonney's friends to take the body to a carpenter's shop to give him a wake. The next morning, Justice of the Peace Milnor Rudulph viewed the body and made out the death certificate, with Garrett rejecting it and demanding another be written more in his favor. Bonney's body was then prepared for burial, and was buried at noon at the Fort Sumner cemetery between O'Folliard and Bowdre. This paragraph needs a major revision to avoid the close paraphrasing.

I also believe that per WP:LEAD the article's introductory paragraphs should summarize more of the article, and given the article's length, I'd recommend three paragraphs (or at least a longer two). There is also a grammatical error in the lead's third sentence, and at least a couple others I've seen in the article proper, though I've not read it completely through.

Finally, if there are places where the article is "difficult to understand", then it doesn't meet the "clear and concise" criterion, and those places need to be identified to the nominator so they can be revised. I feel sure that over the course of this review the article can be brought to GA standard, but at the moment it is not there, and should not be approved until all the issues have been identified and the article edited to fix them. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for the error and hope to do better with my next review. I guess we all have to learn somehow. I'll take another look at it once these corrections have been made. Winkelvi, I'm particularly sorry for not looking through it well enough. I think that with just a little bit of cleanup, it can reach GA status. Now that I'm looking through it again, I've noticed a grammatical error in the 5th sentence, where the word "and" is used twice. Again, I apologize for the premature review, but hope that we can fix it in a short period of time. Display name 99 (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I have expanded the lede as suggested and have rewritten the third paragraph of the death section. I await your comments here regarding same. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks a lot better to me. However, here are several issues that I have noticed when looking through the article again:

1. Under "First Crimes," I have noticed this sentence:

"By the time he arrived, McCarty was near death but was nursed back to health by Jones' mother."

Could there be a bit of elaboration on why he was so near death?

2. Under "Outlaw," it is said that Billy shot and killed a man named Joe Grant. However, there is nothing about who this Joe Grant fellow is.

3. I am concerned about this sentence under "Death:"

"People had begun to talk about they felt was an unfair encounter."

It is grammatically incorrect, because there is no word between "about" and "they," and appears to be poorly worded. Also, the "encounter" itself cannot be unfair, rather Garrett would have been unfair towards Billy. I suggest revising the statement accordingly.

4. There is a section under "Authenticated photographs" entitled: "McCarty as a left-handed shooter." This seems like an odd title for a photograph, and there is also no description under that section as to what the image actually is. There is also one statement under that section that has been marked for needing a citation, which I believe to be the only such statement in the entire article. Please try to find a source so that we may fix this.

5. This is just a suggestion, but do you think it might be a good idea to refer to the article's subject as "Billy" rather than by his various last names? It might help make things a bit less confusing.

If these things are fixed, I see no reason why it cannot be reinstated as a good article. However, I agree with your suggestion to wait for BlueMoonset's opinion before we finalize it. Thank you for your work. Display name 99 (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

On point #5: Absolutely not. Calling him by his first name is against MOS for names (see here: [1]). Not to mention, Billy the Kid (a derivative of "Kid Antrim") is a nickname given to him by the public as he grew more notorious, not the name he went by. Not trying to be rude or overly blunt, but if you do not know this basic MOS guideline/policy, I am now having serious doubts as to your continuation as a GA reviewer. He is appropriately referred to as McCarty in the article until the point in his history where he starts referring to himself as William Bonney -- this is noted in the article at the end of the section, First Crimes.

I will get to the other points of reference you noted above momentarily as I take a look at the article in reference to your notes. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Point #1: The elaboration you ask for is there, a few sentences prior: McCarty had his horse stolen by Apaches; this forced him to walk miles to the nearest settlement, Pecos Valley, New Mexico.[25] Once in Pecos Valley, McCarty went to the home of friend and Seven Rivers Warriors gang member, John Jones. By the time he arrived, McCarty was near death but was nursed back to health by Jones' mother. I have expanded slightly to add: "...McCarty was near death as a result of his long trek but was nursed back to health by Jones' mother" (added content in italics). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Point #2: I have looked into who Grant was. Essentially, he was an unknown but it was known he was a newcomer to the area. I have added this point and a reference to support. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Point #3: I have corrected the word omission and reworded slightly for clarity. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course people should generally be referred to by their last names. However, the lead section of the MOS states that there is room for some exceptions regarding the regulations contained within it. I was simply wondering if this could be considered an exception, considering the fact that man had a nickname that is more widely known than either his birth name or the alias that he went by. I understand your reasoning behind keeping things the way that they are, but I don't think that this consideration alone disqualifies me from reviewing good articles.

Winkelvi, your revisions so far look good. I think we're almost there. I look forward to seeing what you can do with Point #4. Display name 99 (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Point #4: The subheading has been removed and the wording/content tweaked for further clarity and a little more brevity to avoid WP:UNDUE. I also removed content with a cite needed tag as unverifiable and unnecessary. It now reads as follows:

One of the few remaining artifacts of Bonney's life is the iconic 2x3 inch ferrotype taken of Bonney by an unknown portrait photographer sometime in late 1879 or early 1880. The image shows Bonney with a slouch cowboy hat on his head, a bandanna around his neck, wearing a vest over a sweater, and holding a 1873 Winchester rifle with the weapon's butt resting on the floor. For years the photo of Bonney was the only one agreed upon by scholars and historians to be authentic. The ferrotype survived due to a friend of Bonney, Dan Dedrick, keeping it following the outlaw's death. Passed down through Dedrick's family, the image was copied several times and appeared in numerous publications during the 20th century. In June 2011, the original was bought at auction for $2.3 million by billionaire businessman William Koch. At the time of the ferrotype auction, the image became the most expensive item ever sold through Brian Lebel's Annual Old West Show & Auction.
The image, which had been copied and published in various way over the years, showed Bonney with his holstered Colt revolver on his left side. This fueled the belief that the gunman was left-handed. the belief, however, did not take into account that the method used to make the original ferrotype was to use metal plates that produced reverse images. As a result, the photo showed Bonney's pistol on his left, leading modern historians to believe he shot with his left hand. In 1954 western historians James D. Horan and Paul Sann wrote that Bonney was "right-handed and carried his pistol on his right hip". The opinion was confirmed by Clyde Jeavons, a former curator of the National Film and Television Archive. Historian Michael Wallis wrote in 2007 that Bonney was ambidextrous. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I am pleased with these results. You did, at one point in your edit, somehow write the same sentence twice. Because this could be fixed so quickly, I removed the second version of the sentence. Hopefully I did not overstep my role as reviewer in doing so. I believe that it can now be considered a good article, and will wait for BlueMoonset's opinion before raising it to that level. If I do not hear from him in 24 hours, I will make it a good article. Display name 99 (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Display name 99, I still see a number of remaining (and newly introduced) issues when doing a quick skim, from grammar and punctuation to incomplete sentences and prose. While it isn't a a violation of WP:LAYOUT, one of the basic GA criteria, I do recommend that text not run between images (it's in one of the Manual of Style sections not required for GAs), as happens between two images under "Capture and escape". WP:LAYOUT does say that Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in. By that criterion, the Tunstall image is misplaced, as is the Olinger (the caption of which should probably note the apparent misspelling of Olinger's name on the stone plaque). Also, images should not spill over from one section to the next. I do plan to take care of some of the basic grammatical issues while identifying the ones that aren't so straightforward—reviewers are encouraged to make minor corrections—but I may not be able to get to them all within 24 hours or even 48 hours. There is no rush here; I ask you to be patient and not pass the article until all the issues have been addressed. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset: Since I'm the nominator and the main contributor to the article of late, I'd appreciate it if you would address specific, needed fixes with me. Any suggestions you can give as to what needs to be done to the article would be appreciated. I'm not trying to hurry anything, but I would like to get as much done that needs to be done ASAP as I don't know how much time I will have to make those changes in the coming week. Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset: Images have been moved, a disamibig has been corrected; some redundancies removed as well as some rewording for clarity. One question: when I make these changes, do you want specifics or are you fine looking at the page change diffs on your own? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

WV, thanks for the new edits. By virtue of being posted here, any suggested fix is for you as nominator, even if I'm replying to someone else. I'll be sure to ping you in future, however. As for corrections, just mention that you've addressed a point that's been raised; specifics (such as the two paragraphs quoted above) should not be necessary. Reviewers should be comfortable with page diffs to see what's changed, though of course the section should be re-read directly to see how it flows in its new form. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I noticed the revisions made to the introduction, and they make it look much better. I also noticed that you have reworded many of the sentences that I previously stated "were difficult to understand," but did not know exactly how to ask you to fix them. I just took the liberty of fixing a grammatically incorrect and poorly-worded sentence under "Lincoln County War." These types of sentences may be the biggest problem with the article. I am bothered now that I did not notice them before. Display name 99 (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, is it possible to get specifics from you (such as was done by Display name 99 a few days ago) on what you would like to see fixed? It would be very helpful to me if you did so. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I have started work on a list of specifics, but it's involved checking sources and various other things, so it may be another day or two. If it looks like it will be longer, I'll post it piecemeal, but I'd like to try for all in one go, if possible. Sorry I've been keeping you waiting, but I'm also working on a Good Article Reassessment at the moment. I will probably be making minor copyedits as I go, rather than write out the minor adjustments. If my edits make the facts less clear or accurate, by all means adjust as necessary. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to bring up these 2 sentences under "First Crimes:"

"On August 17, 1877, McCarty killed Francis P. "Windy" Cahill in Arizona after the two had a verbal argument and altercation. McCarty shot Cahill after a physical fight over McCarty's revolver."

The mentioning of a "physical fight," though perhaps not in specific violation of any policy, sounds rather unprofessional. I suggest consolidating the sentences into one, reading something like:

"On August 17, 1977, McCarty killed Francis P. "Windy" Cahill in Arizona as the result of a verbal argument and physical altercation of McCarty's revolver."

Also, could there be something added about why they were fighting over his revolver? Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't read in the source where the shooting was the result of the verbal argument, that's why "physical fight" alone is there. I can (sort of) agree to changing "fight" to "altercation", but not adding "verbal argument" as the reason for the shooting, because that isn't how it went down according to the source. It was the physical fight over the revolver that escalated things to the end result: murder. One more thing, there really was nothing that led to the physical altercation and the shooting. Which is part of Bonney's reputation: an irrational, stone-cold killer. He never seemed to need a reason to kill anyone. He just killed them. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. Just please try to find a way to remove the words "physical fight." I don't like the way it sounds, and don't think that many others will either. Display name 99 (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Not trying to be contentious, but you do know that WP:IDLI isn't a valid reason to ask someone to remove or change content, right? "Physical fight" is perfectly acceptable grammar, isn't unencyclopedic, and is unambiguous, giving readers an accurate picture of the events. I'm not really seeing why it's being objected to (aside from your personal dislike for it). Can you elaborate? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I suppose I can overlook it. I personally see nothing else holding the article back from becoming a good article. BlueMoonset promised to come up with a list of specifics for what can be done. I'll wait a day or two more for him to do so. Display name 99 (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Display name 99: I've been patiently waiting for the list, hoping to get things cleaned up as necessary i appreciate you hanging in there with this GA nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been sidetracked by various non-wiki projects. It still isn't finished, Winkelvi, but I'll post what I have in the new section below, and finish the four remaining sections when I can. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this below, BlueMoonset, I appreciate it and will start working on the article according to your notes some time tomorrow (1/17/16). No worries about the time it has taken you to get to it and why, I wasn't complaining, just stating I have been looking forward to see what you think about the issues in the article point-by-point. Cheers, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Is the article stable? Looks to me that there is ongoing editwarring at this article, over substantial content disagreements that look like they little prospect of being resolved soon.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Maunus, the two primary disagreers have been blocked for two and seven days, and the former has disclaimed interest in returning. It seems to me that there should be a way forward with a suitable resolution, hopefully on the talk page. If not, this review can always be closed as unsuccessful due to instability, but in the meantime it can continue to improve. BlueMoonset (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

General comment and section-by-section points

General commentary: I came to the article as someone who knew very little about Billy the Kid, so I took the facts laid out at face value. Indeed, my edits assumed that they were.

However, I have just read sections from one of the most recent sources, the Michael Wallis Billy the Kid: the Endless Ride from 2007. And in the first chapter, particularly pages 5 through 7, Wallis points out how little definite information is available, and how much is open to conjecture. Wallis offers up three potential birthdates in 1859 (the one in the article, September 17, is listed third), and even then can't commit to 1859 being the definite year. Joseph might be his younger or older brother (something also noted by Utley). Wallis is definite about there only being two children (which contradicts the article), and that the mother was Catherine, but there are several possibilities for the father's name, some depending on which McCarty went with which birthdate.

As a general rule, when reliable sources disagree, the editor has to weigh the reasons, but usually should offer the various surmises rather than pick one to favor. I think the article should be less definitive about the early years.

Please note that I haven't yet written up the "Outlaw", "Capture and escape", "Death", and "Rumors of survival" sections. I've left placeholders, and will post anything I find there as soon as I have the time. I'll try to do so by the end of the weekend.

Lead section:

• in the third paragraph, it says that Bonney killed a sheriff's deputy during his escape; in fact, he killed two, Bell and then Olinger.
• according to WP:LEAD, Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. There are a number of points in the lead that are not so covered:

• in the first paragraph, that historians believe he killed eight men (note that the actual number is far more important than the erroneous "reputed" number and should be given primacy, while the "reputed" number should either be reserved to the body of the article, perhaps under Legacy, or retained but with less prominence)
• in the third paragraph, the information in the first two sentences (the bounty and the newspapers) do not appear in the body of the article, and should BlueMoonset (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Early life:

• as noted in initial comments, the opening sentence (notably father's name, called "total conjecture" by Wallis, and birth date) seems overly definitive under the circumstances
• "family's third child": I don't have access to the cited source, page 15 of Wallis (all pages aren't available to me), but since on page 7 Wallis says "Henry and Joseph were Catherine's only children", it seems unlikely this is accurate or supported
• further, both Utley and Wallis mention that Catherine McCarty moved to Indianapolis to live (where she met Antrim) and then moved to Wichita. Utley also mentions Denver between Wichita and Santa Fe (I don't have access to those Wallis pages to see if he agrees).
• Utley gives Antrim's full name as "William Henry Harrison Antrim".

First crimes:

• the time prior to his first arrest doesn't quite add up: if his mother died, he then went to live in the hotel, stayed there for a year, had to leave, and was arrested for stealing food a year to the day of his mother's death, how could he have been at the hotel a whole year?
• third paragraph: a surprisingly detailed description of the fight appears in Wallis on pages 113–116 (the start of this section describes Cahill, a blacksmith, putting McCarty in shackles after an arrest; the actual confrontation is the following year).
• the fourth paragraph has some chronological issues. Although it starts "Before 1877", it has him in New Mexico, but he is supposed to have gone straight to Arizona after escaping jail in New Mexico in early 1876, and there's no mention of his leaving Arizona until he killed Cahill in August 1877 and fled back to New Mexico. (Might the theft of his horse have occurred while he was returning to New Mexico in 1877 or just after he arrived back? The sources aren't available to me to check.)
• also, this is the only mention of John Jones and the Seven River Warriors gang in the entire article. Jones was killed in 1879 by Bob Olinger, according to sources I've seen, who was in turn killed by Bonney during his escape in April 1881. That's probably worth mentioning (that Olinger killed Bonney's friend), though if Bonney's involvement with the Regulators never included a confrontation with the Seven River Warriors, who were one of several groups on the other side in the Lincoln County war, then they may not be.

Lincoln County war:

• the second through fourth sentences should be recast: "was involved with" is vague, and starting sentences with "The trio had" and "The men had" is not ideal. I'd recommend reorganizing the paragraph.
• in paragraph two, I'm pretty sure one of the sources mentioned nine horses being relocated rather than six when Tunstall was killed.
• also in that paragraph, I'd recommend recasting the second and third sentences; it's unclear why, if these folks rode off together, Tunstall was not with the others (or at least, not with Bonney) when the posse killed Tunstall. The third sentence in particular should give Brady's name before adding his affiliation with Murphy et al.
• in paragraph four, there are two consecutive sentences that talk about "during the/a shootout"; they should be combined or it otherwise made clear that it was the same shootout for all four deaths.

Battle of Lincoln:

• the final paragraph refers to "Bonney and his crew", implying that he was the leader of the house group. If this is so, that should be established in the first paragraph; if not, then "Bonney and the others" would seem to be a more appropriate wording. Indeed, since all of the groups and their leaders had gathered in the house, I'm not sure it would be his crew even so.

Outlaw:

• [to come]

Capture and escape:

• [to come]

Death:

• [to come]

Rumors of survival:

• [to come]

Legacy:

• Playing croquet: I don't see where in the sources the October 5 date comes from. And the October 23 date given for the show's air date is given as October 18 in the sources I'm seeing. Please check and cite.
• Posthumous pardon: the television program strikes me as excessive detail; please condense to "Richardson announced his decision not to issue the pardon" and perhaps even start the sentence with that phrase.
• Grave marker: this says eight years later (which would be 1940), but The Outlaw was a 1943 movie per the Selected references section, and the details in the two sentences here do not match the J-Tac source. This needs to be revised to reflect the available sourcing, though I have to question the reliability of the cited source, a school newspaper, given their uncritical view of the "facts" being promulgated by the "museum" they're reporting on that Billy the Kid lived until 1950. Another source should be found.

Selected references in popular culture:

• very few of these are referenced; when they are not clearly about Billy the Kid (that is, "Billy the Kid" or one of his other full names isn't mentioned in the title), I think there needs to be a citation. This is also true when there's a particular claim, such as Jane Russell's "breakthrough role"
• these lists are an odd mixture of bullets and bulleted sentences. I'd like to suggest that each be a sentence.
• some of the entries need revising as the prose is not clear. These include:

• "The Disinterested Killer Bill Harrigan,": who is Bill Harrigan and what has he to do with McCarty/Bonney/the Kid?
• Inferno and Escape from Hell
• Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel
• One-Eyed Jacks
• Birth of a Legend

• There's really a song titled "Quintana mentions Billy the Kid"? I think that needs a cite.
• If "Billy Get Your Guns" wasn't used in Young Guns II, then that movie shouldn't be mentioned in this entry
• Stage section: all plays should be in italics, and you should give a title for each entry, even if it's the obvious one. The first entry doesn't quite make sense: if it's by Santley, then why is he only a co-writer?
• Television section: the Death Valley Days entry needs a bit of work.

Reference section:

• while it is not a requirement of GA that the citation format needs to be consistent, it is odd that they are so inconsistent.

• I'm not sure why their are separate sections for Sources and Periodicals, but they certainly shouldn't overlap, as they do with the Rickards and one of the Nolans (and I may have missed others).

—BlueMoonset (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your work, BlueMoonset. I don't see any problem with the "posthumous pardon" section. The way that it is now, it explains that Richardson declined to issue the pardon due to a lack of historical evidence. I approve of that more than stating only that he decided not to issue it.

Another potential issue that I would like to point out is that, under "Lincoln County War," the sentences that discuss Bonney's arrest on 2/20/1878, following the death of Tunstall, appear unsourced. Display name 99 (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear there in Posthumous pardon. My objection was to the phrase that details him going on television to explain why he didn't do the pardon (and the name of the show he did it on), which to me is highly irrelevant. I'm fine with the inclusion of his reasoning, which is germane, but not with the venue for the announcement. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. Once again, I appreciate the work that you're doing to help improve the article and in teaching me how to do better reviewing. Display name 99 (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset and Display name 99, I'm working on looking into the Utley book at JSTOR for more information on the Windy Cahill incident. I agree, there needs to be more in the article content to make the story and the picture more complete. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Update After hitting dead ends regarding the Utley work on Bonney regarding the death of Windy Cahill, I found other sources which gave more and, in my estimation, better elaboration on the murder. I have added these sources and expanded the content in the article regarding the incident accordingly. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Further update: In response to your concerns regarding the timeline of Bonney's travels between Arizona and New Mexico, I have expanded the first crimes section and added another reference. You also noted that Bob Olinger killed friend of Bonney who is mentioned in the article, John Jones. What I have found is that it was not John Jones killed by Oliner, rather, a man named Bob Jones, who does not appear to be have been affiliated with John Jones' Seven Rivers Gang. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• I read that Bob Olinger murdered John Jones at the Last Days site, in its first paragraph. This is the site that's used to source the entire third paragraph in the Death section. Might Olinger have killed more than one Jones? (There were certainly multiple Olingers and Joneses around at the time.) BlueMoonset (talk) 07:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Please note that unfortunately I will be away from a computer until the evening of Thursday the 21st. As such, I will be unable to take part in reviewing this article until that time has passed. Display name 99 (talk) 04:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset and Display name 99, looking over the list of the Selected references in popular culture, I'd rather just delete a good portion of the list because it seems to contain a lot of trivial mentions. I believe the content that is sourced and verifiable as well as those that are significant to literature, music, films, TV, etc. should be kept (as long as they are referenced). Anything on the list that seems trivial in nature should be deleted. Any thoughts?

Further, in regard to the sources and periodicals sections, I'm going to combine them as I don't see the need for the distinctions, either. Would this be an acceptable solution to your concerns with this? Also, I have removed the overlapping of the Rickards and Nolan sources/references. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

There certainly are a lot of things there, and so I can certainly imagine that there could be a lot of trivial and unimportant information. I think the example given by BlueMoonset regarding poor prose, "The Disinterested Killer Bill Harrigan," which contains no explanation as to who Bill Harrigan is, is a perfect example of something unimportant that can be deleted. Whoever put it there should have added a citation and brief explanation as to why it was important if he/she wanted it to be kept in the article.Feel free to exercise some discretion regarding what you delete and retain. However, please try to keep as many of the sourced references in the article as possible. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

References and sources are being kept, Display name 99, I'm not deleting any of those. I only moved the ones contained in the "Periodicals" sub-section into the sources section. It didn't make sense to have two separate subsections. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, when I used the word "references," I was referring to "references in popular culture." By "sourced," I intended to refer to popular culture references accompanied by citations. I'm sorry that it wasn't clear enough. Thank you for your work. Display name 99 (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Display name 99 and BlueMoonset, Winkelvi was just blocked for 7 days. If you still don't fail this article, I have to question if you are biased about this topic and wont follow GA rules? --MaranoFan (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

MaranoFan, you are welcome to question what you want, but your comparative inexperience at GA leads me to wonder what makes you such an expert at GA rules. Your recent claim that stability requires months to recover from demonstrates otherwise. The goal at GA is, if feasible, to work with the nominator to get them to improve the nominated article to the level where it can meet the GA criteria and be listed. At this point, with a review ongoing and not yet complete, even a seven-day block is not a reason to abruptly close the nomination. There's no guarantee that the article will attain GA status this time out, but so long as Display name 99 is satisfied that useful work is being done and the article is being improved, then continuing the review is worthwhile. You can always, if you wish, take this to WT:GAN, but be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. BlueMoonset (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Something is smelling very fishy to me. Why are the reviewers acting like nominators here? Let me explain, on a normal GA review, an editor lists their concerns, after which 7 days are given to the nominator, and a nom be failed or passed. However, here it seems like even the reviewers are acting like nominators. Dn99 has an inexperience in Ga reviews, shown by the way he started this review page. But BlueMoonset, this article is unstable, the nominator is blocked for 7 days, there have already been weeks since the first concerns were initially listed, a lot of concerns not highlighted on the review page are on the article page. If reviews take SO much time to address, and SO much time where it is inactive, reviews are failed. I don't know what is going on here, but so much patience is never shown at any reviews, they MUST be failed at a certain point. This is FAR from GA, with a lot of instances of "historians believe" and a lot of unverified and disputed claims. A discussion about a possibly wrongly attributed image is progressing on the talk page. Again, a nominator has to address the concerns, who is BLOCKED for not one not two, but 7 days. So many reasons the article is not even close to passing any one of the 6 GA criteria. --MaranoFan (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I am inexperienced in reviewing GAs. However, I can tell you that there is no mandatory 7 day requirement. However, it is encouraged that the nominator and reviewer work to have the article passed within that period of time, if possible. But by no means is the article automatically failed if the review process goes over that. How, exactly, are BlueMoonset and I acting like nominators? How is the nominator, Winkelvi, blocked for 7 days? I just don't understand what you are talking about. As for your concerns about "unverified and disputed claims," I think that these may be present because Billy the Kid is a controversial person, and there are many aspects of his life which are not agreed upon by historians. As Blue Moonset said somewhere above, if there are wide differences in historical opinion regarding a subject, the role of Wikipedia is not to choose one, but to lay out all major arguments clearly so as to let the reader decide. Also, I have just noticed that an edit-warring user to whom you were presumably referring has just been blocked for 48 hours. That may solve the problem. If you want to help in the review process, you are welcome to. List some specific things in the article that you think ought to be revised. Display name 99 (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcoming response, that is something that other people lack here. I was just talking about the article being unstable, and how discussion about the disputed content will still go on after the editors are unblocked, and that will keep it unstable. I was referring to the fact that this article still isn't placed on hold. That is something that has to be done in GAs. On the talk page, the "on review" parameter should have been changed to "on hold", and that is done within a month. --MaranoFan (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The article has been placed on hold. BlueMoonset and MaranoFan, I now see what you-MaranoFan-meant by referring to the nominator having been blocked. Winkelvi was blocked for a period of 7 days. Because Winkelvi is the nominator, I don't think that we can do much until that time elapses. Display name 99 (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Displayname99, MaranoFan, and BlueMoonset, is there anything which requires doing on this article as of this week? As we are all aware, Winkelvi (the nominator) is blocked for the same amount of time as the GA review is on hold. If you could tell me what needs to be done on the BTK article it would be greatly appreciated. Ches (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake. Display name 99, read above. Ches (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are referring to. Display name 99 (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Display name 99, could you tell me what the issues are with the BTK article, and I will sort them out on WV's behalf? Ches (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Chesnaught555, there were many of them listed just above. Winkelvi was supposed to begin making changes to the "Selected references in popular culture" section, which was poorly sourced and not well-written. You can go ahead and look into Shootseven's question about the photographs. It won't hurt. Maybe one of us can establish contact with Winkelvi on his talk page. He is the nominator, and so officially it should primarily be his role to take care of these things. However, reviewing does, of course, involve more than one editor, and so the rest of us can work to sort these things out as well. Thank you for your work. I see what you meant about reading above. I misjudged when the last bit of text that I had not read began, and thus unintentionally skipped over several lines.

Now this paragraph is to everyone involved in the process. Shootseven's edits were irresponsible. Winkelvi, it appears, instead of looking into the sources and making compromises, also grew to become a bit too fond of the revert button. He has apologized for his actions on his talk page. Edit-warring is, as MaranoFan said, grounds for quick-failing. I didn't realize quite how bad the situation was when MaranoFan first brought it up. I have no intention to fail the article yet. Winkelvi has promised to do better. However, things had better improve within a week, or I do not believe I can continue reviewing. Display name 99 (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get working on it. Ches (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

There is currently an RfC on the article talk page. Lol, is even that not reason enough to fail thisnom?--MaranoFan (talk) 07:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, thank you for your work. I suppose that in all the controversy I forgot to check the article's history. I told you previously that I did not intend to put a 7 day "restriction" on improving the article. I merely intended to indicate that it was, indeed, "on hold" until your block expired. I'm sorry if it felt the opposite way to you. I'll try to keep track of your edits and please notify me when you believe you have finished. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• BlueMoonset and Display name 99, more extensive work done on the article today. Please feel free to look over and let me know what you might still see as being problematic. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I do not see any other issues. BlueMoonset, is there still anything else that you think ought to be revised before the review is completed? Display name 99 (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 02/11/16

Winkelvi, Display name 99, I'd like the rest of today to complete the four sections I never finished, and also to complete a source review. One thing I noticed in the most recent changes—I need to review them more fully—is the placement of the Lew Wallace reward at the beginning of the Death section. Wallace posted two separate awards, so far as I can determine. The first, chronologically, belongs between the last two paragraphs of the Outlaw section (see pages 237-238 of Wallis). The second was after his escape (Wallis, p. 245). (Both were $500, which may be why they're being conflated.) I'm puzzled by the use of a Daily Kos blog entry as a reliable source here, since there is no editorial verification there: anyone can write anything and publish it on the site. The Kos blog does say that the Kid only killed four people, which contradicts the eight you've listed in the lede and body, though one of the new cites added to support the eight, Wallis pp. 244–245, says "Olinger and Bell brought the Kid's proven murder count to four", so the article's "is known to have killed eight men" seems awfully definitive in the face of a "proven" four from a major source. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I'd really love it if you could give an indication as to when you will have the last four section suggestions completed. You promised them by the end of day four days ago and time continues to tick away. I realize we are all volunteers and are giving up our own time, so I'm not going to hold you to your previous promise, but an indication of when you could get them done and posted here would be greatly appreciated! Also, some clarification about the $500 reward/rewards as to dates would be also appreciated, as I would like to get that discrepancy fixed as well. I have looked high and low for indication of two bounties for the same amount, no luck on that yet. It seems that the Wallis source is the only one indicating such so far. Since I don't have that resource at my disposal, I will need your assistance on that. Something to consider, however, is that (as has been now noted in the article per changes yesterday), only $500 was awarded to Pat Garrett by the NM legislature, so the possibility of two $500 bounties now seems suspect (in my mind, at least). If there truly were two bounties for the same amount, why weren't they both awarded to Garrett, the killer on record of BtK? Any help you can give on this would also be appreciated. Looking forward to hearing back from you on all this, and thanks for all you've done so far. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I've found a copy of the Utley 1989 book, Billy the Kid: A Short and Violent Life, at a library in a not-too-distant town, so I now have that and the Wallis (found at a local library) here at home to refer to. The Utley is very clear that there were two rewards: on page 147, he says Wallace posted the $500 reward on December 13, 1880; on page 188, after the Kid's escape, he writes, Governor Wallace offered another five-hundred-dollar reward for his capture. Wallis also uses the phrase "another five-hundred-dollar reward" to refer to the post-escape reward on page 245 of his book; he cites the paragraph to page 277 of Nolan's The West of Billy the Kid. Having the two books to hand means that checking is going slowly for the four sections; I will try to have more posted very soon, and will in any case not keep you waiting past the end of this weekend. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that's fantastic to have another book source to go on, BlueMoonset. Your help and effort on this review has been invaluable, by the way. I didn't want to have to use True West Magazine much more and will be glad to add new content and strengthen what's already there based on what you've got in the way of the Utley book. Thanks for getting back to me on this; looking forward to seeing what more your review notes bring to light. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset: I've corrected the content on the bounties and have added content on the first one, along with the Utley book reference. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Source review

I looked through the sources to see if there were any that might not be reliable by GA and Wikipedia standards. The Sources section looked fine, but some of the References include other sources, and some of those looked dicey: individuals putting up their own websites who are otherwise not experts in the field, general websites that accept all contributions, and the like. I think new, reliable sources should be found for the material these references support, and if none can be found, the material should be removed.

• Legends of America (FN25), four cites: the "about us" describes material put together by a single person, so not reliable
• Officer Down Memorial Page (FN60), one cite: anyone can contribute information, and there's nothing to say that there is checking done; this should easily be replaced
• Lenny Flank/Daily Kos (FN63), one cite: Flank effectively has his own blog on Daily Kos with no editorial oversight, so not reliable
• AboutBillytheKid.com (FN67 and FN95), one cite each: a personally assembled website; I'm especially concerned that the entire "after death" paragraph with details about the death certificate is cited to this source, and something more reliable needs to be found
• Historical Marker Database (FN97), one cite: anyone can contribute, though there seems to be some sort of editorial board; I'm not sure about this one, but there is probably better out there

The PBS American Experience timeline (FN14) is not ideal because timelines tend to simplify things or take shortcuts. If there's a reliable source that's more in depth, it would seem to be preferable to American Experience.

There wasn't time to finish the review tonight. I'm continuing to work on it. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I have done work on all the problem sources you listed, except for the PBS timeline. Still working on replacing those. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, adding now that I have removed the PBS source and have replaced with Wallis and a reliable source from online. More new content was also added, with appropriate sourcing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi and BlueMoonset, I have replaced FN97 with a source from the cemetery's website. Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of that one, Display name 99. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset and display name 99, I have to respectfully disagree about the PBS timeline as a source. It's PBS, after all, and PBS is certainly a reliable source. No doubt a good bit of exact research was done for the program and the timeline can be trusted. Unless, of course, you have some kind of evidence that shows PBS timelines have, in the past, been questionable as reliable sources? The rest of the sources you listed above will be looked at by me later today/sometime tomorrow. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I examined the source and did not even see a date listed on the timeline for September 16, 1875, which is the date that the article says "McCarty began his criminal career by stealing food." In that case, it ought to be removed. There are two other citations following that same sentence anyhow. Display name 99 (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

My point wasn't whether the source is appropriate for the content BlueMoonset is questioning, my point is the larger picture suggested: that the source should be completely discounted and dismissed. I don't see any reason what that should be the case as PBS is a reliable source. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I would not consider PBS a reliable source for a GA level article. For a GA article one should choose the best sources available, not just the minimum standard.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know when and where and by whom PBS has been declared a "minimum standard" for sourcing and where there is a list of such sourcing classifications for GA articles and non-GA articles. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

A person who understands sourcing will realize that for history topics news agencies and documentaries are not appropriate sources, academically published sources written by historians is the appropriate type of source for such a topic. You can look at WP:HISTRS an essay about how to identify different levels of reliable sources for history articles.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Nice job at dodging the question and not answering it, rather, giving personal opinion and providing nothing either per policy or established precedent. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:HISTRS is not my personal opinion, but it is a good description of the best practice for sourcing in history articles.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for finally answering the question according to what was actually asked, rather than appearing to give only your personal opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

You realize that part of the GA and other review processes on wikipedia is that other editors give their personal opinions about how to improve articles? It is my personal opinion, which is shared by the author of WP:HISTRS, that relying on professionally published academic historians instead of journalists would improve the article. Are you interested in collaboratively improving the article or only in having pissing contests? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, as I pointed out, the very nature of the source (a timeline) makes it far from ideal for this purpose. Looking at the individual citations, there are four in First crimes and two in Capture and escape. The first one in First crimes has two other sources; the second, about the robbery he was arrested for, starts out "according to the legend" in the timeline, and is thus clearly unreliable. (Wallis p. 88 says that Schaefer did the robbery solo; McCarty later smuggled the loot into his room at Mrs. Brown's boarding house and began wearing some of the stolen clothes.) The third cite, about the stepfather, is also contradicted by Wallis (pages 94 to 95), who says that far from Antrim giving Billy money, he effectively kicked him out, with Billy stealing clothes and guns from his stepfather's room on the way out of town. (Wallis also says this is the last time stepfather and stepson ever see each other.) The fourth is again one of three cites, and thus superfluous. Under Capture and escape, the first one, a set of quotes, is something I wouldn't worry about, though that quote and more are available on Wallis, p. 240. For the second, well, I'd want a more scholarly backup for it than that. Wallis does offer something along those lines on page 244, but you might want to try Utley or Nolan. (I only have Wallis to hand, so that's the only one of your primary sources I can check.) BlueMoonset (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, book citations are awesome, however, it seems that of the three of us, you are the only one with access to it. Therefore, I have no clue whether a writer/historian's version of events differs from what is available online. That said, print media isn't always the last word as writers/historian's get things wrong. What's published in print prior to what's published online more recently could be old information. Just sayin'. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Generally what is published online relies on print sources, and sometimes without acknowledging it. For historic topics it is very rare that scholars publish new findings online. And if they do they ar eunlikely to have been vetted by peer review, so all in all print sources are almost always more reliable - as long as one relies on the best print sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the source largely because it did not fit with the content. Display name 99 (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• I have changed the year of publication for Utley "hard and violent life" from 1989 to 1990, since that seems to be the correct year (it appears in the 2000 edition as the first year of publication). I also noticed that reference formatting is quite haphazard, Utley's book is cited in about 6 different ways combining full citations, short citations, and different kinds of medium length citations. If proceeding to FA this will definitely be a problem that needs to be fixed. A strict GA reviewer might also consider that this is a problem under criterion 2A.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• I am trying to help out by standardizing the reference system, so that only hrvard short refs are used. I am hoping for patience from the reviewer and notminator as this is a little bit of a tedious process.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• Turns out the bibliography is also extremely inconsistent, some of the titles are not even in templates, so I may have bitten off more than I can handle in one sitting. I will come back and finish though.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Maunus, take as much time as necessary. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

My efforts seem not to be appreciated so I will spend my time on something more worthwhile.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Maunus, I hardly blame you at all. Display name 99 (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Display name 99 This GA has been open for almost a month and a half. It is the longest review I have ever witnessed, and there are still MAJOR defects in this article. It is really starting to WP:snow in here, when will you fail this?--MaranoFan (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Editors who are truly interested in seeing Wikipedia improve are want to see GA nom'd articles pass, not fail GA. Yet, you seem to be chomping at the bit for it to fail. Curious behavior, indeed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

MaranoFan, I agree with Winkelvi for once. First of all, today is only the one-month anniversary of the review's commencement. Secondly, since you came here, you have done nothing but complain on the review talk page about the process of the review and demand that it be failed. I have come close to failing this article a couple of times. However, it seems to me as though you have not provided us with any constructive or specific advice on how to improve the article. Unless you are willing to do that, please go away. Display name 99 (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Resuming source review

Winkelvi, thank you for removing the PBS source. There are some others to be dealt with, including "aboutbillythekid.com". Would you like me to see what Wallis and Utley have to say, and use them instead? I definitely believe that's necessary in the case of the History Channel (history.com) source used for FN24 and FN66. The latter was used in place of PBS, but I find it even more problematic. It seems to be repeating legends along with fact; for example, Although only 18 years old at the time, Billy had now committed as many as 17 murders, which we know to be dubious, not to mention sensationalist. I was unable to get confirmation of the "dead, dead, dead" / "hell, hell, hell" quote in either Utley or Wallis, who instead have the judge concluding "until his body be dead." Under the circumstances, I don't think anything from history.com can safely be used. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset:Yes, if you don't mind and have the time to spare, Wallis and Utley would certainly be preferable. History.com, I believe, is generally reliable, however, you're right that they would be prone to regurgitating legend - it's television, after all. Reminding myself of that has made me realize that in a historical article such as this, scholarly sources should be quoted/referenced as much as possible. I hope a good, solid reference for the dead dead dead/hell hell hell quote can be found. It's a great quote and Bonney was known for his smart alecky quips. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I may have solved the dead dead dead/hell hell hell quote with this edit. I like it because it addresses the fact that there are legends and there is the historical record. A true life character this colorful has a lot of legends still alive, and even the article used as a source that states the record gives a different picture admits that there's a fine line between legend and truth when it comes to Bonney and it's hard at times to know what's real and what isn't. Let me know what you think. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I'm not sure why you replaced "and" with "...," but other than that it looks fine. Display name 99 (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Because with rewording the section, there would have been two "and"s one quite soon after the other. Not good writing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Reverting of content

I have twice tried to reduce wording redundancy in the article and keep what's there from being too similar to the source attached to the section, however, a redlink editor with less than 100 edits has changed the content twice - once being a reversion of my appropriate change. Diffs are here: [2], [3], [4]. It would be wonderful if someone (Display name 99, BlueMoonset, Chesnaught555?) could change it back or at least get rid of the close redundancy (marked/marker) as well as keep the content from being too close in wording to the source cited there. Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi and Jillyjo, I'll try to take a look at whatever the issue is tomorrow. I don't have much time tonight. Display name 99 (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

So, you are asking some editor to make a second revert on your behalf? Wouldn't that really be breaking the spirit of your 1RR restriction from your last block experience? I am allowed to edit and make reverts when I find clumsy wording and sentences with missing words whether I have 10 edits, 100, or 1000. You seem to be predjudiced against editors that are newer, and especially against editors who have not created a user page. The way you refer to some editors as "red-linked" is offensive, as if you consider that a measure of their worth. Your behaviour at this article has been horrendous and your attitude toward newer editors is demeaning. Jilllyjo (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

None of what you have written here deserves a response as it's all laden with accusation that doesn't belong on this page. If you have something to say to me, please do it somewhere appropriate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I was responding to what YOU typed on this page. Nice way to sidestep the issues at hand. I do not have anything to say to you. So you go be appropriate somewhere else. I am going to get back to improving the article in hopes that it might reach GA despite all of the issues in this debacle. Jilllyjo (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll revert it now. --Ches (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

GA fail

Winkelvi, BlueMoonset, Chesnaught555, and Jilllyjo, the GA review has failed. Please wait about a month and, if there are no significant disputes in that time, you may renominate it. If you do so, I will not review it a second time. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

On what basis, Display name 99? Frankly, I find this sudden, out of the blue failure to be as improper as your initial passing of it when, as BlueMoonset told you from the jump, it shouldn't have been passed because it didn't have a proper review. What's more, did you consult with BlueMoonset about your unilateral decision to fail it? Truth be told, he's really the one doing the review and has given the proper guidance on moving it forward as well as getting things in order so it will pass. You've done little to nothing, other than offering an opinion now and again, to review it appropriately. You haven't even done the proper checklist on the article talk page or at this page as reviewers typically do. BlueMoonset needs to weigh in on this and make the decision with you. There's been a hell of a lot of work done on this article to get it to GA, and to just decide without any valid reason why it failed (or without going through the proper motions to do so), is wrong. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, seeing that the article was semi-protected for next to no reason was probably the last straw for me. The article is of very high-quality overall, but is very far from reaching the 4th requirement on the GA criteria, requiring the article to be stable. Some of the editors here have shown a blatant inability to work together to make this article better. As such, it cannot be passed just yet. Display name 99 (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any clue why it was semi-protected? Because it was being vandalized by a known, WP:LTA IP vandal. The article is not unstable. There is no edit warring. Your reasoning for failing it is not valid as the conditions you say exist don't exist; having an article GA failed because it needed to be semi-protected against IP vandalism is not a reason to fail, either. I have tried to work with one particular editor (did you even look at the article talk page?), to no avail. They preferred, instead, to go from one editor talk page to another to sully my name and get allies against me (are you aware of that?). I'm at the point of where I believe you have absolutely no clue what you are doing and have no business being a GA reviewer. I'm not saying that to be cruel, or to hurt your feelings, but think about it: you have less than 1000 edits, less than two months ago came off an indefinite block for WP:NOTHERE after being away from editing for three years. You simply don't have the editing experience or the critical thinking skills and knowledge of policy that would be gained from such experience to be doing GA reviews. As I stated above, you didn't even go through the proper motions of GA review and had to have this one taken over by someone else. You've demonstrated your inability to use sound reasoning pretty much every step of the way with this review. This isn't right, it just isn't. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I take responsibility for my sometimes-unpleasant editing history, as you should do as well. You have over 20,000 edits, but your history is seemingly characterized by incessant wars and disputes with other editors stemming largely from your accusatory and vindictive nature. Ever since other editors have gotten involved with this article, you have repeatedly accused them of vandalism or attempting to disrupt the GA process, often with little or no evidence. This is demonstrated perfectly in your reactions to an edit I made immediately after your block, which merely summarized the lengthy report written by the admin, to which you gave a lengthy response, which I now know was total BS, you beginning a sentence on Maunus's talk page with "What the fuck are you doing?," and continuing to insist that your version of what should go under "Authenticated photographs" was correct even after nearly every other editor involved voiced his disagreement. But you, of course, assumed bad faith and laid baseless accusations against them. Only when I made the changes on my own, and basically dared you to revert them, did you begrudgingly capitulate. I'm sure that there are other good examples. While my experience may be low, you should consider these things about yourself before you criticize my credentials as a reviewer.

Now, please note that I do not condone all actions taken by other editors involved with this. And yes, I was aware of Jilllyjo's irresponsible posts on the talk pages of Legacypac and MaranoFan prior to making the decision to fail the article. You may choose to ignore this. But if you would only learn to be a bit less childish-perhaps this could be done by going over some of the things that you have written on your userpage but have rarely seemed to follow yourself-you might become a better person, or at least, a better editor. I wish you well and better fortunes next time. Display name 99 (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

My editing history and mistakes made in the past/present have no bearing on any of this because I'm not posing myself as a qualified GA reviewer. You are posing yourself as a qualified GA reviewer, have only really been "here" for 6 weeks after a three year forced absence, therefore, your editing history is appropriate to mention. Your inability to remain neutral about an editor nominating and heavily editing a GA nom'd article and continuation of discussing an editor rather than edits is appropriate to mention. Here's a good question: Have you ever written or significantly edited a GA article that became GA because of your efforts? I think the answer has to be 'No'. That is significant. Your less-than 1000 edits and indefinite block is significant and relevant to this discussion. None of my actions in relation to this article's edits and GA nom have any validity or relevance in your failure of this article for GA because they aren't listed in the reasons why an article should be failed for GA. That in mind, you shouldn't even be mentioning any of it here. This only further demonstrates why you have no good understanding of the GA review process and should not be reviewing articles for GA at this point in your editing career in Wikipedia. Reviewers are supposed to look for appropriate reasons to pass an article for GA because it only makes Wikipedia better. They aren't supposed to look for bogus, prejudicial reasons to fail it. You have employed the latter consistently since your initial, inappropriate "pass" of the GA nom was overturned by BlueMoonset. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, for the record, I currently have one article, John C. Calhoun, that I have edited significantly, waiting to be reviewed. Is there any need to continue this further? You have the ability to bring in one of two of your friends if you want to berate me and defend you, as you have done before. But due to the continuing disputes on this article, it does not come anywhere close to meeting Section 5 of the GA criteria, even though the others are mostly covered. As I have said, wait a month or so, and if there are no major conflicts, renominate it and let someone other than me review it then. Display name 99 (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Please do yourself and others nominating articles for GA a favor: don't try to review any more articles for GA. You're not up to it, you don't have the experience, and if it were a permission to be granted, I have serious doubts you would be approved for it, based simply on your history and your lack of experience. This is not a negative criticism of who you are as an editor, it's just a fact about where you are and aren't currently in your editing career here. Good luck with your GA nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

It's over

Display name 99 has failed the nomination, and that's that. The recriminations from both sides are unseemly and unhelpful. I was going to write more, but with edits continuing at a rapid pace, I think something simple and direct is what's needed here, along with the reset that ending the review will bring. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, what do you mean by, "reset"? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

That everyone gets to take a breath, relax, and take stock without the pressure of an active GA review. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. It is a shame that the GA review failed, but I imagine the article will be ready by March - hopefully we can try again then. Thanks to everyone who helped. --Ches (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for collapsed section

Collapsed off-topic, stricken discussion

@BlueMoonset:, @Display name 99:, @Winkelvi: - Guys, this GAN has been open for 2 weeks, almost inactive for 1. I hope y'all haven't forgotten about it. --MaranoFan (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC) MaranoFan, thanks for inquiring. For future reference, good article reviews can take far longer than two weeks; anything under a month, so long as it is progressing, is not something to worry about, and if a complex review or one with controversial aspects or requiring new sources, it can be longer. If you think a nomination needs a nudge, then a couple of weeks without action is the point at which you might want to inquire; the typical hold is given a full week at least. I hope to be able to add comments on the remaining four sections over the course of the coming week. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC) I am sorry but the recent edit warring on the article has made it unstable, and that is grounds for quick failing. I understand, as much as ya'll have been working hard on this. This GAN needs to be quick-failed, and this is not optional. Thank you for your work, Display name 99, BlueMoonset and WV. This article fails WP:GACR #5 and needs months for being even close to meeting this. --MaranoFan (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)--MaranoFan (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC) MaranoFan, I have no idea where you got the idea that this must be quickfailed, but you are not correct. As it says on the good article criteria page: An article can, but by no means must, be failed without further review (which is what a quickfail is) if it is unstable, so while it might have been grounds for quickfailing at the time the review was begun, it by no means a requirement. Further, you'll note that quickfail is only an option when the review is beginning. While it is true that the review could conceivably be terminated for not meeting the stability requirement today, it might well do so by the time the review has concluded. Finally, the ultimate decision for this review rests with the official reviewer, Display name 99, not with you or anyone else. The idea that stability is measured in months is one I've never seen before, whereas I have seen GANs that had become unstable during the course of the review ultimately pass said review after the article quieted down. Can you give me a citation for stability requiring months? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC) I didn't mean quickfail as in the option "quickfail". But rather the idea to fail it quickly. The aricle needs a peer review and from what I have read, maybe even GOCE. I have seen many articles being failed for being severely unstable, no matter how much into the review process. I am not failing it myself as I don't have the right, but this review has definitely gone on long enough and it will touch the threshold of one month before it can be deemed stable again.-MaranoFan (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Billy the Kid Claimants

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

Please see "Rumors of Survival." Display name 99 (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It is a curiosity that deserves mention, but which should not be given any credence or undue weight. More than one or two paragraphs would be too much.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Purported image of John Tunstall is not present on the website of the collection that supposedly contains it

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

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

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

style of address

I think there should be a consensus on the style of address used throughout the article, whether it's 'Billy', 'McCarty', 'Bonney', 'the Kid', or something else. Perhaps using 'McCarty' until the Lincoln County War, 'Bonney' for that section, and 'Billy' after that? Not a huge fan of using 'the Kid' but if I'm in the minority, I'm good with it. Katie^talk 13:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Katie, hello again. I think that currently that is what the editors of this article are doing: changing the surname used appropriately, i.e. Bonney after the Lincoln County War, as you suggested. I also don't personally think "the Kid" sounds too good either. Ches (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

McCarty > Bonney

I love how the first section after the lead calls him McCarty, and then ends with "sometime in 1877 he started referring tohimself as William H. Bonney" and then the second section starts "Bonney went to work". Great writing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you being serious, Maunus? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was getting annoyed at the use of "McCarty" since nobody knows him like that, and then I thought how are you going to fix this in the rest of the article, and then it just happened naturally like that. I thought that was elegant.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You essentially answered your own question. After 1877 he began referring to himself as Bonney. Calling him Bonney beforehand, or McCarty after would be ridiculous and also factually incorrect as you're basically saying he used the same name throughout his life. Ches (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I didnt ask any questions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Cool. Up until now, it seemed no one noticed or cared. I apologize for even asking if you are serious, but sadly, in Wikipedia, snark and backhanded sarcasm are all too common. An internet plague, I think. Appreciate the kudos, Maunus. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You were not being sarcastic, then. My apologies also, for the way I worded my response. Ches (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Unauthenticated photographs

Can someone explain how as soon as I remove unauthenticated photos user Winkelvi puts them right back up? The purported Tom O'Folliard photo is from the very questionable "Phillips Collections," which has no provenance, none (even the owners pushing the collection do not claim provenance).

The "croquet photo" was declared authentic by a documentary and producers with a vested interest. See multiple issues of True West (including the issue on stands now) to see the opinions of actual historians and old west photo experts (who all question it's authenticity). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shootseven (talk • contribs) 04:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have anything solid to support your claim that the photos are not of what the article states they are? So far, all I see from you is personal opinion and original research. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I'll post about the "croquet photo" first. I've already mentioned True West Magazine, which has devoted much of this month's issue to that photo. Sorry, I don't have a link, the main articles are not online. Here's a preview from earlier giving some other historians opinions: http://www.truewestmagazine.com/billy-the-kid-experts-weigh-in-on-the-croquet-photo/ So yes, I'll take the opinions of researchers like Frederick Nolan and Robert Utley (who both have works cited on this page) over whoever decided it should be declared authentic. (I'll post about O'Folliard in a moment) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shootseven (talk • contribs) 05:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

1) It's not appropriate to remove sourced content from any article en masse. 2) Your reasoning at this point is personal opinion and original research. 3) You are edit warring and have exceeded WP:3RR. All are against Wikipedia policy, no matter how passionate you may feel about your changes and that you are right. As noted on your talk page, I have reported you for edit warring. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

And for the purported Tom O'Folliard photograph, the owners of the "Phillips Collection" have been pushing this for a year now. If you want some details look above because they have the same issue with the Tunstall photo talked about on this page. They admit they have no provenance. Here's a purported Billy the Kid photo they are pushing (note the comment from one of the owners about no provenance at the bottom of the page): http://www.historyandmystery.net/#!billy-the-kid/w3pt9

The standard with photos should be the person posting them proving who they are, no? I apologize if I should have edited it in a different way, but to say my reasoning doesn't matter is absurd. Whether it matter for if I'm allowed to edit or not is irrelevant; but you should care about fake photos being posted as real if you care at all about wikipedia's credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shootseven (talk • contribs) 05:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

So minor edits, clarifying the croquet photo is not authenticated, are not allowed now? (I didn't add a source because the TW article is already sourced in that paragraph, apparently the content of it is just being ignored now) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shootseven (talk • contribs) 05:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

We have reliable sources in the article that state the croquet photo is authentic and has been properly authenticated. We may be able to put something in the article about the authenticity being challenged, but not now. You need to walk away from the article for a bit, let administrators looking into the edit warring make a decision, and allow more discussion here to take place. There are likely other editors who will join in over time. But as far as adding what you have to the article, not a good idea -- and definitely not a good idea to continue to attempt to change it to fit the agenda you came here with. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I came here with no agenda; I tried to help your page, but fine, I don't have tine to fight about it if you want to keep incorrect information up. But I will leave you with this:

Croquet photo: Read the True West article link; unfortunately that was is only small quotes, but you'll see that the biggest BTK experts and most well known old west photo experts, as well as the Arizona State Historian, among others, do not believe the photo is real; and if you pick up this month's issue, you'll find the many, many reasons why (including the fact that the building they claim was the one in the photo wasn't built until 1935).

As for the O'Folliard photo; here's the page of the user who added it (and who happened to be the owner of the collection): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OSMOND_PHILLIPS I'm not sure what else I can give you to "prove" a photo from a collection no one takes seriously isn't who they say it is.

Good nightShootseven (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

One final note, I was wrong, the full new TW article is online now, with plenty of evidence against the authenticity of the croquet photo: http://www.truewestmagazine.com/the-croquet-kid/ Shootseven (talk) 06:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the purported image of John Tunstall

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

There was a discussion on that user's talk page about this issue, which has been raised by other users, where he has stated "I also have a signed contract from the owners that allows me to promote the collection. I can submit a copy of the contract." Has he done so? He says, "I have completed the OTRS process.", but provides no link. I see no indication that the problem has been resolved. There is a better quality image of Tunstall with provenance, curated by an academic source, unlike the disputed image, which also presently resides at the John Tunstall article. Carlstak (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Given your evidence of a better, more reliably sourced image, I would recommend using the second (Russian titled) image. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I did give my evidence. It's this page on the University of New Mexico site, published by the Center for Southwest Research, University Libraries, University of New Mexico. May I ask what evidence there is for the disputed image, other than some apparently unsubstantiated claims by a possibly pseudonymous user? Carlstak (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Carlstak: You've misunderstood me. I recognize your evidence. I agree with you. Your suggested image should be used. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: Oh, sorry. I saw "Given" as "Give". My apologies. Thank you very much. I raised this issue on the John Tunstall talk page and never got a response. Many of the images uploaded by "OSMOND PHILLIPS" have the same problem, and this really should be addressed. Carlstak (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

We would need more definitive evidence to remove the image, Carlstak. Your personal doubts that the editor, Osmond Phillips, is not who he says he is as a representative of the Osmond Collection is not enough. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually I think any resonable doubt should be enough to remove images that may not portray what they are currently claimed to portray.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi I am not the only one who doubts their authenticity; my doubts aside, your preferred image has no provenance except the claims of a mysterious personage who has uploaded images that other editors have called into question. An expert should be consulted. I will contact the UNM for an expert's opinion. Carlstak (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not my preferred image. It's an image that you haven't proven is inauthentic. You comments at the Tunstall article in regard to the image came from your personal opinion. That's WP:OR and certainly not enough to declare inauthentic a photo that is said to be authentic and from the renown Phillips Collection. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I should have mentioned it's not from the renowned Phillips Collection, it's from the not-so-reknowned" "Phillips Collection". The so-called "Osmond Phillips" (oh, dear me, I forgot the ALL CAPS) is from the not-so-reputable collection of the online magazine, Texas Escapes. This is exactly the confusion that the mysterious OSMOND PHILLIPS appears to be seeking to perpetuate. Carlstak (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Speculation

-- Lede -- was reputed to have killed up to twenty-one men,[1] although historians now believe that he killed eight

[5] --MaranoFan (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

MaranoFan, it's more likely that he killed 8. I believe that this would line up more with what's in the article. You may certainly clarify it somewhat. However, please be sure to make a notice here or on the GA page prior to making any major edits. Display name 99 (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Does Winkelvi have some authority over this page

Does User:Winkelvi have some special authority over this page? I've tried in multiple ways to add changes indicating the alleged "croquet photo" has not been authenticated (with sources, ie True West), and he keeps changing it back with the explanation that the photo has been "properly authenticated" - a statement that leads me to believe he has no idea what actually goes into authenticating historical photos (the photo was authenticated by standards set up by the filmmakers who did a documentary on it, and if you'll look at your sources claiming it to be authentic, you'll see in each case the only actual source is the documentary). Considering every major Billy the Kid historian (including many whose work make up the bulk of the sources on this page) do not believe it to be authenticated, I'm not sure how User:Winkelvi justifies leaving it under authenticated photographs and how he appears to have so much say on this when he seems to know very little about the subject. Shootseven (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

'[Winkelvi] seems to know very little about the subject'. Oh, yeah, because an experienced editor who helped get this article nominated to GA status knows nothing about Billy the Kid. (Sarcasm.) WV has told you to stop several times now. Give me one good reason why I shouldn't take you to AN/I. Your behaviour on this article has been unacceptable. Ches (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I stand by my comment. (and I didn't say he knows nothing about BTK, I said he seems to know nothing about photo authentication). If he had knowledge of photo authentication; he's know that the number one, most important thing, is provenance. That's what collectors look for, that's what historians look for. It's been pointed out now in two different True West articles I've posted as sources that this photo lacks that; and that's why none of the BTK or western photo experts quoted believe the photo has been authenticated. I'll take it a step further. Who likely knows more about BTK, User:Winkelvi or author and historian Frederick Nolan? or author and historian Robert Utely? I could go on with a much larger list (check the articles I've posted), but the point is these experts do no believe the photo was authenticated. My last edited simply pointed this out and, because of the weight of these expert opinions, changed the label from authenticated to "alleged authenticated. I ask, are all of these experts supposed to be ignored because the producers of a documentary declared the photo authentic? So no no other expert opinion matters besides theres? I don't get it. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shootseven (talk • contribs) 21:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I quoted you, so don't claim that you didn't say what you said (as cumbersome as that sounds). I'll take you seriously when you start signing your posts. Ches (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh good grief, I forgot to sign my post (sorry, I don't spend much time here at all, just saw a mistake a tried to be nice and fix it - who knew it would turn into this). "I quoted you, so don't claim that you didn't say what you said" - yes Chesnaught555, you did quote me, however, you took the quote from the context of me talking about photo authentication and tried to change the meaning by claiming I said something different. I have no idea how much User:Winkelvi does or doesn't know about BTK, I'm just sure he doesn't know much about photo authentication. Which brings me back to the actual reason for the change, and the question I have been trying to ask both of you now (but instead just get personal attacks at me as the response). We have one photo that a group of filmmakers claims to have authenticated. On the other side every western photo expert and BTK expert disagrees. So how do you suggest this is handled. Surely the policy of Wikipedia isn't to blindly take the word of the filmmakers and end it there: so go, give your suggestions to improve the page. Then the other photo, the alleged Tom O'Folliard photo. The only source claiming this is O'Folliard is the website of the person who owns and posted the photograph. No body believes it's him; that's why you won't find it in book, articles, or discussed anywhere else. The user who posted it already has another one of his photographs removed (see John Tunstall photo thread above). So again, what is the policy here? Is it really, once someone claims a photo is somebody, it cannot be removed to someone else proves it isn't that person? Seems to me the obligation of proof should be on the person posting the photograph. So again I ask you Chesnaught555 and Winkelvi for your thoughts on how to handle it. Shootseven (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Most of the experts (Nolan, Utley, Gardner, Hutton, Gomber, etc.) do not believe the croquet photo shows Billy the Kid. When there are two fringes both of them should be expressed in the article in order to do justice to both of them. Later, if necessary, revisions can be made. Today the croquet photo is an alleged photo of BTK, nothing else. And, in fact, the other photos, Bowdre, O'Folliard and Tunstall, are not necessary at all in this article. -- The problem with this article seems to be that it does not trust the sources enough. There are brilliant sources of the subject: biographies (Gardner, Nolan, Utley, Wallis etc.) and many other reliable books and articles. Most of the stuff can be read on the internet if you do not have the books. By using all this stuff you can make an excellent article of anybody, and avoid argueing. Because my mother tongue is not English I feel uncomfortable to put something myself. Image tube (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)x

I personally think the photographs are needed because the victims aren't notable individually. Not deleting anything until next Saturday, though. WV is blocked, and we can't really do much until he's back... if I see any grammar errors or whatever I'll edit them, but I won't make major edits to the page until either a) the GA review is over or b) Winkel is unblocked, whichever happens first. Ches (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly the point I've been trying to make about the croquet photo Image tube. The "authentication" was made by a documentary company to meet the standard they themselves set up for authentication; and is not accepted by the vast majority of the historical community. That photo really should not be under authenticated photographs. As for Image tube's statement, "the other photos, Bowdre, O'Folliard and Tunstall, are not necessary at all in this article," I offer no opinion on that, except for the O'Folliard photo (since it's not actually O'Folliard), but, since that's the most egregious error in the article, I'm going to start a new section for that so hopefully we can get it removed ASAP. Shootseven (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Image tube, what is your mother tongue? If it's French or Spanish (or Welsh, which is unlikely), I may be able to help you out. Ches (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Moving "Croquet photograph" out of "authenticated photographs" section

The alleged photograph of Billy the Kid playing croquet should not be under authenticated photographs, as virtually no one in the historical community accepts the authenticity or authentication process. I've started a new section for this because the other mentions of it on this page are getting bogged down with other issued. Here's a brief summary of the issue.

For those in the western historical community, the croquet photo has been around for some time. It's owners have been taking it to different western photograph experts, historians, and auction houses hoping to have someone side with their belief that the photo was of Billy the Kid and the Regulators. No one did. A documentary filmmaker heard about this and decided he did not like the process of how historic photos are authenticated.

To back track to authentication a bit; there is no one set process for how a photograph is authenticated, however, generally the most important thing a photograph must have is provenance (an unbroken chain of custody). The original Billy the Kid tintype has this. Before it was sold at auction for $2.3 million it has remained in the same family since Billy the Kid gave it to a friend of his (of that family). Billy gave another copy (that was since destroyed by fire) to a friend of his in Fort Sumner. The image was also identified by other friends of his, as well as by Pat Garrett, as being Billy the kid. THAT is an authenticated photo.

Back to the croquet tintype. There is no such provenance and the only ID came from the owners of the photo, who thought it looked like Billy the Kid. So the filmmaker (J. Aiello) who stepped in didn't like this process and thought there should be other ways to authenticate a photograph, so he set up his own process with his own experts. It passed this process so the production company announced they had "authenticated" the photograph. So when it is stated elsewhere on this page that "reliable sources" say that the photo "has been properly authenticated," what that actually means is that newspapers reported that a production company said they authenticated the tintype. Does that mean it's actually been authenticated?

For more detail on this history of this tintype's journey, see http://www.truewestmagazine.com/the-croquet-kid/ While that link also quotes many historians and their doubts about the photograph (as Image tube wrote above, "Most of the experts (Nolan, Utley, Gardner, Hutton, Gomber, etc.) do not believe the croquet photo shows Billy the Kid. When there are two fringes both of them should be expressed in the article in order to do justice to both of them. Later, if necessary, revisions can be made. Today the croquet photo is an alleged photo of BTK, nothing else.) see the issue of True West (February, 2016) that is on newsstands and in libraries now.

When a production company, with no experience in authenticating photos, declares they have authenticated on, and almost the entire historical community disagrees, it seems irresponsible to include it under "authenticated photographs." Any objections to changing this? Shootseven (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Shootseven, you may change "Authenticated photographs" to simply "Photographs" and then, in the "playing croquet" sub-section, discuss in detail why it may or may not be real. Try to use more than just one source, although I know that you listed several above. I am not particularly knowledgeable about BTK, but this seems to be an appropriate way to represent all elements of the historical debate. Do Chesnaught555 or Winkelvi have any objections to this? Winkelvi, you may respond on your talk page regarding your opinions. Display name 99 (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think changing the header to "Photographs" is the ideal solution. The problem with "authentication" is that authenticated artwork, whether photographic, painting, sculpture, or whatever, is not solely a matter of provenance. If you read Wikipedia's authentication article, you'll see that there are other methods involved in authenticating an item, and they've become more involved over time as science has more tools available. Works of art are authenticated and de-authenticated all the time: you'll have shows of an artist's work that include a painting as genuine that in a later show is omitted because of newer evidence or vice versa.

While it is a controversial authentication, and has a significant number of doubters, the croquet photo nevertheless has been authenticated by Kagin's and presented as such in the documentary. So we have to be careful how we present this, and it has to be as neutral as possible. This means that non-neutral words like "claim" and "alleged" are off the table. Even the True West Magazine story cited by Shootseven has in its headline, "Experts face off over its authenticity. You decide who to believe." We also need to think about WP:UNDUE: this photo should not be given more attention than the long-established solo photo currently listed first. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Or at least, if we do use the words "alleged" and "claim," we must do so when presenting both sides of the argument. Thank you for your help. Display name 99 (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I also agree with everything said. As for me, my English is not so good that I would start writing a Wikipedia article in English. It could be something like ... "the croquet photo has been authenticated by Kagin's (Mr. Don Kagin and numismatist David McCarthy)"... and "most of the experts (there seems to be a majority) do not believe the photo shows BTK" or something like that. I think this was the case earlier but then the section was rebuilt. Because I'm not American (but European) I have a sense that BTK is a lot disputed person in America. It would be nice to know what does Nolan, Utley, Gardner, Wallis, or Jacobsen (biographers) think about this article and the discussion. May be "Keep on disputing, guys!"

Image tube (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with everything said here. I do think, however, if we're talking about major changes or rebuilding up the entire "croquet photo" section, someone else may want to take the lead on writing it. My wikipedia experience doesn't do beyond making minor corrections when I've seen errors from time to time, so I may not be the best judge of the length. I also may not be the best neutral observer as I've been following this story closely for a long time and have some pretty strong opinions about the photo's authenticity. I just know that with the opinions in the historical community what is currently on the page doesn't work because the photo isn't as accepted as the original tintype which we know is BTK. I'll be glad to post some more sources here and if no one else jumps in on writing it to take a crack at it; but I know there are more impartial observers out there. Shootseven (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Shootseven, thank you for your response and for your honestly. As a GA reviewer, I am not supposed to be making large changes to the article, therefore I do not believe that I should be the person to do this either. I can certainly do so, however, if no-one else volunteers, although I'm not sure if I'll have time for a couple of days. Display name 99 (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I will take care of the rewrite on that section tonight. Patience, everybody. Wikipedia is never finished, and there is no deadline. Also, I find it a little disturbing that no one has really tried to build consensus here nor attempted to include either of the two biggest recent contributors to the article, one if which has been trying to bring it to GA. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, thank you for volunteering to take care of this. However, I disagree with two of the comments that you made. First, we have attempted to "build consensus here," and I believe that we have accomplished it. As for the "two biggest recent contributors," if you're referring to Chesnaught555 and BlueMoonset, I pinged the former a little ways above, and he has commented in response, and BlueMoonset seems to have found his way in here on his own, and has offered his advice. So I don't know what you mean. Anyway, thank you again for your work. I'll take a look at it as soon as I can. Display name 99 (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, whoever takes care of it; here's another item that might be of interest (Wild West History Association Journal, Volume 8, Number 6, December 2015, page 62: http://picpaste.com/pics/WWHA-ZkMHiN35.1454455920.jpg The True West article is actually much more informative, and experts go into more detail (where here it simply ends with a list of some known BTK historians who do not believe the photo is Billy), however I'm posting it because it's a historical society that many of the know experts are a part of (Frederick Nolan is on the editorial board) and I suspect we'll get more from them on this topic in the future. Also, here's an article by Drew Gomber (another know "kid" expert) about the photo http://www.ruidosonews.com/story/life/columnists/2015/11/19/second-lincoln-county-war/76042022/ Shootseven (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I have redone the section. I do not, however, agree that the section header "authenticated photographs" should be removed because the photo has, indeed, been authenticated in spite of what a group of writers for True West Magazine state regarding the photo. Remember, we go by the sources, and the sources verify that the photo has been authenticated. Verifiability over truth is the gold standard in Wikipedia and because the image is verified through reliable sources to be authentic, we then also state in the article that the photo has been authenticated. Plenty of equal time has been given to the naysayers through direct quotes from the True West article. I honestly don't see how we can do much more to present both sides -- and keep in mind, the side saying the photo is real does have some very qualified people giving credence to the photo being authentic -- but giving more in the section to the anti-authenticity folks would be undue weight. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the section is well done in that it presents both sides, but I do agree with Display name 99 that the section should be changed to "photographs." Having it under the same "authenticated photographs" section as the original tintype, gives the appearance of putting it on the same level as the original BTK tintype, when that is clearly not the case (nobody doubts the authenticity of the original). Even their facial recognition expert that you mentioned in the article (Kent Gibson) said in the documentary that the 80% match would not hold up in a court of law, which seems to be one of many examples that their "authentication" is simply their opinion. Remember, there is no official accepted process for authenticating historical photographs. All we have is the process of what the people who claim to have authenticated the photo set up. One more thing to keep in mind when hearing that someone claims to have "authenticated" a photograph; it seems every alleged BTK photo has some forensic expert (usually with a legitimately impressive resume) declares they authenticated it. For an example see this supposed BTK photo "authenticated" by Lois Gibson: http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/newly-authenticated-photo-rekindles-hype-over-the-kid-historians-skeptical/article_e92ad471-8faf-5d07-8cdd-86c9b834900b.html There are others. Shootseven (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

"Having it under the same "authenticated photographs" section as the original tintype, gives the appearance of putting it on the same level as the original BTK tintype, when that is clearly not the case" As I stated above, the photo has been authenticated. Removing the word "authenticated" or moving the content on the croquet photo out of the "authenticated" section doesn't change the fact that the photo has gone through authentication, regardless of what a group of writers from True West magazine state that it's not been authenticated. Again, we go by reliable sources in Wikipedia. Verifiability trumps (alleged) truth in Wikipedia (please read the link WP:VERIFY if you have not already done so). There has been more than one expert in authenticating photographs authenticating this photo. The sources state this and state the photo has been authenticated. We don't declare it not so in spite of what the reliable sources say -- our job is to write content based on what reliable sources say. And in this case, the sources say the photo has been authenticated. Further, would Kagins insure it for $5M if there was real doubt about it's authentication? I think not. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Shootseven, are you employed by or are you/have you been a writer for True West magazine? Are you employed by the State of New Mexico in any way? I'm asking because I think it's important we look at the possibility of conflict of interest. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Being a topic expert is not a conflict of interest.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

First, I don't know that Shootseven is a "topic expert". That said, considering his limited involvement in Wikipedia has included pretty much only Civil War and Old West interests along with historic individuals from New Mexico, I think the question needs to be asked to get it out in the open. He has relied heavily on True West Magazine for his argument(s) against the photo. We have already had one True West Magazine writer at this article not too long ago (he is one of those on record as saying the photo cannot possibly be authentic) and I think it's only prudent to find out if the sudden appearance of Shootseven and his strong focus on this subject has any connection to True West Magazine or those at the State of New Mexico archives who have balked at the photo's authenticity. Frankly, the sudden appearance of several new or little-used accounts coming out against the authenticity of the photo raises at least one of my eyebrows along with my suspicions. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

"would Kagins insure it for $5M if there was real doubt about it's authentication? I think not." I can't speak on behalf of Kagins, but yes, there are auction houses would would do that simply to give the appearance of value and drive the price up. But I am not enough of a collector to speak to Kagin's reputation. "regardless of what a group of writers from True West magazine state that it's not been authenticated" you keep writing this as if to somehow dismiss these "writers," however, some of the names coming out against the photo there are the biggest Billy the Kid, western history, and western photograph experts on the planet. And, for the record, many of these men told the Guijarros years ago the photo wasn't Billy, but weren't included in the documentary (you could say it was very one sided). No, I do not work for True West, nor have I written for them. I served as an unpaid consultant for a single article once, but the topic was not Billy the Kid. I do know people on both sides (people who worked on the documentary and some in the article who question the photo's authenticity) of this which is why I didn't want to write this section. But my goal with this and the O'Folliard photo is true, and "authenticated," well, I'll leave you with this for the night; the Webster's definition of "authenticate": "to prove that something is real, true, or genuine : to prove that something is authentic." With all of the questions surrounding the photo, to say it's been proven to be BTK is a stretch, which is why I think Display name 99's plan made the most sense. Shootseven (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for answering the question about True West Magazine. You did not, however, answer as to whether or not you have been or are employed by the State of New Mexico. That you have connections with those who question the authenticity of the photo and those involved with the documentary could be an issue that falls into the category of conflict of interest. You should read the article on Wikipedia's policy on COI and let us know if you could fall into that category, no matter how minimally. Disclosure is a good thing, especially when it comes to the desire to see the removal of sourced content occur. Which, brings us back to the reality of how Wikipedia editors are to write/edit articles: without conflict of interest, without bias, and by putting into prose what reliable sources say. Reliable sources say the photo has been authenticated. It's not our job to use original research to contradict those reliable sources. Unless something else comes out from a reliable, unbiased source that says otherwise, and as far as this article is concerned, the sources say the photo is authentic. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

No WV, I am not and have never been employed by the State of New Mexico. "Reliable sources say the photo has been authenticated." Reliable sources also say the photo is not authentic. The reason I've used the two TW articles as sources is because they bring together quotes from the biggest experts. Are we to rely on the books of researchers like Nolan and Utley as the major sources for this article, and then pretend they have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to the croquet photo? Again, authenticated means proved, and to my mind, that has not been done if there is this much doubt among experts. I'm going to step back now to give time for others to chime in. Shootseven (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for answering that question. There is still some possibility that you may be in violation of COI, however, based on your connections to those who say the photo is not authentic. "Reliable sources also say the photo is not authentic." But, you see, that horse has already left the barn. The photo was authenticated and remains so. If they were saying the photo wasn't authenticated, that might pose some issues, but when an item has been declared to be something that's authenticated, then that's what we add for content if reliable sources confirm that's the case. Authentication is an act and a declaration. The act occurred and that's a fact. There are those who doubt the authenticity, but that still doesn't change the fact that the authentication took place. Which is what the article presents. The article doesn't -- and shouldn't -- say whether the authentication is accurate, just that the image has been authenticated. You're fighting against something that can't be fought against in Wikipedia. We only write what's verified and what's happened, not whether or not we believe the verification and what's happened. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I am sorry but you are the one who is misrepresenting policy and going against the spirit if not the letter of the FGF policy. If there is a disagreement in reliable sources about whether or not specific photos are authentic Wikipedia has an obligation and a responsibility of making this clear to the reader. Being cautious and conservative in ascribing authenticity is the best approach in order not to misinform. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think you understand the argument, Maunus. The argument is about whether or not the croquet photo has been authenticated by those who do such things. The photo was authenticated by a group that specializes in numismatic antiquities. The authentication is done, and that ship has sailed. It has been made clear in the article that there are those who do not believe the photo to be authentic, even though it has been certified as such. WE don't ascribe authenticity on something that has been already authenticated. Mind you, we're not talking about a photo uploaded to Wikipedia and being called authentic by the uploader. We're talking about an antiquity that has been declared authentic by experts in the field. We are merely writing and including content in the article in regard to that authentication. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I think you dont understand how "authentication" works. It does not work in the way you suggest where an authority declares some historical object to be authentic whereonafter the authenticity is established. An "authentication" is simply an expert opinion. And sometimes other experts disagree, which seems to be the case here, in that case the autneticity remains contested regardless of whether some expert body considers it to have been established. Also why would numismatists even have any particular authority to authenticate historical photos? IN fact reading the articles it seems that the finder of the photo simply shopped around among experts until one "autenticated" it - after several other experts had rejected it. When the "authentication" raises the value of the photo to be in the millions of dollars, it is the authenticating authority that should be regarded with a healthy degree of suspicion - especially when other experts vociferously degree, and when there is little or no actual provenance data to support the "authentication". ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The article currently has balance with both sides presented. It's all backed by adequate referencing. That is appropriate per policy and guidelines. The photo is still considered authenticated, and we should not decide whether or not the authentication is valid. We go by what the sources say, period. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 09:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with ·maunus who seems to understand the process very well; and is absolutely correct when he states "An "authentication" is simply an expert opinion." In this case we have those opinions going both ways. May I suggest that another user may want to make the changes? The reason I didn't want to write this section is that I'm not impartial when it comes to the authenticity of the photo: I believe too strongly that it is not Billy the Kid (for a number of reasons). That being said, I think you WV might be suffering from the same bias going in the other direction because of the trust you seem to be putting in Kagin's. Earlier you asked "would Kagins insure it for $5M if there was real doubt about it's authentication?" and I gave the honest answer that I don't know enough about Kagin's to answer that; however, I do know that questionable items are given the stamp of approval by auction houses and put up for auction all the time, and that that in it self doesn't make the item authentic. Remember, the auction houses stand to make a lot of money based on their authentication. Personally I think ·maunus should make any necessary changes as he appears to have a strong understanding of the issue (and no clear strong opinions for or against the photo that would prevent him from an unbiased edit). Shootseven (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

What you either don't understand or don't want to understand is that it doesn't matter to Wikipedia what the process is. If we were writing an article on the process of authentication, then it would matter. For this article, however, we only write what the sources say, and the sources say the photo has been authenticated. We have also now given equal time to those who say the photo is not authentic. That's all that needs to be said. The article is about Billy the Kid, not how photographs are authenticated or which Old West photos aren't authentic. You obviously have an agenda, especially with the people you know who are involved in disputing the photograph. But, Wikipedia isn't interested in your agenda. The only interest Wikipedia editors should have regarding this photograph and the article is to make sure that readers understand the photo has been authenticated and that there are people who dispute the authentication. That is in the article, therefore, readers will be able to come to their own conclusions. It's not up to us to make conclusions for them. End of story. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

WInkelvi you are making claims about what matters to wikipedia that are obvious and clearmisunderstandings both of the relative standing of the sources and of how wikipedia works. When reliable sources disagree it is a matter of editorial discretion to get the appropriate balance betweeen conflicting viewpoints. In a case where the authenticity of an historical source or document is questioned it is highly important that we do not implicitly give undue weight to one of the viewpoints - especially when there is money and business involved - because Wikipedia's choice will potentially reflect on the value of the source. You need to quit the COI and "agenda" routine because the question could with the same legitimacy be asked of you - why is it that you are hell-bent on claiming that the photo is authentic in spite of a handful of historians saying that it is probably not? Do you have any economic interest in its being authentic? Here the people who will have something to gain are the one's who claim that it is authentic, not the ones who question it. I am going to start an RfC about this question to get wider input from the community.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Maunus, because RfCs can conceivably go on for 30 days, I'm asking you to reconsider. This article is under GA review. An RfC would likely fail this GA review. Is that your intent? Why not just let interested editors comment and build consensus that way? And, before you continue to try and color me as biased, may I remind you that I'm not the editor who came in and insisted my version of events was correct, edit warred over it, and caused massive disruption then said I would not return to the article, only to return immediately to insert my POV after my block was up. If this only boils down to the section header, fine, let's come to consensus. If it is about the content, I don't know why, because, as it is now, the content is balanced, but not to the point if WP:FALSEBALANCE, which is as it should be. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If the GA fails you will have been partly responsible for that by your behavior and flat rejection of arguments. You have not been building consensus here but simply claimed that your view is correct "period". I have made some edits to the section on photos making it more neutral. If those are acceptable to you I will not file an RfC, but if they are not I dont think I will have a choice. You are basically claiming that a National Geographic show trumps the opinion of actual historians - that is an absurdity as any historian will know that television shows routinely misrepresent history to get viewers, especially in cases like this were reality may be more boring than making extraordinary claims about new discoveries. As a source the NatGeo "authentication" holds very little weight - and any claims of the photo being considered authenticity should be postponed untill we know whether historians will accept its conclusions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Maunus, please read the article section, look at the references, and re-read the comments I have made in this discussion section. In no way am I or is the section relying solely on the NatGeo special for sourcing. There are several sources listed, including the True West article claiming the photo is not authentic. You are, it would seem from your comments, going on a lot of misconception and misinformation. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I have of course read the section and the sources. The final word on the photo's authenticity will depend on how professional historians react to Kagin inc's opinion. Wikipedia should be agnostic on the matter untill then.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll go on record as supporting the changes made by ·maunus. Looks good to me. Shootseven (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course you support Maunus' changes: they are in line with your agenda. Problem is, Maunus should not have made those changes because we are in discussion about those changes. Maunus has defied policy and did not allow discussion to progress, others to join in, and consensus to formulate. He just took matters into his own hands and made changes, to hell with process and policy. Great way to show a new user how to do things they shouldn't do, Maunus. The GA reviewer, BlueMoonset obviously needs to step in. I would also love to see Chesnaught555 make an appearance here along with Display name 99 as the other GA reviewer and make comments on the changes made that shouldn't have been made until discussion was truly closed. I'll go even further and say I think you are reverting because you know I'm on a 1RR restriction, Maunus, which is really lousy for you to do. I hope I'm wrong,but since you know how consensus building is supposed to go down, I don't think I am wrong at all. Of course, I'm willing to hear your side as to why you chose to make changes before the discussion came to some agreement/consensus. Am I angry because of how this has all progressed? You're damned right I am. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I dont know what restrictions you are, under but given your behavior here I am not surprised that you are. You are the one who has been behaving extremely poorly to new editors, here misrepresrenting both policy and not following the process for generating consensus - but simply stubbornly maintaining that you are right and accusing your opponents of having "agendas" and conflicts of interest. Since you are clearly not happy with my edits to neutralize the article I will now start an RfC so that we can receive a wider community input. I will revert my edits pending the conclusion of the rfc.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are insisting on a formal, 30 day RFC when plain old discussion would suffice. Rather than wait for discussion with others included, you wrongly made article changes about the things I am trying to discuss calmly and succinctly. Others who have an interest in this article should be given time to join in. An RFC would jeopardize the GA review. Why go that way, why not wait for more discussion, and why make the article unstable with your changes and now revert that shouldn't have happened in the first place? I know you know better than to behave in this manner. You have always seemed like a patient, wise editor previous to this. I'm frankly very confused by what's happening here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Because you have shown no willingness to discuss in good faith. You have been using absolute statments such as "that is the way it is. period." and ""that horse has left the barn" instead of arguments. You have accused those who disagree with you of having agendas or conflicts of interest or of not having read the material. You have not appeared to understand how wikipedia represents contentious matters, or how disputes about historical authenticity are settled within the historian community. All of this suggests that having further discussion with you on this topic is not a fruitful use of my time. You could have avoided jeopardizing the GA review by being responsive to other editors concerns earlier on in the process, but rather you insisted that your perspective was the final word. So this is where it is at.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: As a neutral party in this dispute, I tend to concur with @BlueMoonset: and @Display name 99:, in that I think including the Croquet Photo, while simply renaming the section sans the word "authenticated" is the best course of action. I also concur with @Winkelvi: in his feeling that an RFC would not be the best course of action, at least at this point. I'm not sure why exactly why removing the descriptor "authenticated" is even a problem. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 18:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not just about the header title - the section itself is currently making it appear as if the authenticity of the photo has been established beyond doubt.No one is argueing that the photo should not be included, but it should not be dscribed as authentic untill we know that that is the consensus within the entire historical community. I have already started the RfC and I am not going to cancel it. The GA reviewer may make the choice about what this means for the review. I don't think the outcome of the review should stand or fall with this - the quality of the article does not depend on the outcome of the RfC. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

So, basically you're saying that you're going to argue with an uninvolved editor, who offers their take, and continue an RFC that is both unnecessary and will likely derail the current Good Article Nomination, your protestations notwithstanding? What are you trying to accomplish by doing this? Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 19:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I am trying to achieve a GA that does not claim that a photo is established as authentic when its authenticity is in fact disputed.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

[editconflict]Also User:Hallward's Ghost (talk · contribs), note that you infact told Shootseven to rename the section and discuss in the section why the photo's authenticity is contested. That is exactly what my recent edits did, but they were not acceptable to Winkelwi (though presumably they would be to you, since they infact did exactly as you had adviced). This is why an RfC is needed. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

My point is, this can be hashed out through discussion, and doesn't need an RFC that will likely derail the GA nom. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 19:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hallward's Ghost, to be fair, the edits made by snunɐɯ· were the result of the discussion, and his edits seems to include all of the advice in the above comments in a way that should have been acceptable to everyone (except maybe to WV, who was the one dissenter). I very much doubt that anyone else who had given their opinion above would have objected to the edits that were made. Shootseven (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

From a logical point of view, if the source says that the photo is authenticated, and the source is valid/reliable, then the photo should stay. Ches (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

That would indeed be a logical view if there was only one source, or if all the sources are in agreement AND if anyone was argueing that the photo should e removed, but neither of those are in fact the case. The case is that reliable sources disagree about whether the photo is authentic, and what Shootseven and I are argueing is that the article needs to reflect that its authenticity is under dispute.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of bogus Tom O'Folliard photograph

Are there any objections to the removal of the Tom O'Folliard photo? For those unfamiliar with the photograph or the issues surrounding it, here's a brief summary:

The alleged O'Folliard is from a private collection the owners are calling the "Phillips Collection" (operating under the assumption that the collection they picked up was once owned by a collector named Phillips - there is no proof of this). They've been pushing this collection of their on wikipedia and other places, while the historical community has simply rejected the authenticity of the collection. There are two major issues with it: number one is that the identifications come from the owners and nowhere else (the photos are not labeled, it's just the owners saying I think this person looks like X, I think this photo looks like Y, etc.); and, most importantly, the collection, by the owners own admission, as no provenance.

For more details on this collection, see the section on this page titled "Regarding the purported image of John Tunstall." The alleged Tunstall image came from the same collection, so that discussion applied here. Also see the page of "OSMOND PHILLIPS" (who posted the photo from his collection) to see why photos from his collection have been removed from other pages.

Also, the photo in question was removed from the Tom O'Folliard page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_O'Folliard reason given "That's from a source with no provenance; see the source's own statement, http://www.texasescapes.com/PhillipsCollection/Phillips-Collection-2-Proof-without-Provenance.htm"

Any objections to the removal of this photograph? Shootseven (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive912#OSMOND PHILLIPS, I would say that the general feeling was that none of the photos offered by OSMOND PHILLIPS have had their identifications adequately authenticated. In my opinion, without such authentication from a reliable source, I don't see how the photo that is captioned as being of O'Folliard can be connected to O'Folliard in any reliably meaningful way, and without that, it shouldn't be identified as such in any Wikipedia article, and certainly not an article that aspires to be listed as a Good Article. Absent some new, compelling, and reliably sourced evidence that the photo is of O'Folliard, I agree it should be removed, but let's get a few more people's thoughts first. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any comments on the removal of the claimed O'Folliard photo? Anyone who commented on the Tunstall photo (since it's from the same collection) thread? Shootseven (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of the purported O'Folliard photograph, still unauthenticated and without provenance, would be a blemish on the article. It should be removed. Carlstak (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections I'm going to remove the photograph. Shootseven (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

And the removal was reverted by Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin). Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin), I didn't "unilaterally remove" the photo. I brought it up for discussion here and no one disagreed with the removal (see above). Shootseven (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The photo has been removed and hopefully that's the end of this. Shootseven (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• There is currently a Tom O'Folliard photo in the article. Is this a different one from the one discussed in this section? Its source is an angelfire page.[6].·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The source it self says that it is questionable whether this is in fact O'Foliard.[7].·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• • • Removing the photo unilaterally without any real discussion or time to look into the possibility of it not being authentic was a crappy thing to do, Maunus. Leaving it there for a while would have hurt nothing. This isn't a BLP. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively you might have thought twice before adding further dubious photos to an article that is undergoing GA review.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

They aren't dubious. But don't worry, I no longer expect you to do the right thing or be honest and admit you were wrong to be so hasty and not actually discuss. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• • • I'm asking you to revert your removal, Maunus. The link I posted at Commons was actually the wrong one and I have updated the photo to reflect such. It's easy to see that the photo is not from the first site linked, as the photo on that page is too small and the photo I uploaded (after editing it) is the same size as the one at the website now listed. Regardless of what the other Angelfire website states, this is a common photo of O'Folliard and has been used at numerous websites, identifying it as a photo of a young O'Folliard. I'm not going to use my 1RR for this, even though it rightfully could be done. I'd appreciate it if you'd do the right thing and revert your removal. If it is discovered it is not authentic, then we can remove it. But until then, I see no reason why it would be harmful to leave it there -- especially since it is identified as O'Folliard by numerous Old West historians online. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• • • • Further information on this photo being authentic here at the University of New Mexico photo archives. Do the right thing, please, and revert your removal ASAP. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

At this point, I dont really have any motivation for accommodating you on this or any other courtesy request you might make Winkelvi.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

***** I agree with Maunus. I was about to remove the image myself. Angelfire is hardly a reputable source, and the source states the identity of the image is questionable. I think the far crappier thing to be doing is adding images that have not been discussed on the talk pages beforehand, seeing as how there have been disputes about the authenticy of other images in the article. Jilllyjo (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree with him, but why, Jillyjo? As I stated above, the photo is on file at the University of New Mexico as part of the state's historic record as a photo of O'Folliard. Look at the link I provided above. And no, we don't have to discuss adding authentic images that enhance the reader's understanding of the article subject beforehand. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

:::::::Because the image is questionable not authentic. Two different links you have noted disagree. We should discuss questionable images before they are added. Are we going to go through this rigamarole for each image you wish to add to this article. Please only add legitimate authentic images from reliable sources that enhance the article. Jilllyjo (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Having a photo identified by the University of New Mexico at their historic archives is "questionable"? In what universe? Wikipedia considers such a repository a reliable source, but you have different information? Please, bring it forth so we can let the UNM know they don't know what they are doing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• The UNM archive link looks good, but the angelfire link suggests that this may not be the last word. Let's see what Shootseven and the other editors who have helped out think and then if there is a consensus to add it we can do so.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The angelfire site wouldn't be considered a reliable source to quote from, therefore it's not worth considering in light of the photo existing at the UNM as being authentic. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You are the one who gave the angelfire site as the source. Below Shootseven has noted that Fredrick Nolan mentions doubts about the photos authenticity. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The photo of O'Folliard that was just removed is not the same one that under discussion here earlier. The first photo was from the so-called "Phillips Collection," which no one (except for the collection's owners who posted it here) accepts as authentic. The O'Folliard photo WV added today has often been identified as O'Folliard (and accepted by most). I've heard from time to time that there's some question as to whether it is really O'Folliard. The only thing I could find in print (off my bookshelf) was this note under the photo in Frederick Nolan's The West of Billy the Kid, page 164: "The authenticity of this photograph has been challenged on two grounds: first, that O'Folliard was a big man who weighed about 180 pounds. and second, that the clothing does not appear to be contemporary. Nevertheless, it has been accepted as the only known picture for many years." Most authors have simply identified it as O'Folliard. Shootseven (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

That is a weighty testimony and suggests that we should include it, but also include mention of the possibility that it might not be authentic in the caption. I would suggest something like "An 1878 photo widely thought to be of Tom O'Folliard".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Not necessary. The UNM says it's real, and they are a reliable source. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Deja vu all over again.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

::: I believe I will start an RFC so we may gain a consensus regarding this now disputed image so we may get the opinions from a wider group of editors. Jilllyjo (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Please do.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

FFS, I'm just one opinion. You're going to start an RfC over one fucking opinion? Talk about ridiculous. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Well if you are not intending to insist to have it your way as you did before then it may not be necessary.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Shootseven (talk · contribs) could you look at the other photos to see if any of them are dubious? The one of Brady doesnt look like the same person in other ones of Sheriff Brady at the Angelfire site. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

·maunus, all of the other photos are legit. The photo of Brady is used often (that and the bottom one on Angelfire are the two most commonly used photos of Brady - I never saw the photo of him in the group they have, so can't comment on that one). One more note on the O'Folliard photo: I've now looked through ten books and the note in Nolan's book is the only one openly questioning the identity, and even Nolan uses the photo in two subsequent books without questioning the authenticity, for what it's worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shootseven (talk • contribs) 05:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, that is great to know. Does that mean that you think mentioning the doubts in the caption would be unnecessary? I would defer to your judgment on that.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion mentioning the doubts is probably unnecessary (at this point anyway). As I said I know I've heard questions about that photo, but going by sources alone the photo appears pretty well accepted. I will ask around and see if any of these doubts have made it into print anywhere else, and if they have we can always revisit this. Shootseven (talk) 05:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

:::::::Ok, I trust there will be no objections to my reinserting the photo then? Jilllyjo (talk · contribs)·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I say keep it there, so no I don't think there's any objection to it. In all honesty there is no point in the RfC. Choosing whether or not to keep an authenticated photograph should not be a complicated and tedious process. Seriously. Ches (talk) 12:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I think Jilllyjo will not start another RfCnow that it seems we have come to the agreement that the doubts about the O'Folliard photo are minor. If you are referring to the other RfC - then it would seem that you have misunderstood what it was about and what made it necessary.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sorry if I seemed ambiguous - I was talking about the former, which I hope does not get started. Ches (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Boy From Oklahoma

Tyler MacDuff's performanceas BTK in The Boy from Oklahoma is mentioned in several booksabout Westerns and about BTK.[8][9][10]·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

What's your point? The film is still listed in the article and has a reference now attached to it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

My bad. I misread the diff,when you removed one eyed jack. Incidentally the book sources above may be better than rotten tomatoes.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the "croquet" photo be described as authentic or as disputed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This RfC asks the participants to weigh in on how the photo which is claimed to depict Billy the Kid playing Croquet should be represented in the article - as an authentic photo or as a photo of disputed authenticity. This diff [11] illustrate the type of changes that we are considering although the topic of the RfC are not these exact changes, but the general principle they illustrate - whether the most recent expert opinion by Kagin's inc and the National Geographic team can be considered to have established the authenticity beyond doubt, or whether the expressed doubts of historians (who wrote before Kagin inc's final conclusion) should still be considered to continue to throw doubt on the photo's authenticity. Participants are request to give their opinion about whether the photo should be described as authentic or as disputed within the article.

Survey

• Disputed Several experts have provided their opinions about the authenticity of the photo - a number of experts argue that it is highly unlikely to be authentic, and one set of experts have examined the photo in 2015 and stated that they consider it authentic. Given the recency of these opinions it is still to be seen which of these claims will be adopted by historians of Billy the Kid. The stakes of claiming authenticity are very high as they raise the value of the photo in question from 2 dollars to 5 million dollars. So as to not inadvertently become a party in this issue the safest solution for Wikipedia and for our readers is to be conservative and note that the authenticity of the photo remains disputed - giving the opinions of experts from both sides without taking a final stance on the question. The matter of the photo's authenticity can always be revisited when historians evaluate the standing of the evidence on the matter in the future. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Disputed At this point in time a large majority of the historical community (Billy the Kid experts, western photograph experts, and general American west experts) view the photo as not Billy the Kid (or some have the stance that it's simply not proven to be Billy the Kid). The experts who dispute the photo's authenticity range from the acknowledged authorities on Billy the Kid (such as historians Frederick Nolan and Robert Utley, whose books and articles provide much of the source material for this page), western photograph experts such as R. G. McCubbin and John Boessenecker (who the owner of the photo was directed to when he first tried to get in authenticated, then simply when elsewhere when both men told him the photo was not BTK); and historians who have never been connected to BTK but have put in a great deal of research on this photo (Daniel Buck). The fact is whenever anything "authenticates" any photo (especially one without provenance, like the tintype in question), it is simply an expert opinion. By labeling this photograph as "authenticated" would be Wikipedia choosing the word of one group of experts (those associated with the Nat. Geo. documentary and Kagins) over another group (a list of experts to large to name them all here - many of them, along with the history of the dispute, can be found here http://www.truewestmagazine.com/the-croquet-kid/). Shootseven (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it's Wikipedia taking what the sources say, and the soyrcse s say the photo has been authenticated, insured appropriately after authentication, and that there are writers who dispute the authenticity of the photo. THAT is a neutral point of view, based on the sources. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Authenticated First, the wording in this RfC is off. The argument is over the authentication of the photo, not if we or anyone thinks the photo to be authentic. I have stated my !vote to reflect the correct wording and concept. Second, the photo has been authenticated by an organization that does such authentication of antiquities, and the sources in the article reflect that. Stating otherwise is dishonest and does not represent what the sources say (and there are many that say the photo was authenticated). There was a team of experts (forensic and university professors) who vouch for the photo's authenticity. The sources in the article reflect this as well as a group of writers who say the photo is not of Billy the Kid and associates (and, no one has proven them to be experts, they are writers for a magazine - where are their credentials showing them to be experts?). The article should not, and does not, give any bias one way or the other. That said, the photo is referred to as authenticated, because it HAS been authenticated, and the sources support it having been authenticated. It's not up to us to agree or disagree with the photo's authenticity, just to write content that states the photo has gone through the authentication process and, therefore, is authenticated. "Authentication of photos" rather than "Authenticated..." is the answer. That way, what is verifiable is represented to the reader from the header on. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Disputed Chesnaught555, no-one is talking about removing the photo altogether. To everyone else, I say once again that I believe the best way to solve this is to simply remove "Authenticated" from the header. Of course, the croquet photograph has been authenticated, but there are still apparently quite a few who believe that it is not genuine. The content of the section looks fairly unbiased. I do not now see how subtracting the single word from the heading will in anyway discredit or show bias against those who have authenticated the photograph. Most people reading the article will probably not even notice. Display name 99 (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Disputed. When reliable sources disagree, we report that they disagree. We're not in the business of picking which of them to believe. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  Note: I am not sure whether this matters, but I have had no prior involvement at this article other than reverting obvious vandalism. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Disputed.  I think Starke Hathaway not only said it briefly, but also said it best.
  Richard27182 (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Disputed. It's a shame so much time has been wasted on what should be a cut–and–dried matter: the authenticity of the photo is disputed by experts, there is no consensus among them that it is genuine, and its provenance is not established. It should be described accordingly as disputed. Carlstak (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Disputed - If the authenticity of the image has been disputed by experts and its authenticity is not confirmed, then we should we depict it as such? Its simple, we clarify in the caption that the image is a "depiction". Meatsgains (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion.

• User:Winkelvi does not seem to understand what the word "authenticated" means. It does not mean that a final statement about the authenticity has been made, it means that a team of experts have given their opinion and consider it to be authentic. The Shroud of Turin has been authenticated several times - but that does not mean that its authenticity is not still a matter of dispute. Many pieces of art suspected of forgery have been officially "authenticated" by some expert body (usually working for the owner or the auction house, attempting to establish its value before selling it as also seems the case her) but often their authenticity remain disputed, and in sometimes they are even subsequently proven to be forgeries. "Authentication" is not the final word on the authenticity of an object, the final word is made by the consensus of experts who may decide to accept or deny the "authenticication", or, more often, remain divided about whether to accept it or not.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Maunus doesn't seem to understand the nuances that separate the act and subsequent proclamation of authentication from the term "authentic". He also seems to be having difficulty seeing that the article section is currently unbiamsed and presents both sides of the dispute regarding the photo. Perhaps the answer to this would be naming the header "Authentication of photos" rather than "Authenticated...". Whatever happens, I fail to see the need for a formal RfC, and have !voted here only to present the other side of the coin. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Changing the title of the section is not enough, because other statements in the section use the word "authenticated" about the photo, suggesting that its authenticity hs been finally established. This is misleading, and needs to be reworded in a neutral manner.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

How is stating exactly what reliable sources state not neutral? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Because, as I have stated about twenty times by now, equally reliable sources disagree. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I seriously don't understand why you are having trouble getting this: the photo was authenticated by Kagins. Some magazine authors disagree that it was properly authenticated. Reliable sources say the photo was properly authenticated. To state what the sources state is not POV, it's not dishonest, it's not disallowable by Wikipedia policy. To also state that there are those who don't think it was vetted accurately is giving the full story. The article currently does that. WHERE, precisely, based on policy, is there a problem and the POV? (in other words, how can there be POV if both sides are presented?) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I seriously dont understand how you are having rouble getting this: An authentication is not something that is done "properly" and then forever established. An "authentication" is a statement by a body of experts (often hired by the owner in order to establish an items sales value). If other experts disagree with the statement then the "authentication" is disputed. The people you refer to as "magazine authors" are in fact among the most respected historians and biographers of Billy the Kid (Robert M. Utley, Paul Andrew Hutton and Frederick Nolan) their opinions matter, and mean that the photo's authenticity has in fact not been authenticated, in that not all experts accept that it is authentic. And yes, stating in Wikipedia's voice the claim of one source while attributing the other as opinion is not neutral. The photo's authenticity is dispiuted, and that means that we cannot say that it "has been authenticated" since that would mislead the reader to think that its authenticity is established beyond reasonable doubt and that the consensus among historians is that it is authentic. This would be false, because some of the leading historians of Billy consider it unlikely to be authentic.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem is that you have picked ONE source and presented its conclusions as fact, although you do grudgingly admit that other reliable sources disagree. Describing the photo as "authenticated" when reliable sources do not agree on its authenticity is not neutral. A statement like "experts A and B concluded that the photo was authentic while experts Y and Z concluded that it was not authentic" would be more appropriate. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know where anyone gets the idea that only one source is being used to state the photo has been authenticated. There are four sources, each independent of the other. And no, I haven't "grudgingly" admitted anything. I personally don't give a crap if the photo is real or not. I care that the article contains balanced, neutral, encyclopedic content on the photo. Which it does. Four sources (and I could get plenty more) included in the article state the photo was authenticated. The article already contains what you have proposed, Starke Hathaway. Where. Is. The. Problem? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

No it does not contain what anyone but you are stubbornly proposing, since the article currently claims that the photo has been "authenticated" which to an average English speakers means that it is considered to be authentic by a consensus of experts. This is misleading and needs to be removed so that the reader is not led to believe something that is not true. The fact that so far everyone who has participated in this RfC has seen the problem and you still cant see it should be a cause for you to stand back and reconsider that maybe your perspective is the one that is off base.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem has been explained several times. Your responses have been little more than WP:IDHT. Your overbearing insistence on getting your way on this article has, perhaps ironically, been more harmful to its promotion to GA than anything else has. Where is the Winkelvi who wrote this just 4 days ago? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We go by the sources. The sources say the photo has been authenticated. Here are numerous reliable sources stating such: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], There are more. Need I post them here? The photo has, indeed, been authenticated by a numismatic group that does authentications of antiquities. It has been reviewed by historians and forensic experts. There are two camps on this. The article can state such, not a problem (I believe it already does, but obviously there are those who disagree). But to say the photo has not been authenticated would be a lie, it would go against what dozens of reliable sources say. The bottom line for inclusion in Wikipedia: we say what the sources say. The sources say it has been authenticated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I say now for the third time that I have no problem with the use of the word "authenticated" in the body of the article when referring to specific studies. To say that a specific group of people decided that the photograph was "authentic" does not discredit those who say otherwise. I only support the removal of the word from the title. Can't we all manage to compromise on that? Display name 99 (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

No, currently for example the caption of the photo says that the photo has been authenticated, this will clearly lead a reader to believe that it is known for certain that the person in the photo is Billy the Kid. Which is misleading. There are several other wordings in the section that assume that the authentication has rendered the authenticity of the photo beyond dispute. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Display name 99, I'm fine with removing "authenticated" from the section header, however, I think to avoid confusion among readers or awkward phrasing/wording, it should be changed to read "Authentication of photos". That would allow for photos that have been undeniably authenticated and those that have been disputed authentication. Which is what the issue is: the authenticated croquet photo's authentication is being disputed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

WV I'm not sure what the point of that list of sources is supposed to be. The fact is all of those sources are running the same story and quoting the same people (likely based off a press release or copying from a single story). Whether one news source reports it or a hundred, it doesn't change the fact that it's still just Kagins along with a production company that claims to have "authenticated" the photograph. The number of newspapers that reported their claim doesn't change the strength (or lack thereof) of the claim. Shootseven (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Experienced Wikipedia editors know what the point of the list is. Have you read WP:VERIFY yet? Once you've finished that article, I suggest reading the essay WP:NOTTRUTH. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

No, Shotseven is exactly right. The number of times the claim is repeated in different news articles is irrelevant. What matter is the number of relevant experts who consider it to be true. As long as there isnt a consensus among relevant experts that the photo is authentic it has not in fact been "authenticated".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's original research. The sources say it has been authenticated. End of story. We don't analyze whether something is real or not, we write about what the sources say and support. As far as "relevant experts"? There are relevant experts who say the photo is authentic per their expert analysis. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

No it is not OR it is a requirement under WP:NPOV- that you think it is shows that you know a lot less about wikipedia and about writing articles than you think - probably that lack of basic understanding of policy and the extreme stubborness you are displaying here is what is imperiling this GA. There is no further point in my argueing with you untill you take your fingers out your ears and stop going "LALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe if you stopped looking at me as an enemy to your viewpoint and saw what I'm really saying (which is solely for the betterment of the article and trying to stick to policy-based editing), you would stop pointing an accusatory, crooked finger my direction and cease with the personality-based name calling and insults. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• sigh* read your own statement back to yourself. You are the one who is treating every other editor as an "enemy of your viewpoint", who has been extremely rude and accusatory to several editors. I decided to step in to this situation because I saw how rude you were to a new editor clearly acting based on good faith and substantial knowledge and who was being patient and rational in their argument. I dont have an opinion on the authenticity of the photo - but you are argueing against basic policy about how we represented facts when there are conflicting viewpoints in the sources. This is such a basic aspect of policy that frankly I dont think someone who doesnt understand that is sufficiently competent to be an editor here. When coupled with abrasive rudeness, inability to hear and respond to reasoned arguments and an extreme stubborn sticking to one's own view in the face of massive opposition by handfuls of editors - then really that behavior becomes a problem. I was an uninvolved editor when I stepped in here, and I was not aware of your 1r restriction or your block. But taking that into account, you really need to look at your editing behavior, and try to understand why it keeps causing you problems. Because if you don't try to change that and adopt a different attitude to argumentation and collaboration I don't see a long future for you as an editor. This is meant as advice in good faith, since you are clearly able to write good content. But Wikipedia is not only about writing content, it is about doing so collaboratively.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Please look in your own backyard and under the leaves of accusation you are piling up over your own faults before attempting to point out the faults of others. Out of the two if us, only one has been blocked previously for personal attacks and treating other editors poorly. Many of your accusatory posts above are specifically about me, directed at me, and are not primarily about the issue of this RfC. Calling my competency into question? Really? Please, get over yourself and realize you should be discussing edits, not editors. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should have thought about that when you started accusing Shotseven of COI and "agenda" based editing just because he disagreed with you.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I should have thought of what? Now you're just sounding like a scolding parent or disciplinarian teacher trying to teach someone you feel is beneath you a lesson. Please step off and cut out the lecturing. After you do that, please note that I never accused Shootseven of COI, rather, I asked him if there was a possibility he could have one. And, if you look further, you will see that he does have a bias based on his personal connection with people involved with both the documentary and the naysayers. Further, my questions regarding possible COI were based on the edits he made prior to his block (and the accompanying edit summaries and talk page comments), not his disagreeing with whether or not the image is authenticated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Having a bias and an agenda or a conflict of interest is not the same. You very clearly have a bias yourself, but it is not your bias that is the problem here. And what you should have thought of is that YOU were the one who made this personal - now you whine when the attention to personal matters is directed to yourself, but you could have avoided it by not using ad hominem arguments in the first place. You could also have avoided it by not repeating the same behavior pattern that has led to your blocks and editing restrictions. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep up the personal attacks, Maunus. That self-righteous, puffed up act is going to come around to bite you in the ass one day. I used to think you were a stand up editor. No more. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

In this case I am in fact standing up for a new editor who you were bullying. If you had treated Shootseven with a normal degree of respect and good faith and engaged in a meaningful discussion with them listening to their arguments, I would never have gotten involved here in the first place.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you surely saved the day. For that, you win the Internet this week. Sorry, I'm all out of SuperHero medals. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This should be a very black and white matter. The authenticity of this photograph is not fully agreed upon by researchers. For that reason, I have done something a bit bold and removed "Authenticated" from the section header, leaving it simply as "Photographs." Winkelvi, I ask that you not alter it. I believe that no further changes need to be made to the body of the text. Now can we finally end this? Display name 99 (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The photo caption also needs to be changed at minimum. And tough it looks like a SNOW situation, I think the RfC will need to run its course - someone who agrees with Winkelwi might show up eventually.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

it will be over only if an uninvolved editor comes along and snow closes it. An RfC can go up to 30 days. Maunus knows this, and I'm willing to stick my neck out and say he started the RfC hoping it would so the GA would fail. I asked him not to start an RfC, and if you look at the most recent editing history of the article with his edit summary, it's easy to see he started the RfC out of spite. Gawd, I am so effing sick of game playing in Wikipedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your gratuitous assumptions of bad faith. You seem to specialize in those. In actual fact I couldnt care less if the article passes or fails. Do you or do you not support the changes made by Displayname 99? If you support it then there is no basis for not snowclosung the rfc and i will do so myself.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You can't close it as you are involved. Heavily. You started the RfC, remember? What is policy on that, eh? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

If everyone is in agreement then of course the person who started it can also close it. But you clearly are not in agreement, so I will not.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, "authenticated" should also be removed from the photo caption. Otherwise the section seems pretty balanced (although snunɐɯ·'s earlier revisions were also balanced and we're still discussing this, so....) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shootseven (talk • contribs) 21:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I have done so. I believe that no further edits are necessary. Display name 99 (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

There are still some wordings that I consider to be slightly problematic "verified the image to be authentic", but if these changes are acceptable to Winkelvi I can accept the current wordings as well. Your edits do not differ substantially from the edits I made to the article and which Winkelvi demanded that I revert. But if they have now changed their mind, that is only good and entirely acceptable.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

In accordance with what you have said, I replaced "verified" with "determined." To "verify" often means to prove, whereas "determined" merely means "decided." That should be all. Display name 99 (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I certainly agree with your recent changes, and it would only be wonderful if Winkelvi does too.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Neutral - What about wording like "considered authentic by some but dismissed by the others"? I feel like that gives due weightage to both sides of the coin. --MaranoFan (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

MaranoFan, I feel that this is supposed to be the impression that one will get from reading the entire section. If you're talking about what was written just above, those comments were made in relation to a particular sentence concerning a specific study which seemingly confirmed the photograph. Therefore, relating anything more than what that study found is unnecessary. Now I believe we are done here. Winkelvi, can you begin work on "Selected references in popular culture" so that we can finally finish this thing? Display name 99 (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I started last night, Display name 99. I guess you missed that? Also, I made it clear almost a week ago that I was not going to be able to devote much time to editing the article until tomorrow. I told you that when you put a 7 day restriction on getting the article edited completely up to speed according to the notes at the GA review page. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA or Not

@Display name 99 and Winkelvi: So, is this article a GA or not? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

We are working toward it. Why do you ask (in such an urgent tone)? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The article is currently being reviewed. There is no deadline on WP so none of us can give you a definite answer yet. --Ches (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Winkelvi and Chesnaught55: I saw on User:Display name 99's talk page and the review page that it was supposedly raised the article to GA status. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

DatGuy, no, still being reviewed. Your ping didn't work, as I have three 5's in my name. Doesn't matter though as I have this watchlisted. :) --Ches (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Btphelps, knowing why you made this change would be great. You indicated nothing in your edit summary that would give any clues to your reasoning. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Census taker

While correct, the term is somewhat simple and we can do better. I changed it to "census official" and added the word "enumerated". The reason being is that those going door to door are referred to by the U.S. Census Bureau as enumerators, every one hired as an enumerator has to swear an oath, and they are officially representing the United States Government, Department of Commerce. They are officials of the U.S. Census Bureau, plain and simple. Everyone doing such work wears identification indicating such. The wording really should be changed back to what it was as it is better, an improvement, and more precise. The article is becoming GA compliant, simpler wording isn't going to make it more so. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC) :I do not agree. Census official is incorrect whether including the word enumerator or not. In your edit summary you wrote "never liked "taker"". The wording was clarified to make it easier to read and understand, you just cannot stand to have anything changed even when it makes the article better. Please see WP:IDLI. You are not the only editor that gets to critique the prose and wording. My goal is to help the article reach GA status despite all of the goings on and attitude issues here. Please get back on board to help the article reach GA. Consider the ideas of others, you may learn something new. Jilllyjo (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: After harrassing Winkelvi repeatedly, Jilllyjo has now been blocked as an abusive sockpuppet of a blocked user. With that in mind, I'd like to see this GA nom reconsidered. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 15:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hallward's Ghost, I concur. The article is in good shape, and is now stable following JJ's block for sockpuppetry. One thing I will say is I'd like somebody else to review it this time, by which I mean somebody with a degree of understanding and competence in GA reviews. Best, --Ches (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Chesnaught555-I'll be more blunt than you were: I don't think that Display Name 999 person should be anywhere near the GA nom process for BtK. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 16:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly what was on my mind, Hallward's Ghost. Thanks for saying it. Best, --Ches (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I think, judging by his talk page comments, DN99 has agreed not to participate in the next GA review. So, allow me to get this straight; does one of us have to nominate the article again, or do we wait for someone to agree to review it? --Ches (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking of nominating it again today, Ches. What do you think? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, if that's all good with you, then OK, yes. :-) --Ches (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I have added this article to the nominations page. What should I do next? --Ches (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Deleting erroneously created page Talk:Billy the Kid/GA3

Fellow editors, I just submitted a request to delete the erroneously created page: Talk:Billy the Kid/GA3. I'm guessing everyone agrees. If so, could you please click here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Billy the Kid/GA3 and add "*Delete - State agreement here", giving your agreement, and then sign it. When an administrator deletes that page, I will adjust the GAN page so that the future review of this article will be pointing to GA3 (instead of GA4). If all goes well, the erroneously created page will be deleted by the time a reviewer clicks on the link to create the actual new GA3 page where the third GA review will be, according to the GA instructions. Thanks, Prhartcom (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Other editors, please feel free to do this also. Prhartcom (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier if Chesnaught555 just requests a speedy delete of the GA3 page? Or is that not possible now that the MfD has been initiated? BlueMoonset (talk) 07:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I've just taken a look at the series of events that led to this, and have a request for you all: please do not make any further edits to the WP:GAN page. This page is assembled by Legobot, and any edits you attempt to make there will simply be undone the next time the bot runs, as has occurred several times already. Once the GA3 page is successfully deleted—I've asked Wizardman whether he can speed up the process—the "GA nominee" on this talk page should be adjusted to change the page parameter value from 4 to 3. Legobot will then adjust the GAN page on a subsequent run. Thanks for your cooperation. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested CSD G7. My apologies, I shouldn't have created it. --Ches (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

And it's been deleted. --Ches (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Citations

The citation system is currently extremely inconsistent using a haphazard mix of short references, long references, named references and harvard references. The bibliography also is inconsistently formatted - some titles being formatted with templates and others being bare references. The GA criterion 2A requires the citation system to follow the layout guidelines - which it currently does not. While the footnote to GA criteria 2A states that GA does not demand consistency, the GA reviewer might well be justified in considering the the current degree of inconsistency to be inadmissible. Certainly the current mess of references would not stand the remotest of chances at FAC if that is ever to be attempted - so it might be a very good idea to get the references in line with the MOS already at this point, otherwise it will be a lot of work to get the article to the next stage of review.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe there are several bare URL references and other inconsistencies just as Maunus says above that should not take much more than a few hours of effort to be converted to {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, and other cite templates, giving the article that much more of a polish. Prhartcom (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Noted. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you seem to know exactly what needs to be done to the citations in this article, Maunus, you're certainly welcome to work on fixing them. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

We can split up the work. I can help also. Winkelvi, perhaps you could start working in the Sources section, changing every entry there that is not in the {{cite book}} format into that format? I will start working on the bare URLs in the body of the article. Later, one of us can fix the Harvard references; I can describe how to do that if necessary. Prhartcom (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

That would be wonderful. I appreciate the offer, Prhartcom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Terrific, I'm glad you're up for it also. I'm actually going to make a single edit in the next few minutes in the Sources section, then I'll leave it alone for you: A book The Lincoln County War: A Documentary History is listed three times there, and then a fourth time in the body. I'll fix it, then back away from that section. Prhartcom (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

That will be fine. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Prhartcom, from what I can tell, I took care of all the sources as you suggested. I could have missed one or two, but at this point, my eyes are starting to cross a bit (if you know what I mean) so I doubt if I would pick up on them at this point. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that looks nice - well done. Now next step is the inline citations. If you add the ref=harv parameter to all the bibliography entries you can use the {{sfn|last|year|page=}} templates directly in-line instead of the named <ref name=XXX> tags.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

That looks great. Prhartcom (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest converting all named references to Harvard short references. That is quite a bit of work and cannot easily be done in a single edit, and the last time I tried it people didn't like the process. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Winkelvi, Maunus has the right idea. As you can see, I've started this work. Just search for "<ref". For each one you find, I suggest:

• If it references a {{cite}} template, then leave it; it's already fine.
• If it references something that looks like this: "Utley (1989), pp. 10–11." then change that to this: {{sfn|Utley|1989|pp=10–11}}
• Also if it references something that looks like this: "Rickards, Colin. The Gunfight at Blazer's Mill, 1974 - pp. 36–37." then change it to the {{sfn}} template as above. See, you already have these books in the Sources section at the bottom so why duplicate the information inline. The {{sfn}} template makes it a link in the Citations section that, which clicked by the reader, takes them to the entry in the Sources section. (Note: You may find a book referenced inline that is not listed in the Sources section. You will need to add it to that section, then, in the {{cite book}} format. Be sure to give it the "|ref=harv" parameter.
• If it references something like "Wroth, William H. [http://newmexicohistory.org/people/billy-the-kid Billy the Kid]. Retrieved January 9, 2016." then that is a bare URL; change it to the {{cite web}} template.
• If it references something like "The address 210 Greene Street was ..." then change it instead to: {{efn|The address 210 Greene Street was ...}}, it will go into the new Notes section.

I think you get the idea. This will really go above and beyond to clean up the citations. Enjoy! Prhartcom (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the primer, Prhartcom. I will probably get to it in about 24 hours. Can't work on something that involved right at the moment. Question: Not trying to weasel out of doing what you're suggesting, but I'm wondering if this is something that's always necessary when putting an article up for GA? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not necessary no. The GA criteria has a footnote that states that citations do not need to be entirely consistent in their application of the Layout guideline. But it is absolutely necessary in order to advance beyond the GA stage, so it makes sense to get it done already at the GA stage. The easiest is to already be consistent with the references from the outset of writing. As the main contributor you can choose a different reference system than the one suggested by Prhartcom and me - but for FA level it does have to be used consistently. When I review I also generally do require some minimal amount of consistency of the reference systems to pass the article. There is some reviewer leeway on what degree of inconsistency is acceptable.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I would consider taking this article on to FA after it becomes GA. A lot of interesting people volunteer at FA. The subject of this article deserves FA. And yes, you want to have all your ducks in a row there, including citations. BTW, the prose of this article probably needs cleaning up also; while waiting for the GA review, you could go ahead enter this article at the WP:GUILD. Prhartcom (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)