Talk:William Desmond Taylor

Earth coordinates

I've added earth coordinates to note (within a few feet) where Taylor's body was found, based on this map of the Alvarado Court apartments and descriptions of his bungalow. The site is on the north side of an asphalt parking lot. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Mary Miles Minter

In the text of the article it states Minter's age as 19. However, according to the book WORLD FAMOUS UNSOLVED CRIMES, apparently it was revealed in the aftermath of the murder of Taylor that Miss Minter's age was 30, not 20 (or 19 as listed in the article). Halfabeet (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The reliable sources I've seen say she was born in 1902. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've read Colin Wilson's recap of the Taylor case. It is very unreliable and contains many errors. I have a copy of Minter's birth certificate, which states 1902.--Pikabruce (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sands

In the book WORLD FAMOUS UNSOLVED CRIMES by the eminent Colin Wilson, it states that it was later revealed that Sands was in fact Taylor's brother, Denis, who had come to America with him years before. Wilson is usually a very reliable source Halfabeet (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That notion was debunked long ago, the two did not even resemble each other. As the article says, many later authors used newspaper reports which they did not understand had been sensationalized and even fictionalized. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

MSN reference

This sourced assertion is highly problematic. First, who are "all leading authorities"? The source, which is a Microsoft Network entertainment blurb, does not say who these "authorities" are, or why they might dismiss Gibson's claim. Second, this looks like a very weak tertiary source which notes zero background or research into its sweeping, clearly mistaken assumption. The source does not meet WP:RS. I will remove this assertion and the source in time if no more reliable and thorough source is provided. Please note, this Wikipedia article does not assert that Gibson murdered Taylor, but that she made a dying confession to the murder, which is considered to be credible.

I would further ask that major edits having to do with this be discussed here on the talk page so other editors can participate. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL! I'm sorry! But that's a RIOT! Are you seriously trying to say that MSN is a less reliable source than a professor's personal newsletter? If your newsletter's alleged deathbed confession is "credible" - why can't you provide reliable sources for this POV information that you continue to insert into the article? If it is, in fact "widely considered credible" - why can't I find it anywhere other than circular references to the Taylorology newsletter? Surely, something so "credible" and "widely held" would have been published in the mainstream media.

And BTW, it is not a MAJOR edit. I'm just pointing out how completely ridiculous your POV pushing has become on this article. It's an UNSOLVED murder - that is the fact. Stop trying to have Wikipedia solve it for readers. Last I checked, I didn't see newsletters included in WP:RS. You may want to take a look at WP:HARM. I am deeply concerned that you may be opening Wikipedia up to a potential lawsuit from Ms. Gibson's family. Cleo123 (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The many mistakes of fact in your post indicate a lack of understanding about who Bruce Long is, the nature of Taylorology and Wikipedia policy regarding both sources and civility. Second, it is not my newsletter, I am in no way affiliated with Long or with Taylorology. Third, I'm not continuing "to insert" anything in the article. Fourth, the Wikipedia article clearly states that the murder is officially unsolved, with no independent confirmation of Gibson's guilt. So far as Gibson's family is concerned, she is long dead, had no children and the confession (along with her arrest record) is sourced. Either way, WP:HARM has to do with WP:BLP. Gibson is not a living person. Lastly, please tread lightly when bringing up the potential for lawsuits on a talk page. If you have any legal concerns, this is not the place to express them: Please see WP:OFFICE. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"The nature of Taylorology" - "Who Bruce Long is" - seems to me that you may actually have some sort of conflict of interest in this matter. Bruce Long is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article written about him. He's a retired college professor whose compiled alot of original documents relating to the Taylor murder - that's it. The man who allegedly "witnessed" Palmer's alleged confession waited some 30 years to drop his "bombshell" revelation. Did he bring the information to the police? Heck - no! He contacted Bruce Long - right around the time Long was trying to publish a compilation of original documents. How fortuitous for Mr. Long! If this information were at all "credible" or "widely held" it would have been picked up by the mainstream media. I find it fascinating that no book has been published espousing Long's theory. Indeed, Long himself is very careful in his couching of the information. It's a pity you don't follow his lead. Regardless, Long strikes me as a shameless self promoter and I am deeply concerned by the number of references to his website I find inserted all over Wikipedia. While original documents reprinted in his newsletter may be considered reliable sources, his ramblings about e-mails from a stranger don't seem to fall in the same category.

The fact that someone is long dead does not give you free license to malign their reputation. Again, I ask you to provide a reliable source for the information or I will provide a much more accurate, detailed, sourced presentation of the circumstances surrounding the alleged confession. Somehow, I doubt you'll like my presentation of the facts.Cleo123 (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Long is not a retired college professor. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. He was only a "staff member". Intersting how he continually seems to reference employment at a University. An attempt to establish some sort of scholarly credibility? Perhaps? Cleo123 (talk) 07:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The only source you've provided so far is a brief entertainment blurb from Microsoft Network which otherwise offers no attribution, detail or support for its sweeping assertion. I don't think it is a reliable or meaningful source and I plan on removing it. If you can provide any verifiable sources which quote published authors (of books, newsletters, reliable websites, whatever) who show some credibility under WP:RS and who dismiss the reports of Gibson's confession, let's put them in the article too. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleo123 wrote: Surely, something so "credible" and "widely held" would have been published in the mainstream media.

The following was published in the Screening Room column of the Los Angeles Times on April 20, 2000, written by Kevin Thomas (available online for a small fee at the LA Times archive site):

The Silent Movie Theater, 611 N. Fairfax Ave., West Hollywood, screens Wednesday at 8 p.m. "The Eyes of Julia Deep" (1918), a charming and clever romantic comedy starring Minter, and will follow it with a slide presentation of the Taylor murder case by film historian-archivist Marc Wanamaker. On April 27 the theater will again screen at 8 p.m. "Julia Deep," followed by a splendid 1915 Civil War melodrama, "The Coward," in which Margaret Gibson has a small role. Gibson appeared in four films with Taylor in his acting days. In 1964, at age 70, she died in her Hollywood Hills home in obscurity and under a different name. But while suffering the heart attack that caused her demise, she told neighbors that she had shot Taylor. Film historian Robert Birchard will discuss Gibson and her confession, which only recently has come to light. Pikabruce (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why there's a problem with Taylorology as a source--it's probably the best source of information concerning the case. However I fail to have read anything in Taylorology that claims that either Gibson or Gibson's confession is any more credible than any other information in the case. The fact that Mr. Long continued to publish 12 more editions of Taylorology, including other theories of the murder, after the Gibson story appeared, certainly suggests that he did not consider the Gibson theory to be any kind of "final solution" to the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revmagpie (talk • contribs) 06:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Taylorology undermined (or debunked) many myths and theories about Taylor's murder through the years, including a point by point leveling of the King Vidor derived book Cast of Killers. Nothing published in Taylorology has ever seriously undermined the report of Gibson's dying confession. This said, although the confession is regarded as credible, this doesn't mean it's true. As the article points out, the case is officially unsolved and no independent confirmation of Gibson's reportedly confessed role in the killing has ever emerged. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarded as credible by who? Mr. Long never says that he considers the confession to be credible. The other source listed is from an article that uses Taylorology as it's source--in other words it is three steps removed from Gibson's actual confession.Revmagpie (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The word "credible" means "Capable of being believed; plausible." and "worthy of confidence; reliable." and "appearing to merit belief or acceptance". To consistently describe Gibson's confession as "credible" is clearly far from neutral, especially in the absence of any source that provides any rationale for making such a claimRevmagpie (talk) 06:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The article now cites four sources which say otherwise. If you can verifiably cite any authors or writers who don't think the report of her confession is credible, let's please add them to the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You are moving the goalposts. No-one's questioning whether the report of the confession is credible--it's the credibility of the confession itself that is in question. And according to your apparent standard of "credibility", there are dozens of verifiable citations by authors or writers who don't think the confession is is credible--in fact anything published that discusses any other suspect would qualify. Since any author who relates the story without disputing it lends the confession credibility, then logically any author who ignores the confession or presents a suspect other than Gibson must be challenging that credibility.Revmagpie (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As to use of the word credible, the source need not use this word for its use to be supported here. Long's published treatment of the confession, with no disputing commentary (for example) lends the report significant credibility, as do the treatments of the report in the other cited sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, none of the sources you cite say that the confession is credible--and to be fair none of them can, since no-one has access to the actual confession. They repeat that someone claimed that Gibson made a confession (no-one's disputing that), but they offer nothing to support any claim that the confession itself is credible.Revmagpie (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's return to the topic of the MSN Reference, which really comes from All Movie Guide: "The claim, however, has been dismissed by all leading authorities..." [fair use fragment]. If I humbly accept that I (Bruce Long) am a "leading authority" on the Taylor case, then the statement is not 100% true, since I (a member of the "all") have not "dismissed" the claim, assuming "the claim" refers to whether or not the confession is the truth, that if true then Gibson did indeed kill Taylor. But neither have I accepted "the claim." This is not an either/or, dismiss-or-accept, matter. Anyway, I've e-mailed the author of that AMG statement, asking him: "Can you provide any sources (published or anecdotal) for that statement that leading authorities have all dismissed the claim?" If he provides an answer, I will share it here and hopefully it will lead to a peaceful resolution of this remove/restore loop for the MSN Reference. --Pikabruce (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I received a reply from the "author" of the MSN/AMG paragraph on Patricia Palmer. He says he no longer is associated with AMG; the main reason he left is because they edited his non-review material so extensively; the Patricia Palmer paragraph had been edited beyond recognition by AMG. So the source appears to be an editor at AMG, which does not resolve the issue. --Pikabruce (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleo123 wrote above: I find it fascinating that no book has been published espousing Long's [sic] theory. Book publication of the Gibson confession can be found in Dishing Hollywood: The Real Scoop on Tinseltown's Most Notorious Scandals by Laurie Jacobson. "Search Inside" for Margaret Gibson, and the extract can be found on pages 57-58. From the text, it appears to have used The History Channel documentary as source. --Pikabruce (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Gibson's credibility

I fail to see how Gibson's history of lying and blackmail can seriously be put forward as evidence of her credibility. Under normal circumstances, doesn't a proven history of dishonesty actually hurt credibility?Revmagpie (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and original research. As editors, our opinions on her credibility have no sway. This said, referring to Gibson as having a "history of lying and blackmail" is not supported as such. The actress had a history of arrests for prostitution and blackmail (with no convictions). Gwen Gale (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

So being arrested and prosecuted but not convicted of prostitution and blackmail doesn't support the idea that she has a history of lying and blackmail, but not being arrested, prosecuted or convicted of murder does support the claim that she shot Taylor? Interesting... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revmagpie (talk • contribs) 05:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "As editors, our opinions on her credibility have no sway", which is why I don't think that the description of Gibson's confession as "credible", or passages that attempt to argue (directly or indirectly) that Gibson's confession should be accepted--absent any corroboration-- as credibleshould be in this or any related article (except perhaps the one about Gibson herself).Revmagpie (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything supports a claim she shot Taylor. All that matters here is what the sources say. If you can provide some verifiable sources which dispute her confession (or the report of it), by all means let's put them in the article too. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"All that matters here is what the sources say." Exactly, and none of the sources cited are in any position to state that Gibson's confession is "credible" (and in fact Mr. Long never does). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revmagpie (talk • contribs) 06:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Please sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~). The article cites three sources to support use of the phrase "wide credibility." Another is cited above but hasn't made it into the article yet (I've added it now). Wide credibility does not mean "everyone thinks she did it." Gwen Gale (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you seem to be confusing "wide credibility" with "wide distribution". And two of your three sources are merely summarizing the first (Taylorology), which again makes no comment on the credibility of Gibson's confessionRevmagpie (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see my note above on use of the word credible: It need not be used by the cited source. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"Wide credibility" may not mean "everyone thinks she did it", but it does imply "a lot of people think her confession is true".Revmagpie (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told, it implies a lot of folks think her confession may be true. The article clearly states that no independent confirmation of her confessed role in the murder has emerged and that the murder is officially unsolved. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If "a lot of folk think her confession "may" be true", with no independent confirmation to support that belief, then they have come to their conclusion based on nothing but opinion--again that is not a neutral point of view.Revmagpie (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Following WP:V, lack of independent confirmation does not prevent the sourced inclusion of Gibson's reported confession. However, please see my comment about the word credible in the next section, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Gibson's Credibility, 2

"...none of the sources cited are in any position to state that Gibson's confession is "credible" (and in fact Mr. Long never does). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revmagpie (talk • contribs) 06:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Although Long does not discuss "credibility", he does discuss "probability", in Taylorology 85:

The confession alone, if it came from a Jane Doe, would have an extemely low level of probability. But the confessor: (a.) Worked with Taylor for six months; (b.) Had sinister associates, one of whom was a major blackmailer; (c.) Was arrested for extortion stemming from events which took place less than a year after the Taylor murder; (d.) Was given at least two acting roles at Famous Players-Lasky in the year following the murder. Put it all together with the confession, and the probability rises considerably.

In private conversations, Long has estimated that he currently would allow Gibson a 10% probability of being connected with the murder. Whether that rises to the level of being "credible" could be debated endlessly.

Unless an expert is specifically quoted on whether the confession is "credible", perhaps uses of "credible" or "credibility" should simply be deleted? --Pikabruce (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Pikabruce. That is all I'm suggesting.Revmagpie (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that Pikabruce has identified himself as Bruce Long on my talk page. He has said here that he would "allow Gibson a 10% probability of being connected with the murder." Being as all the references are circular references to Long - I think it is high time editor GwenGale backs off on this matter. Her own source is disputing her "synthesis". Cleo123 (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"Being as all the references are circular references to Long..." I do not regard the statements of the witness on the televised History Channel documentary as a "circular reference to Long." --Pikabruce (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed any use of the word credible in reference to Gibson's reported confession from the article, since this characterisation seems to be causing much dispute. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Gibson does not belong in the opening paragraph

The alleged confession of Gibson, which I continue to contend as improperly sourced, has no place in the opening paragraph of this article. This is an unsolved murder. That is the fact. Inserting this information into the opening paragraph is IMO an act of editorial bias. The article reads as if Wikipedia is trying to offer readers "its" solution to the murder. It reads as if we are trying to "lead" readers to a conclusion. I am removing it in accordance with WP:NPOV. Although I am very busy for the next couple of days; I think may be worthwhile to open an RFC regarding Taylorolgy as a reliable source and the neutrality of this article and Gibson's biography. When I have the time, that is what I will do, if someone else doesn't do it first. I think some objective "outside" eyes might be helpful in resolving this content dispute.

I will also note that Raphael Long's interview with the History Channel is apparently scheduled to be re-run on the History Channel this Saturday, April 3, at 12:00am. I plan to record it and compile additional information on Ralph Long. Whenever possible first hand sources are always preferable. I believe we should stick to the facts and allow our readers to decide for themselves how credible Long's revelations are. Cleo123 (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

His name is Bruce Long, not Ralph Long. You still seem to be showing a thorough lack of familiarity with the sources relating to Taylor's murder and truth be told, I think you now may be edit warring for your own PoV that Gibson could not have possibly killed Taylor, rather than a neutral reading of the sources. I don't support this latest edit of yours, nor your edit summary which implies that including a sourced mention of Gibson in the lead is PoV (especially since the lead text already said the case is officially unsolved). I am especially worried to see you carry on with cutting material from the article without discussing your thoughts and building consensus on the talk page first. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned in a note left I left on your talk page on March 21st; I suggest that you actually take the time to READ the original source material that you continue to site as your rationale for edit warring on this article. When you do - you'll find that that the "widely credible" witness you cite as justification for your antics is named RAPHAEL LONG. The only thing being revealed here is your own lack of familiarity with the facts surrounding this case. And AGAIN - you DO NOT WP:OWN this article. No one needs your prior permission to make edits which conform to Wikipedia's policies. Cleo123 (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the witness was Raphael Long, the source was Bruce Long's Taylorology. In the meantime, please take a moment and review WP:CIVIL (along with WP:ICA) and if you can, please try not to capitalize whole words, since this can be alikened to shouting. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see that you acknowledge your mistake. As for WP:CIVIL AND WP:ICA the contribution history clearly demonstrates that you are the editor who needs to review those policies. FYI, capitalization of entire sentences is interpreted as shouting. Capitalization of individual words for emphasis is considered perfectly appropriate polite Internet Protocol. Cleo123 (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is driven mostly by our disagreement over a source, along with how it has been presented in the article narrative. Please read my thoughts below, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No, nobody needs Gwen Gale's prior permission to make edits. Or Cleo123's. Or mine.

But clearly you and other parties here have a disagreement over content and presentation. So please do your arguing over these here on this talk page, and as coolly as possible. For emphasis, try italicizing (even if you think capitals are perfectly OK); if somebody seems to overcapitalize, put up with it (even if you think it's shouting).

Stories presented by the infotainment network MSN seem feeble (though they might not be). Self-published material by somebody who seems to have dedicated vast swathes of his life to the murder of this person seems dodgy (though again it might not be). The seemingly intelligent amazon.com reviews of a relevant book from an actual university press strongly suggest that the publisher did nothing to inspire and that instead Charles Higham sunk below his usual gossipy level. Perhaps you should first come to an agreement on the credibility of sources and only then move on to what they say. -- Hoary (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the apparent good faith disagreement(s) over sources and content, I'm ok with keeping any references to Gibson only in the Margaret Gibson and Case still officially open sections of the article. I think it's unlikely the MSN source will ever meet WP:RS. Taylorology is mostly a vast collection of reproduced primary sources which I believe holds up handily under WP:RS. However, although I have never seen a hint of published scepticism (aside from that MSN blurb, which is unattributed and so sweeping as to be demonstrably false) over Taylorology's publication of Gibson's reported confession, I would like to say again that any published commentary on her reported confession from a reasonably reliable and attributable source, of whatever take or outlook, should be helpfully added as it shows up. An example would be, "Writer Foo in her book Bar (2003) dismissed the delayed report of Gibson's confession as 'utter codswallop.'" Meanwhile, with the removal of Gibson's name from the lead along with any references to the report's credibility I hope we can stabilize the discussion among ourselves for now, talk about these sources some more as time allows and wait for other editors to have their say. How does this sound to everyone? If I'm missing anything, please let me know. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Kimberly Peirce's solution?

In the past few months there have been many media interviews with Kimberly Peirce the director of Stop-Loss. In a lot of those interviews she discusses her preparation work for a William Desmond Taylor film, which has not yet been made. When discussing that Taylor project, she says she has solved the case. For example, in the Washington Post it says: So Peirce says she solved the murder ("We did! I'm a big researcher"),... There are links to many of her media interviews on the Kimberly Peirce Fan Website; I've only looked at a few of them, but the claim to have solved the Taylor murder appears repeatedly. In the interview at Movies Online, she says, "I got everything that had ever been written on it. We solved the murder mystery. We figured out who did it, how they did it, and how and why it had to be covered up."

I'm not sure if this is worthy of noting in Taylor's Wikipedia article (or on Peirce's Wikipedia article) so I'm tossing it up for possible discussion here. --Pikabruce (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd wait until the movie is released and then start a cultural references section (if one isn't begun by then). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Alma Rubens didn't die until 1931. Your paragraph refers to scandals of the early 1920's that brought about morality clauses. As her tragic death and downfall occured long after the introduction of these morality clauses, I have removed her name from the paragraph so it does not contain this innaccuracy.