Talk:Jesse James/Archive 1

Where the money is

He is reported to have said: "Why do I rob banks? Because that is where the money is!"

Is there a source for that? The only instances I can find by Googling are things like 'how to get your business working' seminars that ask "Why did Jesse James rob banks?" and answer "It's where the money is", without actually attributing the quote to him. The line's more usually attributed to Willie Sutton, who credits it to "some enterprising reporter who apparently felt a need to fill out his copy".

If there's a better source for this, go ahead and re-add it. --Calair 23:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I only moved the quote from an odd placement by a previous anon editor. It was too apt to be true vandalism. I don't know whether the quote is valid or not, but it sounds like a nice little research project. I'd add it to my to do list, but it's very long at the moment. Perhaps someone has a biography that might address it? Comments welcome. WBardwin 04:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't think it was vandalism either, just dubious about the accuracy - I can see how the quote from Sutton might be turned into a joke about a more famous robber, and then reinterpreted as a quote, and without supporting evidence that's my best guess as to what's happened here. --Calair 07:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

DNA nitpicking

I reworded the claim that "DNA analysis gave a 99.7% probability that [the Missouri body] was Jesse James" because this misrepresents the nature of DNA testing. DNA tests can't give that sort of information, because that probability depends on a lot of other factors, some of which can't easily be quantified. It's not clear exactly what the "99.7%" number *does* properly refer to - it doesn't appear in the linked mitochondrial DNA analysis - but it is most likely equivalent to "only 0.3% of people would match the reference DNA samples from James' known relatives as closely as this sample does".

I know some of the newspaper articles about this report represented it as "a 99.7% probability that the body was Jesse James"; they got it wrong too. This is a common misunderstanding about DNA testing; one of these days I'll get around to writing it up on a DNA-related page, if somebody doesn't beat me to it. --Calair 00:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

It only matters what newspapers and other reliable sources have written about it, since Wikipedia relies on published, third-party, reliable sources for its information.--Gloriamarie (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The Real Bias

I disagree that cody vaughn which has been redacted was biased and or portrayed "Union as something approaching the Third Reich." Particularly in that by removing any such discussions also removes the motivations behind the James-Younger gang, removes academic research into the clandestine organizations which backed the James-Younger gang, and removes discussion of causes behind what appear to be unexplainable acts of the James-Younger gang.

The fact remains that Union troops and their abolitionist militia auxilleries known as Red Legs have the largest number of atrocities ascribed to them in what was truly an atrocious civil war within the state of Missouri. Records of the period are distinct in representing the wholesale pillaging, burning, rape, and murder of Confederate sympathizers in Missouri. The animosity the Union forces in Missouri engendered, eventually caused later Missouri governments to conduct Congressional investigations which were authoritative in judging Union activities during and after the war as nothing short of crimes against humanity.

Additionally, it is clear from growing research into the James-Younger gang and other groups after the war, that there were socio-economic reasons for the increase in outlawery. These were rooted in Union sectional, political, and class imperialism against the Southern sectional, political, and class structure. By refusing to discuss actions by Northern interests which illuminate this socio-economic oppression, we fail to understand the reasons behind the growth of groups such as the James-Younger gang in post-bellum America.

Rather than impugn the James character with surreptitious remarks about his family such as "hemp-growing...slave owning...timid step-father", which have really no baring on characteristics which might illuminate the James-Younger gang activities, let us stick to real facts such as that the James family were prosperious minor plantation owners of the gentry class, were literate and educated, had helped settle and pacify the region for American civilization, but then had that honor, wealth, and status literally stolen and degraded in a vicious civil war which left Missouri in ruins. Such an illumination would much more reveal the motivations behind Jesse James than that his step-father was a timid hemp grower.

Although the most recent edit has included good biographical information regarding James-Younger activities, they fail to mention that much of the James-Younger activities were targeted upon "scallawag" and "carpetbagger" institutions and individuals. For instance, the notorious Northfield raid was targeted upon a bank owned by two villified Reconstruction Union occupation military governors who were heavily tied to Republican Party establishment figures, especially those which were developing a stranglehold on economic resources in the nation and were attempting to expand that control into areas such as Missouri.

Additionally, the failure of the Northfield raid, the demise of the gang's members, and the dissappearence of the James brothers coincides with a drop-off in other outlaw acts by other gangs. Considering the likely use of counter-intelligence and criminal investigation methods by the aforementioned Republican establishment against a political background of ending Reconstruction government, it is highly likely that the James gang and others ceased operating simply because of larger socio-economic factors involving successful implementation of political oppression techniques. In other words, the James gang was part of an organized effort to resist Northern interests in the Post-bellum period, and that resistence became increasingly tenuous as political factors changed. By ignoring those factors we fail to read the underlying ground upon which the James-Younger gang travelled in it's resistence.

By ignoring Union atrocities we fail to understand the motivation of the James-Younger gang. By censoring data regarding Confederate Partisan Ranger activities to fit a prescribed political viewpoint we fail to read the networks and methodologies which made outlawery successful in the post-bellum period. By inserting ridiculously inane remarks about "hemp growing" and "timidity" or other such slights, it is revealed were the real bias originates from. Lets look at history with unvarnished eyes, not the cynical ones of a propogandist. Consequently I suggest we work from the last edit and build upon that which includes the best biographical data from several viewpoints and sources.-American_cavalier@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.32.45 (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. The page as written contains many tendentious views of the confederacy and the American Civil War. These need to be presented in a neutral light.

In addition, the page is very pro-Jesse-- for balance it should shed more light on his atrocities. affesimia@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.242.6 (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

How is saying that someone grew hemp impugning them? If it's true or if it's not, it says nothing about the person who does it, any more than saying someone is a soybean or corn farmer.--Gloriamarie (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

need for disambiguation ?

It appears that Jesse James play in the movie: The Butterfly Effect.

A disambiguation page wouldn't be a good idea ?

ZeroJanvier 20:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Jesse James in Music

One of the most significant examples of Jesse James in music is the musical "Diamond Studs - The Life of Jesse James", a musical by Jim Wann and Bland Simpson. It accurately (and with great humor) follows the major events of Jesse Jame's life with some of the finest move-your-ass southern music (covering everything from old-time, folk, ballads, soul, rock, through gospel). I think it made it to off-broadway in the 70's and has seen a recent revival (see "www.studsatthebarn.com").

I thought that the line Dylan (in Outlaw Blues) said "I might look like Robert Frost." Max 097 01:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In 2006, Barcelona-based band Brazzaville released a song called "Jesse James" on their CD, East LA Breeze. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiNewbie135 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Songs about Jesse James

The pogues did not write the song Jesse James. Most sources list the song as Traditional but I believe this version may be based on a Woody Guthrie version of the song due to its similarity to songs such as Jesus Christ.

Assassination?

Why is James' killing listed as such? An assassination is a politically motivated killing; Ford's reasonings probably had more to do with collecting the reward and/or wiping out a criminal. Matt Deres 21:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Answer to above

as.sas.si.na.tion (noun) 1. to murder by sudden or secret attack. (Merriam Webster dictionary)

The word assassination has nothing to do with political motives, but political extremists may use assassination to obtain their objective(s). You are correct that Robert Ford's reasoning for the murder of Jesse James was based on collecting a reward. He thus assassinated James in order to collect said reward. Jeff Soapy Smith 16:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This jumped out at me too. In the USA the word "assassination" is almost always used to mean the murder of an important political leader. Even if this is not the meaning intended that is what most Americans will think. Why not just title the section "Death"? Steve Dufour 11:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I went ahead and did that? No one can argue with the fact that he died; while if you use the other word you are confusing the readers. Steve Dufour 05:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I know I would object, for one. There is no confusion in the definition. The Fords were offered pay, to give information to lawmen, and to do away with James, if they could. That is assassination in definition. Just because some people think it only applies to political motives, is no reason we need to change the definition of a word. Ford did not just kill Jesse James. He planned and waited for the perfect moment. Soapy 20:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you on the facts. You know 100 times more than I do about it anyway. All I am trying to say is that the word "assassination" is going to confuse lots of people. Better to let them read the story and make up their own minds. Steve Dufour 01:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

James Family

Among the definitions for the word "family," Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary cites the following: "a succession of persons connected by blood, name, etc.; a house, line, clan, tribe; race." Under this definition, the use of the word appears entirely applicable in the sense it is being used to identify the James family's web site, Stray Leaves, in the External Links section.

The "legal reasons" that have been asserted to object to use of the word are vague, indefinite, unspecific, and lack citations of law. A further assertion states that use of the term "The Family" is a nebulous and disputable claim. Indeed it is . . . if one is not part of that specific family. The family of Jesse James has disputed such claims for years, first in the lawsuit brought against John James, a hapless claimant and imposter who was determined to be mentally insane, and in the case of J. Frank Dalton, a con artist. Both of these claimants to the Jesse James family appeared in the FBI file on Jesse James because they were charlatans and frauds. However, Jesse James himself did not appear in the FBI file because he indeed was recognized for who he was. More recent claimants have been disputed in public forums by James family members, acting as authorized voices for the Jesse James family, as well as by other advocates who are simply interested. Most James family claimants eventually disprove themselves. The use of the term in this circumstance is not "nebulous and disputable" because factually Stray Leaves is published by the family relations of Jesse James. They contribute to it. They employ the web site Stray Leaves as the family's own voice, as it did recently in reporting of the family's exhumation of Jesse James' twin children. And its claim to be the offical web site of the family of Jesse James can be substantiated in a court of law.

Other assertions also made include the following: "No web site can claim to represent 100% of the James family." No such representation is made. It would be a foolish assumption. The James family has only been able to define itself within the past decade, after considerable research at extraordinary expense in both time and money. No family can ever define itself in utter totallity. It's a mathematical impossibility. The James family makes no such representation.

Another assertion is: "given that Jesse James is a 19th century historical figure, no web site can claim to be the authorized voice of all of his living relations." Deceased historical figures can indeed have authorized voices. Elvis Presley has his. So does Liberace. No one would ever question the house of Windsor if Prince Charles, or any of the Windsor family, made reference to George V their 19th century ancestor. In fact, one would expect that Prince Charles' voice is indeed an "authorized voice." Still, George V has his biographers, both authorized and not authorized by the Windsor family. But is Prince Charles an authorized voice for every relation of his, including his own relations within the Jesse James family? Certainly not. Is Prince Charles entitled to characterize himself as an official family member of George V. By all means.

Stray Leaves has been published by the family of Jesse James for a decade. In all that time no such assertions have been made, as those which have appeared here. JamesPreservationTrust 02:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Eric James, President, The James Preservation Trust

Descendants and "Authorized" Voices

Regarding the post just above, I agree that relatives of Jesse James (that is, a subset of all possible relatives) can get together, put up a website, and call it the Official Website of Jesse James's Family. I don't see a problem there. But this strangely touchy and defensive posting takes a wacky and logically incorrect turn, when it starts going on about authorized voices.

Authorized voice of the family? OK by me, even if it's a partial family, or even distant relations. But authorized voice of Jesse James himself? That's what this post implies, when it starts going on about Elvis, Liberace, and the British royal family, beginning with this line: "Deceased historical figures can indeed have authorized voices."

If Elvis authorized a biographer or writer to represent his point of view when he was alive, then yeah, he's got an authorized voice, dead now or not. But Jesse James? He no more has an authorized voice than George Washington or Genghis Khan. If you have some relationship, even if it's pretty distant, you can speak for "family," but that doesn't give you a claim on any authority over Jesse James. God knows I wouldn't want my cousins or uncles or nieces claiming to be my authorized voice, just because we have some common ancestor. At least I'm alive to say so, but Jesse James didn't get a choice.

I agree, there are no real legal objections--call yourselves the official site, and God bless you. But no one can be the "authorized voice" of a fellow who got shot in 1882, after living in secret all his life. You might as well claim to be the authorized voice of Ivan the Terrible, because your family tree shows you're his great-great-x1000-nephew. Good luck with that.

One more thing: Authorized biographies are always the worst. They're usually so dutiful, without enough distance from the subject. So we can thank our lucky stars there can be never be an authorized biography of Jesse James. --Cliometrician

---To the person who wrote the above, but did not sign their name: The reason it sounds odd is that you are only seeing one side of a past argument with a vandal who daily changed the James' family external link, arguing that they were not the official family voice, which they are. Yes, families can speak offically for their deceased relatives. After a certain amount of time, the legal representation may end, but they are still offical representatives as far as the history of the deceased. Soapy 06:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

---To Mr. Soapy: If you refresh this page, you'll see that I added my log-in name. My friend, I must disagree. I followed the argument very well as far as control over the link. Makes sense--I buy it. But it does not lead to the conclusion that you're now supporting: "Yes, families can speak offically for their deceased relatives."

Living persons, as individuals or as families, can speak officially, legally, and every other way for themselves, but a long-dead public figure like Jesse James is public domain. People will write and argue about him from here to eternity, and the only authority anyone can claim comes from doing their homework and making sense.

Frankly, I don't know what "official" means, as far as what you're saying goes. Is it a claim to greater knowledge? You only get that by conducting research, not from blood. (Andrew Jackson's great-great-great-grandson can tell me Jackson was eight feet tall, and even believe it, but it doesn't make it true). Is it a claim to legal authority? No, you already let go of that one. So it seems like "official" means to you: "I feel a special connection to this historical subject because we have some common ancestor, or this person is my direct ancestor." In other words, "official" means a subjective emotional state on the part of the living person. Well, allright, I respect that, but does it mean anything for anyone else?

This is all a tempest in a teapot, because I don't see that it has led to anyone messing around with content (except for the link issue, which seems to have settled down). My point is that the whole purpose of Wikipedia is to invite everybody who is knowledgeable about a subject to contribute, and errors or strong POV will be caught by other people. It's democracy of knowledge. But talk about "official" and "authorized voices" of people who've been dead for 120 years goes against that. I'm arguing a principle: expertise is expertise, and that's it. --Cliometrician

--To Mr. Cliometrician: Thank you for adding your name to your posting. I agree with you that living persons can speak officially (and legally) for themselves, and I agree with you that a deceased relative's history, becomes public domain after a number of decades. I used the term official, not in a legal manner (nor does the James family), but in a historical and genealogical sense. They are the official family spokespersons, and are accepted as such, by much of the historical community. No, not everyone accepts them, and no, they can not possibly speak for all members of the family, just as the President of the United States cannot possibly speak for all of us. I cannot speak for the James' but I do know several of the key members of the family Trust, and feel they have gone through the same process my family has, when forming our official-dom.

As with the James family, my family, in regards to Soapy Smith has invested over one hundred years, researching, collecting, and studying our infamous descendants. Our families have invested more time and effort into historical research than anyone on the outside of the family could ever wish to accomplish on their own. Our families have an access to information that others do not. Because many of the interested family members saw the family unit as a vast bank of knowledge, we formed an official trust to officially speak for the desceased. No one in my family has contested the issue of having "spokespersons" for several decades, and I am sure it is the same way within the James family. For the most part the vast network of historians has also accepted our families claim to being the official spokes-persons. The main reason my family does this, and I am sure it is the same with the James family, is for historical accuracy. You would not believe how busy I, myself am, in correcting false histories about Soapy Smith, that are still being published as truth. I had to completely re-write the Soapy Smith Wikipedia article, and it is still very vague. I am sure the James family has their job cut out for them. Now, when I speak of false histories, I am not saying that our families are trying to protect the good name of our deceased descendants. We are trying to protect the truth, good and bad. Because so many past (and present) historians use fill (False Information-Latent Lies) in writing, the truth becomes difficult to accept, even with documentation. It's the old story of, "Tell a lie long enough, and it becomes the truth." I have author friends who still print that Soapy Smith was a cowboy, even though documentation shows this not to be the case.

The vandal who messed with the James family external link was obviously a jealous individual, who would not change any of the content of the article, because he/she did not know the history. I can only guess that he/she just could not stand that there was an official stance on the subject. Perhaps he/she always thought of themselves as the last word on history. Many people are like that. I remember, a few years ago, when I corrected the spelling in a magazine article on Ed O'Kelley (the man who shot Bob Ford). The spelling of O'Kelley came from the family descendants, but this author spelled it Ed O. Kelly, and then insisted, in the pages of the magazine, that the family was misspelling their own name!

Wikipedia IS a place of knowledge, where anyone can contribute information, but the purpose of an encyclopedia, of which Wikipedia wishes to emulate, is information...true information, not errors and POV. Where better to get truth in information than from those who have spent decades finding it. As you said, "expertise is expertise, and that's it." Soapy 16:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

To Cliometrician...As I read your concern, it appears to deduct that no one can speak for the deceased, specifically one who’s been dead for 120 years. And the family of the deceased may not speak in any “official” or authoritative or “authorized” capacity regarding the deceased.. We respectfully disagree.

Let us offer you a hypothetical scenario that may assist you in understanding why we disagree. Presume the following: You yourself know you have 7 aunts and uncles, all of whom are deceased. But someone publishes a piece that states you have 9 aunts and uncles. The piece then broadcasts widely about the two you don’t know. The story appears plausible. There’s some evidence, but not enough to substantiate the issue conclusively. But other people are beginning to believe it is true that you have 9 aunts and uncles and not the 7 you claim. At this point, the cliometrician in you knows the historical statistics are 7 and not 9. Do you as a cliometrican argue the principle you would have us believe that “expertise is expertise, and that’s it.” It’s 7 aunts and uncles, not 9. Or do you claim your authority as a family member to state, “Our family knows nothing about these other two aunts and uncles. No evidence of them exists among the family. In fact, there is evidence that the existence of two additional aunts & uncles would have been impossible. And we are prepared to make our case before a court of law”? It’s our belief most people would prefer you to assert your authority as family, not as a statistician of history, even though you never were authorized to do so by your deceased aunts and uncles.

Jesse James left no power of attorney to defend himself. Nor did his immediate family establish a foundation to protect and defend his identity. The fact is, no such lawful opportunity was afforded the family at the time of his death. Percentage wise, Jesse James evaporates daily into mythology as the facts regarding him recede.

The family of Jesse James historically has had itself challenged and assaulted at every turn. The family has defended its integrity and veracity against challengers and false claimants in courts of law, and the family has prevailed. The challenges are chronic, to the extreme of being pathological. They will not cease in this generation nor any other. A search of the internet will reveal many web sites devoted to the genealogy and history of Jesse James. Much of it false and inaccurate. Indeed, much of it intentionally so. The family cares nothing about the mythology of Jesse James. But it does care about fact. The family established The James Preservation Trust to preserve and disseminate its factual history. To this extent, the family will continue to act upon its “official” capacity and its authority to speak for itself and its members both living and dead, to differentiate the mythology from the fact. JamesPreservationTrust 29 June 2006 (UTC) Eric James, President, The James Preservation Trust

--To Eric James and Soapy Smith: First off, I respect and pay tribute to your interest in your long-deceased relatives, and your dedication to the facts. Same goes for the importance you place on your relationship. I know you've had plenty to defend against, in terms of false claims, such as the whole nonsense about a faked death.

But (and this is the last I'll say about it, because we will have to agree to disagree) if you think you have any claim over your ancestor's story, apart from the authority derived from your research into verifiable facts, then you are mistaken. Imagine that Lincoln's relatives were given authority to pronounce the various books about him true or false, simply because they were relatives. Ridiculous. The most solid books about Jesse James, including the hallmark by Professor Settle, were all written by nonrelatives, as far as I know.

Now, if you have done serious research because of your family connection and your desire to defend against all of these claims of "my grandpappy was the real Jesse James," more power to you. Hats off, and I mean it. But it's your research, your factual knowledge, that gives you authority, not your blood.

In Mr. James's last post, he used a hypothetical example of me "knowing" that I have so many uncles, and someone writing that I have a different number. Let me give you a counter example. My grandfather had a brother that no one ever mentioned--not my parents, not my grandparents. I only recently learned of him from an uncle, who said there had been a terrible falling out between my grandfather and his brother. I "knew" that I had no great-uncle. I was wrong. What if some writer had dug up the birth certificate, and proved it before I heard of it from my uncle? I would actually know less, because I was relying on what I "knew" from being a family member, and not from a documentary source.

So there we have it: If you are conducting and encouraging serious, hard research, then your family connection has served you well, and serves all of us well. But it's the research, not the blood, that makes knowledge. There's no aristocracy in America, in politics or in knowledge; blood alone doesn't mean anything on that score, except how it motivates you to go out and do good, hard work in digging up facts.

So we disagree on a definition, but not on the goal. --Cliometrician

Jesse (Woodson) Robert James

Jesse James real birth name is (Jesse Robert James) named after his father whom deserted the family and ran off to the gold fields of California. I'm inclined to believe Jesse later changed his middle name to (Woodson) in defiance of his fathers actions. See 1850 US Census for verification.

70.57.165.87 13:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Richard M. James

A short bio here suggests that his father did not desert the family: [1]--Chops79 03:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Facts and Myths

Stray Leaves, the James Family Website has a list of Facts and Myths researched by historian Phil Stewart, who is indicated as having been the former historian of the Jesse James Farm and Museum: Facts and Myths--Chops79 03:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Edited Introduction

The introduction formerly indicated that the James' life of crime was due to injustices from railroad companies and "untimely" death of their mother leading them to take revenge on railroads. In fact, their mother outlived both of them, surviving to the age of 86. Their first robberies were banks, not railroads. They didn't rob a train until at least five years into their criminal career. Dabarkey 06:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Clay County and Kearney

The statement, "Jesse Woodson James was born in Clay County, Missouri (later renamed Kearney)", is inaccurate. James was born in Clay County, but Clay County was not renamed Kearney. Kearney (pronounced kar'-nee in Missouri) is a town in Clay County.

JJ in pop culture

In the computer games 'Sam and Max' you can find and use Jesse James severed hand. In 'Sam and Max: Episode 1' it's placed in Sam a Max's office as a sculpture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.237.203.89 (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Requested move

Jesse James (outlaw) → Jesse James — None of the other entries on the disambig page are remotely famous as this Jesse James. The disambig page is already at Jesse James (disambiguation) —Cúchullain ^t/c 08:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC) copied from WP:RM. Cuchullain is the originator of the request. Bobblehead 19:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support. Based purely on subjective impressions, the outlaw seems like the most famous instance of the name. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support - absolutely. Incoming links almost all come to the outlaw, which is saying something, considering that he died over a hundred years ago (Wikipedia and the rest of the internet have a tendency for recentism. He is unquestionably the most popular, and the main page should redirect to him. Hats off to Jesse G. James, but he just isn't as important (by a long shot) as the first one yet. Patstuart^talk|edits 05:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support as the originator of the request. Jesse G. James is famous, but the gunslinger is the Jesse James. A link to the disambuation page from here would suffice.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. PC78 22:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Support - clearly the main use by a long way. -- Beardo 05:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Support This Jesse is known the world over. If this Jesse does not take the name someone else will eventually. Soapy 06:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Weak oppose. See discussion. --Bobblehead 19:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

While I'm not disagreeing that this Jesse James is arguably the most popular person by this name, it's questionable whether he is the preeminent use of the name because of Jesse G. James's popularity due to his motorcycle customization business, television shows on the Discovery Channel, and marriage to Sandra Bullock. However, I'm not sure how popular Jesse G. James is outside of the US, which is why I'm at a weak oppose. --Bobblehead 19:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I was checking and fixing the incoming links to "Jesse James" and they almost exclusively refer to the outlaw. This is in part because the article about him was located at that title for a long time, so it is unfair to judge on incoming links alone. Nevertheless, I would guess that the outlaw is the primary usage. A disambiguation top link to the others would probably be sufficient. This could be accomplished either by moving "Jesse James (outlaw)" to "Jesse James" or by redirecting "Jesse James" to "Jesse James (outlaw)". The incoming links could be monitored and sorted with the second option. Because the second option does not require a move, I am officially neutral, but I support the idea of the outlaw as the primary meaning. Khatru2 22:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Everyone else known for the name is recognized in relation to him. This is pretty clear cut primary meaning. I'm moving the page. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Faked death?

This article states:

In another case, Rudy Turilli, operator of the "Jesse James Museum," offered $10,000 to anyone who could disprove his contention that Jesse James was not murdered in 1882, but in fact lived for many years thereafter under the alias J. Frank Dalton and resided with Turilli at his museum into the 1950s. Stella James, a relative of Jesse James, accepted the challenge and produced affidavits of persons who had identified Jesse James' body after the 1882 shooting. Turilli denied the evidence satisfied the requisite degree of proof and refused to pay the $10,000. He had to pay after a court found that Stella James only needed to submit evidence sufficient to persuade an ordinary person.

So it sounds like their was enough evidence to persuade an ordinary person that Jesse James faked his death. Does anyone know anything more about this? Can we include something about it in the article? 128.117.194.163 16:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

false, sensationalist phrase deleted

The claim that Missourians were "fully united" (in support of Jesse James after his death) is false, and a libel on the ancestors of thousands of people now living in Missouri and elsewhere. I have therefore deleted it. Publius3 05:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Jesse James Northfield Raid

I've just noticed that Jesse James Northfield Raid was changed into a redirect pointing to this article. Unfortunately, 2k of text was deleted as a result. I have pasted the most recent version (prior to the redirect) below, in case anyone wants to incorporate this text into the article. I've modified the section headers to be one size smaller than they were before. Lisatwo 02:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The article:

Of the countless murders that have occurred in Minnesota over the years, the Jesse James Northfield Raid has stood out and not been forgotten with the waves of time. It has remained a famous story because of its historic importance. The raid on the small Minnesota town eventually brought about the demise of the legendary James-Younger gang.

Events

It all began when the gang decided to rob a Minnesota bank. They decided this because one of the members was Minnesotan and often bragged of his states banks. After choosing between 8 banks, the bandits decided to raid the First National Bank of Mankato. They decided that if that failed, they would proceed on to Northfield. This raid was the beginning of the end.

When the gang arrived in Mankato they saw a large group of civilians in front of the bank. Not wanting to risk immediate resistance from such a big number of people, the James-Younger Gang moved on to Northfield, planning to steal from the First National Bank of Northfield. Upon arriving near Northfield the night of September 6 1876, the men began preparing for the next day’s big robbery.

Robbery

On the morning of the 7th all went as planned for the gang. They split into 3 groups, the actual robbers, those who would guard the bank entrance, and the people in charge of manning the escape route. The first group was made up of Frank James, Bob Younger and Charlie Pitts. The guards were Cole Younger and Clell Miller. Jesse James, Jim Younger and William Stiles made up the final cluster of anxious men.

Before the clever outlaws could make off with anything, the citizens discovered the plot.

Outcome

When things finally settled down, William Stiles and Clell Miller lay lifeless in the street. The remaining members of the gang fled, all wounded. Two townspeople were also dead, Joseph Heywood, a bank clerk who had refused to open the safe, and Nicholas Gustafson, a bystander to the street battle who was hit by a stray bullet.

By and by the only free surviving members of the original James-Younger gang were Jesse and Frank James. Cole, Jim and Bob Younger had all received life sentences for their parts in the raid. Charlie Pitts was dead, killed in a fight with people trying to capture the gang. After the raid, the gang never again reformed and the end of an American legend came to be.

Source

• northfield historcal society last updated December 11 2003

External links

• Northfield Minnesota Visitor Information

Proposed merger

In my opinion, Zerelda Mimms, Jesse E. James and Mary James Barr should all be merged into this article, as follows:

Family

Jesse and his first cousin, Zerelda "Zee" Mimms married on April 24 1874. Zerelda's father, Pastor John Wilson Mimms, was married to Mary James, Jesse's aunt on his father's side. They had four children:

• Jesse James, Jr. (August 31 1875 - March 26 1951)
• Twins Gould James and Montgomery James (born February 28 1878), died in infancy
• Mary Susan James (June 17 1879 - October 11 1935)

Jesse Jr. became a lawyer and was a respected member of the Kansas City, Missouri bar. He appeared in the 1921 films Jesse James Under the Black Flag (along with sister Mary) and Jesse James as the Outlaw.

Comments? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Typo?

I was thinking this made sense the other way around. Thx for looking at it.

The conflict split the population into three bitterly opposed factions: antislavery radical Unionists, who became the Republicans; the proslavery conservative Unionists, who became the Democrats —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.29.239 (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not an American, but I am pretty sure you are right! Weren't early Republicans pro-slavery? --194.203.213.157 (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Democrats, who had been around since Thomas Jefferson's day, tended to be the slaveholders. The Republicans, who arose in the 1850s as the Whigs dissolved, leaned more towards abolition. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense if you consider where modern Republican family money mostly comes from: the industrial innovators and entrepreneurs and transportation moguls. In contrast, Democrat money to this point was tied to plantations and other farming activities. This also reflects a primary difference between the economies of the industry-heavy North and the agriculture-heavy South. In the technologies of the time, industry also needed less raw labour proportionately than agriculture. (You don't find slaves working in factories.) Oversimplification, of course, but a useful starting overview. - Tenebris

Logic

I'm not sure you become legendary by dying. You become a figure from history. Chasnor15 (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You're on to something with this statement, in my opinion. I found it difficult to approach this "glorified blog" with any real faith from the moment I read the first few lines! And I quote, "After his death, he became a legendary figure of the Wild West." Is it not fairly common knowledge that Jesse James was perhaps as famous (in America, at least) in the time of his life as he became (or rather, remained) after dying? I mean, no matter how accurate the information someone gives you is, a faux pas of this caliber certainly deteriorates one's credibility. At the very least, compromises integrity? And on a side note, Quoting again, "Jesse Woodson James (September 5, 1847 – April 3, 1882) was an American outlaw and the most famous member of the James-Younger Gang." I'm just not convinced that he was ever MORE famous than Cole Younger! Someone please respond... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.124.151 (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Glenndale, Missouri

Under the section heading "Downfall of the Gang" The link to Glendale, Missouri is wrong. Glenndale, as well as Blue Cut was located inside of a broader area called Crackerneck. Crackerneck itself was located, at that time, east of Independence (it has since been incoorperated into Independence, MO). There are few traces of the names and areas left. At one time there was a Crackerneck golf course and country club, There still is a Crackerneck road. The rail line that the Jesse James stopped the train on is still there it is a 90 degree curve located right by the Little Blue river hence the name Blue Cut. Cbennefeld (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Supporting articles:

Harry Sinclair, "Outlaws on Horseback", p. 72 http://books.google.com/books?id=j162G13tDDMC&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=glendal+train+robbery&source=web&ots=RiSOceohot&sig=Ssoowmt4qDbXH_D4LQeOGAp7XO8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPA78,M1

Also an NYT article about a different train robbery in 1896 in the area. The article mentions that the site was the same as an earlier James brothers robbery http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9E01EEDF113BEE33A25756C2A9649D94679ED7CF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.166.155.45 (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What did he do with the money?

His wife died in poverty. Where did the money go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.40.84 (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Was Jesse James ever declared an outlaw?

I appreciate different jurisdictions have different conventions. In Australia you had to be declared an outlaw. For example in the case of Ned Kelly the Victorian Government (in Australia) passed an act in 1878 making Kelly and his gang outlaws.[2] Some years previously a similar act had been used in New South Wales to declare Ben Hall and his gang outlaws.[3]. Because of this legislation, the criminals were outside the law and could be shot be anyone on sight - they did not have to be arrested and the case go to trial.

How did it work in the case of Jesse James? --Matilda ^talk 23:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Referencing style changes and comments

An editor has begun a wholesale changing of referencing format style without broaching it on this page. There has been a lot of work put into bringing this article's references into a consistent style. An edit summary stating "Cleaned up references; many references that have been added on this page are not serious sources, but mere webpages." This is, in fact, untrue. Prior to this editor's changes, there were 60 separate references on the page. The content pertaining to the history of Jesse James had references running to #50, and of these, only one was from a source that is only a webpage - the Officer Down webpage. The rest are from published books, journals and newspapers are are in no way questionable sources. I have left a note for this editor to stop his efforts and discuss them here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Wildhartlive: There was a lot of work put into this page before the previous version, and mere consistency is not a recommendation for a style. There are recognized styles of citation, and there is no need to put any work at all into inventing one from scratch.

There were the following problems with this page: 1) Some of the information was out of date or wrong. Example: Settle puts the number of slaves owned by Robert James at 7. Stiles, citing probate records, puts them at 6, and notes from census records that Reuben and Zerelda Samuel increased the number to 7. Stiles is the more recent and more thoroughly annotated biography. Another example: William Jewell College in Liberty was called "Liberty College." Wrong. 2) Mere citation of sources does not make them accurate. For example: A newspaper interview with the director of the James House Museum in St. Joseph is not an adequate source. A biography that cites its sources, such as Settle, Yeatman, and Stiles, is. The reason is that the voicing of an opinion in an interview does not allow the reader to check the validity of the claim. But an annotated work, such as those I have left in the citations, does allow for verification. This is basic scholarship. The mere number of citations does not recommend them. 3) The inclusion of full bibliographical information for each citation of a book, even when repeated, and the use of a separate footnote reference for each title is not a recognized citation style. If you open any footnoted work, you will not see multiple footnotes stacked up behind each other like a choo-choo train. When there are multiple references for the same paragraph or point, they go in the same footnote. This is not a personal thing; it's the way citations work. 4) There were a number of footnote references on this page that had no sources at all.

Jesse James is a subject that a lot of people think they know a lot about, and they feel free to update the page with their personal sense of what is right. But, if this page is to have any validity at all, it should rest purely on sources that can be checked, verified, and that have survived the test of scholarly criticism. --Cliometrician —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliometrician (talk • contribs) 06:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The citation style used is one of the acceptable formats covered in policy and guidelines for citations. You aren't just correcting errors, you are imposing your viewpoint of citation styles over the work of many others. You have commented that you are fixing "messy references" while in the wake you are leaving multiple citation errors. This is not a university exercise with a professor dictating citation styles, and it is not a scholarly publication. Fix the errors, but desist in undoing the hard work of others. You aren't simply correcting errors, you are reworking the entire article without obtaining the consensus of previously involved editors. That, by Wikipedia policy, is unacceptable. You rarely edit here, your edits tend toward a single purpose account, and you are bucking policy by imposing your will on how citation style has evolved. If you cannot work within the framework already started, then I suggest you post your concerns here and let someone else deal with it. However, I won't allow you to undo the work others have put into to it to make the small number of changes you've indicated are in error. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

"I won't allow you to undo the work of others"? Do you know that Wikipedia is open to public editing? Do you realize that you have undone the previous hard work of others?

"This is not a university exercise with a professor dictating citation styles, and is not a scholarly publication." Do you realize that Wikipedia is embedded in a larger culture that has developed citation styles for a reason, and that simply dismissing testable knowledge because Wikipedia is not "scholarly" undermines its usefulness. For example, what is the source of the claim for the number of murders that Jesse James was involved in? A recent newspaper interview. That's not a source that has any meaning. Where did that number come from? In fact, I have removed points of view in restoring this entry. You are rendering it useless out of some kind of personal mission to impose your personal view of what should go in it, rather than relying on consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliometrician (talk • contribs) 18:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Also: Note that this page had NO references whatsoever before I added them some time ago. You are privileging your work over that of others. This is not a matter of liking references; it's a matter of whether they are reliable, verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliometrician (talk • contribs) 18:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The information about the Museum in Ireland being the home of James's father who immigrated in 1840s does not appear to be consistent with the information on the wikipedia page regarding James's father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.225.207.97 (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, you continue to misrepresent what you are doing on this article. I have stated on your talk page more than once that it is not a question of your correcting errors, it is a matter of your reformatting the citation style that has been established on the page since you last edited it in May 2008. In fact, I am not the only editor who worked on the article, and I am not the only editor who worked on reference formatting. Yes, Wikipedia is for anyone to edit, but there are specific conditions in that, including consensus of contributing editors and style guidelines. Whatever citation styles you may use in your environment are not compelled for use on this site. I pointed out a featured article to you that indeed uses the style of citation formatting that was used here (James Brand). Your issues with the citation style are you imposing your POV on citations over the variety of citation styles acceptable on Wikipedia. Since you didn't bother to even look, you didn't see that the quote about the number of murders was removed. Change the facts, but stop reworking the rest of the citations. That is quite simple. You've actually changed few references, you've mostly just changed the style, so please spare us your claims of unverifiability. Your work from before isn't an issue, your having begun referencing isn't an issue. At this point, your wholesale changing the style of the reference presentation is what is at issue. Your correcting content isn't at issue, your changing the style of the other references while you are correcting content is at issue. It will take a few days to get these published references from the library, but I will do so in order to fully be able to participate in dispute resolution, which I am requesting for this. In the meanwhile, I have requested full page protection. Don't you even notice that your reversions have left citation errors hanging? Your remedy for that during your changes was to simply remove any citations that showed errors when the page was saved. Unacceptable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have gone through each of the changes you made and compared them to the what you suggest is unverifiable and invalid sourcing and absolutely find your claim unfounded. The vast majority of the article is sourced by the Settle, Yeatman, and Stiles books. The formatting, which is an accepted format for use on Wikipedia, as has been stated more than once, has been restored. You are acting to impose your viewpoint of referencing, which isn't necessarily congruent with what is used here and is therefore arbitrarily imposed. There is nothing in the policy that precludes using quotes from newspapers in articles, although you blatantly ignored that the one sentence you had an issue with was removed. Let me reiterate that, it was removed, and it was the only quote from such a source that was in the entire article. There is a quote used and sourced from the Daviess County Historical Society from a newspaper at the time about the significance of the death of one of the victims. It is properly sourced and perfectly acceptable for inclusion. The change of the college name to Liberty College was vandalism. There was one, let me repeat that, one footnote that had no given source and was also marked for verification/reference. I removed that, although it was intended as a footnote, not a reference. After having gone through the article, sentence by sentence, I found that you made very few actual content changes. Repeat, very few. Most of what you did was a wholesale reference format change. You removed some reference citations to the Settle book and left others. You made no page citation changes in any reference. Your claims of unverifiability and sourcing error is simply and completely untrue. The predominant thing you did was change a reference style accepted by Wikipedia as valid and then accuse me, who did not make the initial formatting changes, of making it up as I went. That is an unacceptable claim and essentially, you've made a mountain out of a molehill. Having said that, do not revert this article or I will reinstitute my request for protection and institute a dispute resolution process. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Bias

This is one of the least neutral articles I've read in a while. The essay needs to be rewritten to stick to the facts of Jesse James life. At the moment it portrays the Union as something approaching the Third Reich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.250.84.10 (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Most of these POV insertions (including assuming that he faked his death) were made Nov 21 by [4]. I suggest we revert to the last by me on Nov 21 & work from there --JimWae 01:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC

The article as present (20 SEP 2007) is accurate. Jesse James was a real person, not a myth, and in real life he was not a gunslinger but a bank robber.

This Wiki article on Jesse James (the (USA) Outlaw) suffers from a general lack of objectivity. Even a cursory examination reveals contributor biases and factual inaccuracies. In particular, there is a strong revisionist tendency in contributions. On a community page it may be impossible to achieve total Neutrality, but a better attempt should be made. Folk Tale "facts" and personal agendas should not be substituted for historical fact (which is generally referenced by multiple, vetted, archival sources and not simply a one-off op-ed, or revisionist source). The Wiki project was not intended to serve as a platform for personal opinion and its articles should not be treated as such. Given the increased usage of the Wiki as an informal general research tool it is imperative that page monitors ensure the veracity of contributions. Perhaps, to seperate fact from fiction in the article an "Alternate Viewpoints", "Controversy", "Speculation", "Disputed", or "Myths & Legends" field is appropriate?. --(MOB)DeadMeat (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the bias claim. Yesterday I removed some very dubious references to a book called Jesse James: Last Rebel of the Civil War. I did so because I have been an Old West buff for many years, and have had an interest in outlaws. One of the unfortunate tendencies in historical revisionism has been trying to remake certain figures into something else. Billy the Kid goes from psychopath to misunderstood youth, or in this case, James goes from murderous bandit and racist to pioneering terrorist against Union misdeeds.

This is simply factually wrong, and most James historians condemn the book as full of factual inaccuracies. Furthermore, that book itself (see its own footnotes) uses many of the works cited here as sources, so how can the book then be cited as a source? You cite the original provable claim, not merely someone who echoes that claim. Or have the rules of historical priority changed? When I removed the sources that cited the book, by a man named Stiles, I said that they were piggybacking on other claims, and this is correct. Again, see priority. So what happens? My edit is reversed and I had to make up a name to log back in. This may have been a coincidence, or was I blocked as a vandal for using no name? To be fair, I did leave in references to the revisionist book in the bibliography, and a few other places, but it simply--to be historically fair to the other earlier works--cannot be claimed as a primary source when it just reuses others' information. So, I am reverting the edit and ask that people actually research things before they add in any old wacky or conspiracy-based or revisionist claims; especially those that try to glom credit from earlier and more reliable sources. The revisionist book has its place as a dissenting opinion, and should be noted as such, but it should not be held out above more traditional sources, much less credited on an equal footing. Whether this is pushing a POV, or simply spamming to promote the book and viewpoint, it has no place on a bias-free article (or what should be bias-free). Please state reasons for reversions, if one feels compelled to. :-) Johabir (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Your rationale here is in no way related to the rationale you gave for what you removed. You cited "blatant spamming and vanispamcruftisement" for your removal and nothing else. In fact, the references were not spamming nor advertisement. The references used google book pages to link to the actual pages from the book. That is not spamming, it is offering a page to verify the source. At present, we have only your statement that the book used as a source is condemned by "most James historians as full of factual inaccuracies." You obviously have no knowledge of referencing protocol on this site. Other cites were not piggybacked. When a particular fact is present in more than one source, then citations to each source is given. That is citing more than one source, period. The reason I reverted your change, and will revert it again, is because all you are giving is essentially your own opinion to remove multiple sources. Multiple sources also do not indicate POV pushing. As a new editor, who had to "make up a name" to edit, you have much to learn about how Wikipedia operates. I don't know why you couldn't get in from an unregistered account, there is no block on the IP you used yesterday. However, I do find it interesting that your objection to the material in this article follows quickly upon the objections of another new account after months of no issues with this page beyond the routine vandalism. You must first present valid and checkable sources that dispute the present references, not take out citations and call it biased. It's also quite interesting that almost the only thing you took out were references, but not content. I would suggest that you have a personal agenda here against either the sources or the authors of the sources, and not the content, which you have not changed. Do not remove references from this article again, or it will be reported as blatant vandalism based on invalid excuses to remove sources. It is unacceptable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The book on Jesse James by Stiles is a valid recent biography, whether you agree with his conclusions or not. It can be used. You can't remove a valid scholarly source just because you dislike it. Wikipedia can and does have space for conflicting views. Stiles was putting James in the context of the long-lived insurgency in southern states after the Civil War - not saying it was a good thing, just that it existed, and took various forms. Numerous historians have evaluated the post-war violence, including KKK, White League and Red Shirts (more active in the Deep South) in terms of insurgency. Stiles wasn't held out above traditional sources, but included. Historians reuse and reassess information all the time; that's why they have footnotes to give credit to earlier work. But people can look at the same facts and reach different conclusions - Stiles concluded that James was no Robin Hood. I have not seen that "most James historians" rejected the book. That doesn't matter, anyway, since historians of Reconstruction reviewed it favorably. Stiles was putting James into a larger context. I'm adding the reference back in for those reasons.--Parkwells (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The wholesale reversion of sourced material related to Stiles has to be corrected, because you removed sources for factual information that gives context, for instance, the proportion of slaveholding in the county where James grew up.--Parkwells (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it back to the point where the citations are all present. I find the rationale for removing sources that support content that was left untouched to be at the least, faulty, and at the most, approaching vandalism. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So let me understand this. A later book uses earlier books cited here as sources. Then someone comes in and basically claims the later source is an equally valid source to the earlier works the later source references. So, Galileo discovers the moons around Jupiter, and gets to take credit for it. Then, a hundred years later some astronomer in France claims the same thing, and he's on equal footing with Galileo? Then there seems to be a concerted effort to push the Frenchman as an equal to Galileo, and no one thinks that that is unfairly trying to take advantage of historical priority.

I mean no disrespect, but do you folks even understand why priority exists in fields like history and science?

As for agreeing or not with the book, I am not a historian; but experts in the field strenuously disagree and a quick search can show this is part of a larger movement to try to exculpate the Confederacy of its horrors, from Andersonville on, as well as try to impugn Reconstruction.

As for removing the references and not the content; that is exactly the point. I did not claim all the references were faulty, just the revisionist book's claim of using them as if original. That's not bias against the author, but respect for priority. Again, were this Galileo's page, I would not remove the fact that he discovered Jovian moons, only the Frenchman's claims that he was co-discoverer.

I guess rational debate is dead on Wikipedia, as well as respect for intellectual property. But thanks for not banning me. I was only trying to give proper credit to where it was due. Johabir (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Rational debate is dead? How do you suggest you began anything regarding the article as rationale debate? You removed citations to more than one published work - the Settles work, the Stiles work, and the Yeatman work and rationalized it as "blatant spamming and vanispamcruftisement". There was no discussion opened here regarding it. It actually is possible for later authors to consult and cite older works without claiming to have discovered something new; your discovering Jupiter analogy isn't very valid in regards to historical studies of an event in history from different authors. Because an author approaches the same subject from a different perspective does not invalidate that similar conclusions are reached. It doesn't lessen either work. Because many of these points were covered in more than one work doesn't mean something is being stolen from another author and citing all of those works is perfectly valid. By citing the various works, credit is being given. I don't see where this article is in any way exculpating the Confederacy of its horrors, or impugns the Reconstruction. , I fail to see how that indicates bias toward one side or the other of the Civil War or the events that happened afterward and because you didn't remove content from the article, it seems your point was more to remove the use of the Stiles book. There is nothing in the article that indicates or endorses that the use of the Stiles book claimed to use them as original or that the book asserted claims that way. The fact that the book cited other works invalidates that argument. The book is a valid source. Because something appears in more than one source does not take away from the various sources. There is no eminent domain regarding thoughts. Besides, as I said, you removed it claiming it was spam, yet the other works that had links to pages weren't removed. Also, in comment, no one said you were two editors, the comment was that two editors appeared on the same day to claim bias toward one side. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's cool the tone of the discussion; we're not talking about scientific discovery, we're talking about interpretation of facts and historic material. There seem to be two areas of concern: uncovering/discovering certain kinds of historic records and data; and interpretation of data. It's my understanding that historians usually want credit for their interpretations, such as Turner's "closing of the frontier". Wikipedia is based on using valid third-party sources. I do not agree that Stiles' book is an apologia for the Confederacy - classifying James as part of an insurgency doesn't mean you agree that the insurgency was justified. Historians for some time have been trying to show that violence after the Civil War wasn't scattered, but part of an insurgency by veterans - in essence, the war continued. It became more organized through paramilitary groups such as the White League and Red Shirts in the Deep South in the mid-1870s, what historian George Rable called "the military arm of the Democratic Party." To identify James with other insurgency doesn't mean the historians support it; in fact, many of the historians who have covered this interpretation appear to have sympathy with Reconstruction and the Union. Stiles uses footnotes, so gives full credit to authors. If I've read Stiles and not all the other books he references, I reference Stiles; I don't have to go back and find all the other books to use Stiles as a source. Stiles identifies his point of view as opposed to earlier authors. His revision is generally in interpretation of material. I did not introduce all the Stiles material, but think his work is valid to include here. Editors can't simply remove all the references to his work or other authors whose conclusions you don't like.--Parkwells (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the headline for a review in Salon when Stiles book was released in 2002 - hardly supporting the Confederacy: "Jesse James: Last Rebel of the Civil War" by T.J. Stiles - "The latest and best-ever biography of Jesse James tears down the myth to reveal not a latter-day Robin Hood, but a greedy, press-savvy bandit." By Allen Barra--Parkwells (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC) This reviewer ends by saying that James continues to fascinate because (quoting from Stiles): "In his political consciousness and close alliance with the propagandist and power broker, in his efforts to win media attention with his crimes, and his denunciations of his enemies, he resembles a character well known to our own times. In many aspects, Jesse James was a forerunner of the modern terrorist." --Parkwells (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie: I do not believe I removed anything but Stiles refs. If I removed any other it was an accidental slip. I apologize. However, the need to impugn one as a vandal or demagogue is unnecessary. Now, perhaps I am wrong re: Wiki rules of priority vs. those accepted in the book industry. But, say that you, in 1900, proved a claim about James. In the century since, 50 other books cited your claim as proof, while adding no original research. Then, another book, #51, does the same, but tries to claim it is original. Is it? And, it will not reference all 50 other books, save for your initial one in 1900, because that is the primary source. Why? Look at all the problems historians have gotten into in the last decade or so. Kearns Goodwin is a good example because she eventually tried to claim her research as original, when it was not, because she lazily did not mention others. All she had to do, though, was mention the original claimant. She did not have to source, say, 50 other authors who were piggybacking. You state "Because an author approaches the same subject from a different perspective does not invalidate that similar conclusions are reached." I totally agree. But the references are not conclusions but asserted as claims that earlier works proved. In other words, the later author brought no new perspective, analytically, just regurgitated already known facts and tried to pass it off as his own research. That is my objection. Yes, I disagree with revisionists like Stiles and others, as I do with Soviet and Nazi revisionists, but an analytical difference was not made. Plus, the later work cites the earlier ones. Again, if you invent or discover something, and I invent or discover it later, do I get to claim I was co-discoverer. This is why patent law exists, and why priority exists in science and history. Another example. The old dinosaur Brontosaurus was renamed Apatosaurus because that was found to be the original name given bones that were thought to be a different species. The Bronto claimant did not get to keep his claim just because it was approved by the masses. "Besides, as I said, you removed it claiming it was spam, yet the other works that had links to pages weren't removed." Well yes. As I stated, I object not to the facts themselves, only the later author's claim to them as the source. In my example, I do not disagree with Galileo's claims of moons about Jupiter, only the later Frenchman's dubious assertion. So, why WOULD I remove Galileo? I guess I just object to impugning my motives as vandalism or hating the author, when I have striven to be clear. If I accidentally removed some pertinent info I regret it. I am not skilled at this computer stuff. Ah, I see, you were not saying I was two people- the # and this name, but that the editor who posted a long post on bias above my post was the second editor. Sorry, type lacks inflection that a voice does not. Oh well, I have not the time nor will to pursue this. I just happen to agree with that other editor that there is a clear bias pro-Confederacy here, and tried to remedy that. Also, I just recoil when others try to claim credit for others' work. I have a friend who works in copyright law and I hear horror stories all the time. Anyway, peace. Johabir (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

ParKwell: "If I've read Stiles and not all the other books he references, I reference Stiles; I don't have to go back and find all the other books to use Stiles as a source. Stiles identifies his point of view as opposed to earlier authors. His revision is generally in interpretation of material. I did not introduce all the Stiles material, but think his work is valid to include here. Editors can't simply remove all the references to his work or other authors whose conclusions you don't like."

Perhaps you are correct that that is Wiki policy. I do not know. But what you claim is precisely why Kearns Goodwin and many others got in trouble, by being lazy and not checking original sources. Then they did not source correctly, and claimed work as their own, and then some of the claims were false. In fact, GOOD historians ALWAYS cite original claims. I do not care about Stiles' interpretations of James or the Confederacy, just his poor habits in attribution; rather that on Wikipedia on his behalf. Ciao, Johabir (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to clarify. I do disagree with Stiles' thesis, but that was not why I removed the refs. Were he pro-Union, and trying to claim priority over another's work, I would have also said his refs had to go. So, I care about his claims politically, but my actions were based upon the pushing of his book as a valid source of prior claims--be it by Stiles or his publishers, etc. I apologize for confusion. Johabir (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Slotkin's book "The Fatal Environment" (which I referred to incorrectly in the edit summary) from sources in last paragraph about neo-Confederates. Not only is he not a neo-Confederate, he did not discuss James and the outlaws in this volume at all except to say in the preface why he had excluded them. In terms of the discussion above about historians and sources, I think there is confusion about lack of attribution of quoted materials (as was the isolated case with Kearns Goodwin, in a major work that won awards) with appropriately cited sources, as Stiles uses (his book was widely and favorably reviewed in the national press). It's really impossible to discuss without knowing what specific material you thought he was claiming as his own, mistakenly, from previous works. Footnoting them means he is acknowledging them. Also, you never indicate why you believe he is pro-Confederacy; that was not my reading of the book, nor of any of the reviews I've seen.--Parkwells (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the multiple times when the Stiles book is referenced in this article, it is referenced along with earlier works where the information was first established. Stiles' book is merely reiterating previously proven points, therefore it has no place as a primary referent. Look at all the references that have multiple sources. I do not think I can be any clearer, esp. since Stiles' book notes these earlier works itself. I fail to see what you are missing. And my beef is not with Stiles' footnotes in HIS book, but this articles' use of Stiles as a footnote when, as I have shown, there were earlier sources that Stiles acknowledges using. THAT is the point. Now, granted, you and the other editor may be correct that Wikipedia has a different set of rules for accreditation than the publishing industry. But, perhaps that is why so many schools and universities now ban Wikipedia as a source for term papers, etc. By doing so, Wikipedia has shown a lack for proper attribution and correct sourcing of accurate information. Again, I cannot go against the whole edifice, but this episode has enlightened me as to why Wikipedia is a poor source of reliable and accurate historical information. Johabir (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie I do not appreciate your earlier suggestion that I am a shadow account for another contributor, or by inference that I have deleted any references (valid, or otherwise). Attempting to marginalize my contributions by directing suspicion, or accusation at me is a tactic of the ignorant, or the desperate. I am a frequent visitor to the Wiki and a rare, but thoughtful contributor. I was very disturbed by the Jesse James article which showed a strong historical revisionist bias. Additionally, I believed there were factual inaccuracies which may have been the result of a contributor's contemporary political bias. My very small addition was properly documented for all to see (and has since apparently been modified by another to negate my contribution) and I properly posted to this discussion page. If in future you take issue with my contributions, or comments please direct you questions to me directly. I would only ask that you refrain from hyperbole, paranoia, or sarcasm and be specific in what you objected to in my contributions. Thank you, kindly! (MOB)DeadMeat (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not suggest that you were a shadow account for anyone, nor did I say you removed anything. I actually did not respond to your post. My response was to another user who posted after you did. An IP account popped in and made this edit which removed quite a number of sources and used an edit summary of "mv piggybacked references to book with other ref sourced; blatant spamming and vanispamcruftisement". I then actually reverted the article to the last edit that you made. At that point a registered account pops in to revert that back to the edit that removed valid sourcing based on the rationale of "Bias section--reasons detailed--way too much revisionism on this page." I still see no support for removing or fixing revisionism by removing one statement regarding work by recent scholars and a plethora of sourcing. Nothing that ensued in the following discussion was in reference to you or your edit in any way. Nothing that ensued in the edits following yours was in reference to what you had said or done in any way. There was no attempt to marginalize anything you did, no suspicions voiced, no accusations made, no hyperbole, sarcasm. Referring to a discussion following that was not in response to you, or anything you posted, as ignorant or desperate is at least bad faith and at most uncivil, and it has its own small modicum of paranoia in it as well. I'd suggest you read the entirety of the discussion and look at the ensuing main article edits to confirm what I said instead of jumping to conclusions. I'm not sure what makes you think that youir edit was removed or disregarded. This is your edit. This is how it reads today. So... did you miss that part? Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your clarification regarding which account(s) and edit(s) you were indicting at that time. I did read through the "thread" and have gone through it once more. I certainly continue to see evidence of uncivil sarcasm and, without specific references, it is easy to conclude that, at least, some of your comments were directed at my contributions. Perhaps I am paranoid as you have just suggested, but I also detected sarcasm in your reply to my last comment. In any event, I accept your clarifications and am now satisfied that your original comments were not directed at my account, or Wiki contributions. Thank you especially for the links which demonstrate that you restored my contributions during that time. I freely admit to being a novice where Wiki navigation is concerned and am appreciative of your assistance. As far as I am concerned this is all now "water under the bridge". Thank you, kindly. (MOB)DeadMeat (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what to tell you. I left a very clear explanation, although I will admit I felt compelled to respond to your statement of "I would only ask that you refrain from hyperbole, paranoia, or sarcasm and be specific in what you objected to in my contributions". I cannot do anything about the tone that you read into my comments, but they were not written with sarcasm or incivility and were done in an effort to clear the air. I cannot, nor will not, attempt to convince you that my comments were anything but straight forward. Yes, we do get tired of people who have agendas popping in to pages to push that agenda and that remains my take on what the other editor was doing regarding what books were used as references. He seems to have a bias against one of the books, but that does not preclude vetted and reliably published books from being used as references for articles. What that editor did was go through and randomly remove references without touching content, and that is a huge issue. In any case, I do hope you see that your contributions were not changed or removed and my statements were directed at someone else, who basically came in, made those changes and never came back. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Legacy

The above complained-about multiple references were not mine, so I can't attest to them, but it appears they are referring sometimes to a paragraph of information, and sometimes perhaps collating different authors' viewpoints for material within that. With several pages referenced for Stiles, for example, how can you say all his material was originated by someone else? This is a summary.

• But I have a different issue with the last paragraph, "Legacy". It says something like "The Neo-Confederate movement considers him a hero". Neo-Confederates have not been mentioned before - to me the term suggests late 20th-early 21st century, but it's not clear what the editor intended. Also, the pages in the Stiles reference only discuss James' myth in the 19th c.; there is nothing about neo-Confederates. Similarly, so far I see no reference in Slotkin's book and discussion of James and outlaws that relates to neo-Confederates and James. Sounds like Original Research (OR), unless whoever wrote it meant Confederate sympathizers of the 19th c.--Parkwells (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC) (added more to clarify-

Slotkin does not address neo-Confederates but last writes about James as a frontier figure, Stiles (in the pages referenced) deals with 19th c. mythology. So this part needs to be changed.--Parkwells (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

She Who?/ Please clarify

"Jesse James had married his own first cousin, named Zerelda Mims after his mother, after a nine-year courtship. They had three children, Jesse Edwards, there was also a child that did not survive long, and Mary. She and Frank James' wife tried to get the brothers to take on a more normal life, and with a $10,000 reward on his head....." --does this "she" refer to Jesse's wife, or his daughter Mary? J. Van Meter 15:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I also found this confusing. The article mentions James's mother Zerelda without mentioning that his wife was Zerelda. Are they both Zerelda? As someone with little knowledge about him, I am left with no information about his wife or kids. --Mezaco (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The wording from the quote in the 2005 question was revised. The infobox shows the names clearly: Spouse(s) - Zerelda Mimms, Parents - Robert S. James, Zerelda Cole James. Children - Jesse E. James, Mary James Barr. In the section #After the Civil War, second paragraph: "Jesse recovered from his chest wound at his uncle's Missouri boardinghouse, where he was tended to by his first cousin, Zerelda "Zee" Mimms, named after Jesse's mother. Jesse and his cousin began a nine-year courtship, culminating in marriage." In the section #Downfall of the gang: "Jesse and his cousin Zee married on April 24, 1874, and had two children who survived to adulthood: Jesse James, Jr. (b. 1875) and Mary Susan James (b. 1879). Twins Gould and Montgomery James (b. 1878) died in infancy. Jesse, Jr. became a lawyer and made a career as a respected member of the bar in Kansas City, Missouri." Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Jesse's Son, The Lawyer

The article states that Jesse James' son became a lawyer and "learned how to rob people legally[.]" I am disgusted that the public, who eagerly consume all that our Corporate Masters place before them, continues to pretend that "all lawyers are crooks". IMO, this is a meme carried on by corporatists and so-called "conservatives" who exploit the public. These corporatists, and their friends the warmongers and greedmeisters, exploit the public, then are upset when someone actually trained in the law cries "wait a minute... why are you charging that working person 40% interest?" The corporatists train the public to distrust and hate lawyers, so that they can keep exploiting working people, and the working people will not dare to find out their actual legal rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.153.95.93 (talk • contribs)

That blurb was added by a vandal, it isn't anything that is legitimately part of the article, but gee, thanks for your tangential diatribe. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Identifying Jesse James body

"James' two previous bullet wounds and partially missing middle finger served to positively identify the body." Just a question, why did Jesse James body need identification? He was shot in his own home and his face was in good condition according to this post-mortem photo, so why did he need identification using his fingers? (or lack of part of his finger) 83.255.69.22 (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know specifically, but definitive identification of the dead is a routine part of investigating a death. It is relevant here in light of later claims that the person who was buried wasn't James. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thx 83.255.69.22 (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

footnote 44

This cite is used for some questionable claims and seems inappropriate. A movie review is hardly a reliable source for Jesse James' beliefs and feelings. I'd really like to see a better source for the statement that Jesse no longer trusted his brother Frank.Nitpyck (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

While another source can certainly be found and probably should, it should be noted that the article isn't a review of the movie. It's an article about Jesse James that mentions the upcoming movie in context with earlier portrayals of James including a film appearance by his son as James. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It was in the LA Times entertainment section written by a a columnist who usually writes about film and theater. Calling the cited article a film review is if not 100% accurate a lot closer than calling it a reliable historical source. We all know "the dirty little coward who shot Mr Howard laid poor Jessie in his grave". But that the Ford brothers were the only trusted companions Jessie had and that they were employed by the government to kill him needs better sourcing.Nitpyck (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Article is another example of why Wikipedia still sucks

If you're a student reading this, take it from a college educator: run from this article! It's an absurd revision based almost entirely on one controversial text. One Wiki editor keeps pushing his vision relentlessly, and is doing a huge disservice to any reader stupid or naive enough to trust Wikipedia. I feel sorry for the young people who will read this piece trustingly.

Every time I get my hopes up about the "editorial" work I encounter on Wikipedia, I come across another ridiculously distorted presentation. It ALWAYS comes down to these petty, ego-filled power struggles where some amateur academic battles for control of his little pathetic Wiki-fiefdoms. That's exactly what's happened here. I await the flames now.

Jesse James is presented as some kind of ruthless but noble hero who simply believed in a political cause a bit too feverishly. The misery and cowardly violence he inflicted on innocent or defenseless people are totally whitewashed. As you can see from this Talk page, all valuable attempts to correct this bias have been headed off by a couple editors with axes to grind. Sad. Wbroun (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Some parties claim he is ruthless thief, some claim he is hero, I don't know which. Yet wikipedia should contain both arguments. If you can provide WP:RS about the cases, I will try to implement them into the article. Yet some try to insert their WP:OWN standpoint, while trying to trim and WP:CENSOR other views. If you can provide reliable sources and links, I will personally deal with both parties. I have edited even most controversial and biased articles for a more neutral standpoint, Jesse James is not an exception. Yet I am not sure why you vandalised http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Shakespeare&offset=20081022202024&limit=500&action=history Shakespeare article as a college teacher. Kasaalan (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but it is not the responsibility of another editor to go in and try to write enough content in the main article to justify the inclusion of your addition to the lead of the article. Besides that, This reference is a blog-type entry that has nothing whatsoever to with Jesse James, only someone named Jesse James Forrey. This is a self-published website that doesn't pass WP:RS. This source is very much like the former, it talks a lot but offers nothing in the way of sourcing for the claims in it to allow vetting. Because some article somewhere on Wikipedia uses that as a source does not make it reliable. None of those sources meet the WP:RS mandate. As for the quote you added - it adds nothing whatsoever that isn't already stated in the lead and includes something that is irrelevant: "He did have some manners, and in noisy frontier towns he was spotted strolling with a walking stick." That has nothing to do with the article.The first part of the quote just repeats the first sentence of that paragraph: "A belief circulated that he robbed from the rich to give to the poor." How is that different from "Jesse James has often been portrayed, even prior to his death, as a kind of Robin Hood, robbing from the rich and giving to the poor."? It isn't, so you're being redundant. The addition also contained an incomplete sentence and a misspelling. That was not an improvement. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't even bother to read the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_James#Legacy in the first place, or try correct to WP:LEAD yet try to keep 1 single point of view. It is a fact some people praise him, some criticize him, some doubts both sides. Yet you have to use your WP:COMMONSENSE to reach such a conclusion. Anyway http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesse_James&diff=310241187&oldid=310226665 that is how you edit things when you bother to read at least article sections. Try to be progressive and summarize more if you really have WP:GOODFAITH about the case. Yet again misinterpreting some historians claims as the single fact, and there is no other view is highly POV. Articles should be WP:NPOV including leading views about the case. You can't just say "while people praise him he is not so." by a single source. Kasaalan (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Jesse James

Now (8/17/09)he has still some family members which they live in Evansville,Indiana. Some of them have the name:Beck, Wolf(etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.133.18.203 (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead

A copy for the WP:LEAD. Lead doesn't contain much info at all.

James's turn to crime after the end of Reconstruction era secured his place in American life and memory, after 1873 he was covered by the national media as a social bandit, and he was celebrated chiefly by former Confederates, the antebellum political leadership mythologized the James Gang exploits, even before he got killed, Some historians claim James' myth as contributing to the rise of former Confederates. In the 1880s, after James' death, his gang became the subject of dime novels which set the bandits up as pre-industrial models of resistance. During the Populist and Progressive eras, James became a symbol as America's Robin Hood, standing up against corporations in defense of the small farmer, robbing from the rich and giving to the poor, while there is no evidence that his robberies enriched anyone other than his gang and himself, on contrary they attacked small banks that benefited local farmers. Even today, Jesse James remains as a controversial symbol. Renewed cultural battles over the place of the Civil War in American history have replaced his longstanding interpretation, while some of the neo-Confederate movement still regard him as a Western frontier hero. While "heroic outlaw" image is still commonly portrayed in films, songs and folklore, recent historians place him as a self-aware vigilante and terrorist who used local tensions to create his own myth among the widespread insurgent guerrillas and vigilantes following the Civil War.

Trying to summary more for the lead. You may help if you actually want to help. Kasaalan (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

And as I said on your talk page, copy and pasting from one section and cutting some of the content has nothing whatsoever to do with summarizing the entire article. You don't even seem to have a grasp that content already sourced in the article does not require sourcing in the lead as well. That is in no way what is outlined in WP:LEAD. It does not provide an accessible overview nor does it give relative emphasis. It only lends undue weight to modern views. The legacy section is not a summary. LaVidaLoca (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You claim what you don't know. WP Lead already says the lead should contain all major aspects of the article. If you have any edit skills, you can contribute, if you don't have well you just all talk. The lead section should be expanded. And this paragraph is a good start, it can be summarized or paraphrased more, well if you know what that means and if you have any editing skills you can help, otherwise you are an all talk no action critic. I slightly improved the section itself with merges. Then of course it contains "copy, paste", The major reference, "Jesse James: last rebel of the Civil War By T. J. Stiles" the main reference for "Recent Historians" and rest of the article, is not available online, should I make up the lead out of my mind. There are sentences that needs to be paraphrased or summarized, there are others that needs to be kept to preserve context. I merged many sentences, left out other many to create the proposal, do better or just talk with no help as you currently do. Kasaalan (talk) 09:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing you have no concept of writing about something in words other than what are already used. Minor changes of punctuation and running sentences together is not writing, it's copying. No, there's no "of course", you will not see any featured or good article slightly rewording entire sections, the ideas and thoughts will be presented in a new way. However, I have no interest in having a discussion with someone who is insulting, abrasive and arrogant and whose idea of "discussion" is talking down to someone from a position of cluelessness. You've not improved anything, it's just a pissing contest to you and you've improved nothing. Oh, and we don't include in a reference that a source isn't available online. There is no requirement that any source be available online. LaVidaLoca (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point, you have nothing to edit or argue, the lead is weak only 1 sentence with a single source, you are not improving it, and try to criticize others who try to improve lead majorly with "copy pasting" while they try to keep the context and main references in them.

Also the online source link is misleading, there is no context in the link, while it misleads like it is available online. It is better to mention, or use it as a text reference. Kasaalan (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Again asking, why don't you do better and improve the lead, instead preaching and bluffing, I proposed a good draft that covers all main aspects of the myth depending on the article section, and you can't even improve it, then try to blame others. Also the main reference that argues "recent historians, whose names we don't know, call him a terrorist" is not available online. And we have 2 "WP:RS" about his "fake Robin Hoodness", first is not available online, and second only says "not so" about the issue, the lead is still highly WP:POV that doesn't cover any other view, than he only profited his gang. Kasaalan (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

James gained his reputation as a "Western Robin Hood, because he never took the passengers' money, only the safe ... even though he shot around 15 people." is a clear improvement. Yet you have to research instead wasting time with pointless discussions. Kasaalan (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, it is time for you stop being tenditious in your postings, it is exceedingly tiresome. There is absolutely no requirement that any references be accessible to you online, nowhere on Wikipedia is anything that says that. In fact, in the majority of articles that cover historical figures, a large preponderance of the sourcing will not be accessible online. It does not make it invalid, it does not lessen its usability. The requirement is verifiability, not easy access. All you are doing is copying things from elsewhere, and it would be quite prudent now to point out that your improvement quote suggestion is from a film review, not a scholarly work. Why would you quote a film reviewer's use of a quote rather that take the time to research whether that quote is in fact valid and use the original source instead???? Your important block quote is mostly from the least scholarly source currently in the article, a film reviewer. It is not important from that aspect. The work of the historians to which the article refers is in the works quoted in the bibliography and the only reference to his being a terrorist, prior to your additions, was clearly referenced to Jesse James: Last Rebel of the Civil War by T.J. Stiles, so you are wrong. Simply wrong. Stop being tenditious and become aware of the difference between scholarly works and comments by film reviewers. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So please verify the quotes about "recent historians place him as a self-aware vigilante and terrorist who used local tensions to create his own myth among the widespread insurgent guerrillas and vigilantes following the Civil War." who are the recent historians for example. Is there any other historians that disagree with them.

Did you read the article fully, did you ever read The Guardian. The Guardian film critic quotes from historians. Did you ever read or heard Biritish historian Eric Hobsbawm. My block quote is mainly from Eric Hobsbawm and his social bandits thesis, according to his 1969 book Bandits, film critic quotes from him. He also asserts some historians praise him, some others argue he is a bandit, which is again a common fact. You try to push a single thesis, as the only the only fact, which is highly misleading. Stop WP:CENSOR attempts for the article and for WP:LEAD, article should contain even MINORITY views, yet in this case it is even a common view. Kasaalan (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have requested full page protection and am submitting a request for dispute resolution regarding this. I don't have to sit here and read your slams and your implications. I was quite clear - you're quoting a film reviewer who is quoting an historian. That isn't quoting scholarly work. I will not dignify your bad faith accusations regarding censorship and POV pushing and questions implying that I didn't read the film reviewer article. The lead already did state that some see him as a Robin Hood but history does not support that view. This time you attribute the view that Jesse James is a forerunner of modern terrorists to T.J. Stiles. I have no clue where you got that from the film reviewer article, but it's wrong. By mentioning "Biritish historian Eric Hobsbawm", you imply he's the leading authority on Jesse James. There is no indication that is true either. And again, you quote another film reviewer's misinformation about the amount of the reward. Film reviewer articles have no place in discussion of historical figures - this isn't a film. And I won't even go into spelling errors and incomplete sentences, which indicates to me you're more intent on winning than correctness. You don't even seem to realize that you have returned, more than once, incomplete sentences to the lead. This is ridiculous and it's time to take it to dispute resolution. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wildhartlive is quite correct about the sourcing problems. Quoting a film critic quoting a historian might be appropriate for a film article, but not an article on a historical person. There are numerous other problems with Kasaalan's edits, as well as the edit warring and incivility attached to those edits. This needs to stop.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Civility is accomplished via "civil" and "progressive" edits you make, by actually bothering to fully reading the articles, at least the ones you try to dictate, instead wasting time on talk, yet not via "uncivil" and "unnecessary" reverts like you WP:OWN the article.

He is quite wrong about the issues, since he doesn't bother to read what he argue at all. The article is not a film review. It only mention's the film in a paragraph that is all. [5] He quotes from historians. Including Professor Richard Etulain of the University of New Mexico and internationally accepted and leading British historian Eric Hobsbawm, even tough I stated it. The "film critic" Jeremy Kuper is [6] "a freelance journalist, and writes about art, culture and politics. Jeremy has written for The Guardian UK, and The Mail&Guardian in South Africa", so another misinterpretation by not reading. Since he also writes about art and culture is it a crime to do so. Kasaalan (talk) 10:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Conflicts

Controversies and public reception in the Lead

Draft

James's turn to crime after the end of Reconstruction era secured his place in American life and memory, after 1873 he was covered by the national media as a social bandit, and he was celebrated chiefly by former Confederates, the antebellum political leadership mythologized the James Gang exploits, even before he got killed, Some historians claim James' myth as contributing to the rise of former Confederates. In the 1880s, after James' death, his gang became the subject of dime novels which set the bandits up as pre-industrial models of resistance. During the Populist and Progressive eras, James became a symbol as America's Robin Hood, standing up against corporations in defense of the small farmer, robbing from the rich and giving to the poor, while there is no evidence that his robberies enriched anyone other than his gang and himself, on contrary they attacked small banks that benefited local farmers. Even today, Jesse James remains as a controversial symbol. Renewed cultural battles over the place of the Civil War in American history have replaced his longstanding interpretation, while some of the neo-Confederate movement still regard him as a Western frontier hero. While "heroic outlaw" image is still commonly portrayed in films, songs and folklore, recent historians place him as a self-aware vigilante and terrorist who used local tensions to create his own myth among the widespread insurgent guerrillas and vigilantes following the Civil War.

The James brothers, Frank and Jesse, were Confederate guerrillas during the Civil War, and they were suspected of participating in atrocities committed against Union soldiers in the meantime. After the war, as members of one gang or another, they robbed banks and murdered bank employees or bystanders. They also waylaid stagecoaches and trains. Despite portrayals of James as a kind of Robin Hood, robbing from the rich and giving to the poor. According to Wil Haygood from The Washington Post, that is not true and there is no evidence that he and his gang used their robbery gains for anyone but themselves. According to the Jeremy Kuper from the Guardian, James gained his reputation as a "Western Robin Hood, because he never took the passengers' money, only the safe" even though he killed 15 people, while many historians including Biritish historian Eric Hobsbawm consider Jesse James as a "social bandit", opposing historians including T. J. Stiles consider his gang as "the forerunners of modern terrorists."

Assassination in the lead

The WP:LEAD that didsn't even include the assassination of James before I inserted, which doesn't comply with guidelines. Lead needs major improving

Jesse James was shot to death with a gun by Robert Ford, a convicted member of his own gang, for a $10,000 reward, in 1882.

Why no mention of Ford was a convicted prisoner and released upon assassinating James for reward money and release.

On April 3, 1882, Jesse James was shot and killed by Robert Ford. He was shot in the back of the head while standing on a chair at home to clean a picture frame.

proposal, you may read Robert Ford for detail

On April 3, 1882, Jesse James was shot in the back of the head and killed by Robert Ford, a convicted member of his own gang, who is released so that he assassinates James for 10.000 reward money and a full pardon promise by Missouri Governor Thomas T. Crittenden, after James left his revolvers on a sofa and standing on a chair at home to clean a picture frame above the mantle.

Improved proposal

On April 3, 1882, Jesse James was shot in the back of the head and killed by Robert Ford, after James left his revolvers on a sofa and standing on a chair at home to clean a picture frame above the mantle. Ford brothers were convicted members of James gang, who were released so they may assassinate James, upon a full pardon and 10.000 reward money promise by Missouri Governor Thomas T. Crittenden.

The only "sourced" issue about The Guardian quote says the reward money was 10.000, http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jan/08/the-assassination-of-jesse-james-brad-pitt, again a known fact you try to trim. Read Robert Ford if you like. Wasn't the reward 10.000, was it 5.000, why don't you source it better than instead removing completely. Kasaalan (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde

Original

"Later, passing through Jesse Jame's home town in Kansas, Wilde would learn that James himself had just been assassinated by a member of his own gang, an event that sent the town into mourning and scrambling to buy Jesse's artifacts. Well aware of the romantic appeal of the social outcast, the traveler wrote in a letter home that "Americans are certainly great hero-worshippers, and always take [their] heroes from the criminal classes."

Resembles original, true, yet you need to keep detail, you may attempt to paraphrase while keeping detail

While passing through Jesse James' hometown in Kansas, Oscar Wilde learned that James had been assassinated by a member of his own gang which sent "the town into mourning and scrambling to buy Jesse's artifacts." Knowing the "romantic appeal of the social outcast", Wilde wrote in one of his letters to home that: "Americans are certainly great hero-worshippers, and always take [their] heroes from the criminal classes."

Original, yet doesn't contain any important aspect of the quote or article, reference details added

Oscar Wilde, upon learning of the assassination of Jesse James and observing the reaction of the townsfolk in James' hometown, wrote that "Americans are certainly great hero-worshippers, and always take [their] heroes from the criminal classes."

Another revision, proposal

While his visit to the West, Oscar Wilde had also visited Jesse James' hometown in Kansas on his way. Wilde would informed that James had been killed by his fellow gang member Ford, which lead the town residents mourn and "scrambling to buy Jesse's artifacts". With the "romantic appeal of the social outcast" in his mind, Wilde wrote in one of his letters to home that: "Americans are certainly great hero-worshippers, and always take [their] heroes from the criminal classes."

Major points are, Oscar Wilde [with wikilink], was on his West trip, he visited Jesse James hometown in Kansas, after he learned James assasinated by Ford a member of his own gang, the town sent into mourning and scrambled to buy James' artifacts [his house fully emptied-all belongings stolen by townsfolk], "romantic appeal of the social outcast" [writer's comment], and Wilde's quote.

Your paraphrasing only contains Oscar Wilde [without wikilink why you try to delink to article], Wilde learned James assasination [no detail], he [went and] observed the reaction at James' hometown, Wilde's quote.

No detail style paraphrasing is not useful for the reader. Kasaalan (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What you have just changed is not even readable. This is not in any way grammatically correct English: While his visit to the West, Oscar Wilde had also visited Jesse James' hometown in Kansas on his way. Wilde would informed that James had been killed by his fellow gang member Ford, which lead the town residents mourn and "scrambling to buy Jesse's artifacts". With the "romantic appeal of the social outcast" in his mind, Wilde wrote in one of his letters to home that: "Americans are certainly great hero-worshippers, and always take [their] heroes from the criminal classes." Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

During his trip to the West, Oscar Wilde had also passed through Jesse James' hometown in Kansas and learned James' assassination by one of his own gang members, which set the town residents, who scramble to buy Jesse's artifacts, into mourning. With the "romantic appeal of the social outcast" in his mind, Wilde wrote: "Americans are certainly great hero-worshippers, and always take [their] heroes from the criminal classes." in one of his letters he sent home.

Another proposal. If you have time to criticize, you sure have time to improve. Kasaalan (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no improvement in that wording. This borders on changing wording just because I revised it. The version which exists now makes use of quoted phrases from the actual article. His works were often titled "The Wilde West", as the current version mentions. You have taken two sentences and made them into one long run-on sentence. The only thing I think needs to be changed in that paragraph would be to this:

During his travel to the "Wilde West", Oscar Wilde had also visited Jesse James' hometown in Kansas. He learned that James had been assassinated by his own gang member, "an event that sent the town into mourning and scrambling to buy Jesse's artifacts". With the "romantic appeal of the social outcast" in mind, Wilde wrote in one of his letters to home that: "Americans are certainly great hero-worshippers, and always take [their] heroes from the criminal classes."

Please know that I will not respond to anything you post that makes any reference whatsoever to me personally, and I will report each time that you are making personal comments of any sort about me, such as your last statement. For the record, the person who had accepted the dispute mediation was approached by the administrator involved here for why he closed the mediation case and why he referred this to WP:COIN. From the postings you've made here tonight, there is little change in your tendency to make attack statements and this is why I will not participate in unmediated discussion with you. There is no deadline on Wikipedia and if it takes 6 months for discussion to take place with a mediator, then it will take 6 months. If you don't have the time to waste, don't waste mine. I am investigating how to proceed in obtaining another mediator. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

When I blockquote 2 sentences, interestingly admins come up with plagiarism arguments, which is utterly false according to the 3 different college courses I took and all other political-historical wikipedia articles I have edited, as well as plagiarism texts I have read. It is easy to paraphrase 2 paragraphs, it is hard to paraphrase 2 sentences like these.

So if you can paraphrase way better, maybe you should have done it in 1.5 months time. It wouldn't took much of your time.

I won't wait 6 months to edit an article just because a user feels so. As soon as we find a mediator or 3rd party users that is more than alright with me. I will clear my proposals here into archive, and I will add latest versions according to the new WP:RS added. Kasaalan (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Again I stress for a 2 sentence blockquote from an article you can't claim plagiarism or copyright violation by any standard.

"Later, passing through Jesse Jame's home town in Kansas, Wilde would learn that James himself had just been assassinated by a member of his own gang, an event that sent the town into mourning and scrambling to buy Jesse's artifacts. Well aware of the romantic appeal of the social outcast, the traveler wrote in a letter home that "Americans are certainly great hero-worshippers, and always take [their] heroes from the criminal classes."

We shouldn't have to paraphrase a 2 sentence quote anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy Kuper and Eric Hobsbawm

There are opposing views on the subject by American historian Stiles and British historian Hobsbawn's 1960s thesis of social bandits.

Original

"Having moved on to robbing trains, Jesse James acquired a reputation as a western Robin Hood, because he never took the passengers' money, only the safe ... even though he shot around 15 people. "Eric Hobsbawm argues in his book Bandits] that the concept of the Robin Hood "social bandit", appears in times of turmoil, and reflects the "universal longing for freedom, heroism and the dream of justice" of the "weak, oppressed and cheated". Although many historians consider Jesse James to have been such a social bandit, another view is that his James-Younger gang were the forerunners of modern terrorists."

Your revert, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesse_James&diff=310533764&oldid=310533575

Jeremy Kuper wrote in The Guardian, Jesse James gained his reputation as a "Western Robin Hood, because he never took the passengers' money, only the safe ... even though he shot around 15 people." He further claimed British historian "Eric Hobsbawm argues in his book Bandits that the concept of the Robin Hood "social bandit", appears in times of turmoil, and reflects the "universal longing for freedom, heroism and the dream of justice" of the "weak, oppressed and cheated". Although many historians consider Jesse James to have been such a social bandit, another view is that his James-Younger gang were the forerunners of modern terrorists." http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2007/dec/04/jessejameswildwestrobinho

Shannon original

"Their reputations may depend on a fair helping of embellished myth and selective idealisation but the actual deeds of such “ideological gunfighters” are less important to their poor admirers than the psychological hit they provide when they tackle the enemies of the poor. ... Jesse James is said, improbably, to have loaned $800 to a widow to pay the bank debt on her farm, and afterwards robbed the bank."

Proposal

Jeremy Kuper wrote in The Guardian, James gained his reputation as a "Western Robin Hood", by stealing the safe yet never the passengers' money during train robberies, despite his more than 15 kills. According to Kuper, British historian Eric Hobsbawm argues that "the concept of the Robin Hood "social bandit", appears in times of turmoil, and reflects the "universal longing for freedom, heroism and the dream of justice" of the "weak, oppressed and cheated", quoting from Hobsbawm's 1969 book titled Bandits. Kuper further claims, many historians consider James as such a "social bandit", opposing view consider his James-Younger gang as "the forerunners of modern terrorists". [7]

Expanded proposal

Jeremy Kuper wrote in The Guardian, James gained his reputation as a "Western Robin Hood", by stealing only the safe and leaving passengers' money during his train robberies, despite he killed more than 15 people and it is reported he stole passenger's money by some parties. Kuper further claims, many historians consider James as such a "social bandit" while opposing view consider James Younger gang as "the forerunners of modern terrorists".

In the revised fourth edition of his 1969 book titled Bandits, British historian Eric Hobsbawm argues, Robin Hood alike social bandit concepts appear "in times of turmoil", reflecting the "universal longing for freedom, heroism and the dream of justice" amongst the poor, symbolizing their yearning for "bold champions" who fights for the "weak, oppressed and cheated".

Phil Shannon from Green Left Weekly reviewing Bandits argued, reputations of such "ideological gunfighters" may fairly depend the "embellished myth and selective idealization" by their poor admirers, than the "psychological hit" they provide when dealing with "the enemies of the poor" is which is more important to them than the real acts. Shannon further wrote, the story of Jesse James loaning 800 dollars to a widow to pay the bank debt on her farm, and subsequently robbing the bank, is "improbable".

Theories mainly rely on Hobsbawm. Kasaalan (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Phil Shannon from Green Left Weekly and Jeremy Kuper wrote in The Guardian, quoting same way is enough for addition of a WP:RS as I argued before. You didn't have to assume both sources would have misquote from the same book. Found another supportive WP:RS http://books.google.com/books?id=1Y0Ef-wgziYC&hl=tr&source=gbs_navlinks_s page 61 for parts of the quote. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=01481A919B4D2CBDB70FBFFFF6E70FBE.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=2339988 may also have a quote but not sure since I don't have membership right now. Kasaalan (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wil Haygood

At all of his The Seattle Times articles, http://search.nwsource.com/search?sort=date&from=ST&byline=Wil%20Haygood the lead is "by Wil Haygood, The Washington Post" yet under the text it says "Copyright © 2009 The Seattle Times Company". I might be right or wrong about http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2003885037_jessejames17.html article belongs to The Washington Post, yet he is a The Washington Post writer for sure. Though I am not sure if The Seattle Times directly copies his articles from The Washington Post or he writes new articles to The Seattle Times. Do anyone has any information about the issue. Kasaalan (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussions

Instead of edit warring, is it possible to discuss things here? Or do you guys really intend to try to out-revert each other on the article page? Someone else will probably end up protecting it or block you if you choose to continue; please take advantage of the fact that you're still able to edit to show that you can be civil and settle this without a fight. Thank you, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 11:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

We already agreed on conflict resolution committee. 3rd party viewers may handle case more neutral. I try to post every revision here, so everyone can review changes fully. Kasaalan (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Main issue is James was possibly a violent comitter at even civilian massacres, and a racist, and turned into a myth by Confederate political force' will [and maybe since he doesn't rob passengers in train robbery if no better WP:RS argues otherwise], yet by censoring other views and sources or picking only some particular sources to defend one certain point of view does not help the situation at all. British historian Eric Hobsbawm is one of the greatest historian of the 21th century, and if some editor tries to even trim his arguments from the article, which is directly quoted by WP:RS The Guardian, then that only means you didn't heard his name before. Without using all sources effectively we can't reflect a good view of the Robin Hood hero myth itself, which is possibly not true at all. Article should contain all major views about the case. Kasaalan (talk) 12:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the edit warring continued after Master of Puppets' polite request that it stop, so I have protected the page. I also removed the quote from the Guardian, not because I don't think it's usable, but because the way it was being used was essentially plagiarism; it was trying to quote one writer quoting another writer, but it is so mangled that you can't tell what is quotation, what is paraphrasing, and what is quotation of the quotation. And none of it was sourced correctly with a properly formatted inline citation, which is essential for any quotation.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

About conflict I act differently when I meet with WP:GOODFAITH or on contrary a WP:POV standpoint that tries to WP:CENSOR all opposing views with full reverts. Mediation committee will handle the case further. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Jesse_James

Yet I don't agree with plagiarism at all. The hard part is for a 3 sentence, some sentences leave space for paraphrasing, while others more hard for keeping the context and not adding or misinterpreting.

Plagiarism depends on the length of the original article and the length of the quoted part, so it depends context. 3 sentences from a newspaper article, which in 1 he quotes from a book, which doesn't leave much space for paraphrasing, with apparent quotes and source is not plagiarism by definition. Kasaalan (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I completely reviewed the quoting style into paraphrasing. Try to review proposal, and tell if it is alright. Yet again we should quote his quotes from Hobsbawn. It is not plagiarism since, we would fully quote Hobsbawm if we have the full source to his book. Kasaalan (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It was plagiarism; it was taking what were clearly someone's worlds and not attributing them properly, either by establishing what parts were quotes, or by proper citations. This is the kind of thing that would get you failed in school. V states that any such material may be removed. In normal circumstances the line could have just been improved, but the constant edit warring, which continued after a third party request that it stop, has resulted in the page being protected.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I passed as graduate from academical writing and copyright class, along with 2 other intellectual property and copyright classes at another college as post graduate. I properly attributed Kuper by name and online link, like his quote from Hobsbawn. 3 sentences from an article, or 1 sentence from a book, depending the length is not plagiarism by any means.

Anyway, I paraphrased the source more. Will you review the last version for copyrights. Kasaalan (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Your revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesse_James&diff=310533490&oldid=310532923 is unprogressive, I merged some sentences and added wikilinks for important concepts. The admin asked to stop editing in controversial section, and the edit is not controversial a bit and not related to the legacy section at all. You should self-review your revert. Kasaalan (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out to you already, Master of Puppets said, "please do not make any further edits if you are involved in the current edit war or intend to make a change which would be disputed." Your refusal to follow this request and end the edit warring resulted in the page being protected.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Then either wrong interpretation by me, or maybe he meant we shouldn't edit the "edit war" sections. My edit you reverted is not controversial, after his statement I tried not "to make a change which would be disputed", so I did not edited the controversial sections that leads edit-war, yet I began to improve some other non-controversial section and pointed out massacres James suspected to commit by wikilinks. I found a lot of reliable sources for the case, for either point of view so that the sections can be expanded, and we can't even edit. I will use sandbox than. Kasaalan (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan; as Cuchullain said, I tried to be as clear as possible in that I didn't want people who had previously reverted or been reverted editing any more. Obviously, fixing a typo or making a small format change is still allowed. However, always avoid making multiple changes to a disputed article you are involved with until you've cleared it on the talk page. I support Cuchullain's protection in this case, though I'm sorry I didn't give you clearer warning.

As for the dispute itself, I agree with Cuchullain's analysis; the quotation previously used was way too convoluted. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 19:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesse_James&diff=310533490&oldid=310532923 is a clear and undisputed improvement by wikilinks, layout and sentence merge, so you should review it and readd, if noone objects against the edit, the massacres James is suspected to commit should be pointed out

I still don't agree about quote. However I already solved the main issues with quote, as you can read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesse_James#Jeremy_Kuper_and_Eric_Hobsbawm under Expanded proposal section and I even improved more to cover more aspects of the case. If we can't edit, you should review the proposals and discuss with us. Kasaalan (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Robert Ford

{{editprotected}} Request last paragraph of lede:

On April 3, 1882, Jesse James was killed by Robert Ford.

be changed to

On April 3, 1882, Jesse James was killed by Robert Ford, who was a member of the gang living in the James house and who was hoping to collect a reward.--JimWae (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, it's better than what was left there just prior to the protection, but I agree with you about filling the sentence out. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I dunno; the lede is pretty wordy as it is. In my opinion, that much information (his motivation and background) can be left to the rest of the article. How does that sound to you? Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 22:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

As much as the lead is supposed to summarize the article, the assassination should certainly be discussed in some form.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good to me. I've got to jet, so mind doing that, Cuchullain? Thanks! :) Cheers, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 22:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Too weak lead, that is not acceptable to quality standards

On April 3, 1882, Jesse James was killed by Robert Ford.

My improved proposal, maybe too much details, yet covers near all major aspects

On April 3, 1882, Jesse James was shot in the back of the head and killed by Robert Ford at his home, after James left his revolvers on a sofa and standing on a chair to clean a picture frame above the mantle. Ford brothers were convicted members of James gang, who were released so they may assassinate James, upon a full pardon and 10.000 reward promise by Missouri Governor Thomas T. Crittenden.

Not sure why you don't discuss the part under the discussion title above. No info summary for the lead is way too weak for a history article. My proposal is near fully summarizes the case. You may improve it even further by adding more details or summarizing it more. Yet you shouldn't remove he was a convicted member of the James Gang, who released to assassinate James, upon Crittenden's full pardon and reward promise. Kasaalan (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, this is not the time nor the place to make proposals, that will occur during dispute mediation. The only thing that was discussed here was filling out one sentence in the lead so that it isn't a badly written version with clear and glaringly obvious English errors. Without being contentious, I have the impression that English is not your first language, mostly based on the grammar and language being used in your proposals. I disputed the use of the sources to the Kuper article and the film review written by von Tunzelmann about the Brad Pitt film and I dispute their use now. They are not scholarly works that have been vigorously vetted and confirmed by third parties in the interest of historical accuracy. Kuper is regurgitating content written by Hobsbawm. If that is a relevant source, then the Hobsbawn source must be used, not someone paraphrasing his work. As for the von Tunzelmann article, it is a film review, it is not a scholarly work. It is incorrect in regard to the amount of the reward, something that I note is carried in the Robert Ford article, which you've been editing today. The reward was $5000 for Jesse James and $5000 for Frank James. [8] [9] page 252 page 110 And finally, Robert Ford wasn't a convict, he was offered a pardon for any crimes he'd committed to kill Jesse James - a pardon before the fact. These are the indicative of the issues I have with your proposals and your additions to this article. But right now, this is not the forum for proposals or debate. That's what dispute mediation is about.

Also, please use the preview button when you are posting to review your comments prior to hitting save. That greatly lessens the load on the history page and makes it much easier to follow what you are posting. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

English is not my native language, you are correct, and I make some mistakes because of the fact. On the other hand grammar can be fixed by native speakers easily if they like to improve, when did I ever objected any grammar improvement of my edits.

I already know it was 5000 and 5000 reward previously, yet some sources agrued 10.000 was most recent for each of James brothers, if I am not mistaken by English. "film review" you mentioned only used for 10.000 reward money, which is again supported by other WP:RS like PBS documentary, I assumed it was a known fact. And that is same for the film titled The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford based on Ron Hansen's same titled book which again you try to use and even dictate as single truth.

"Crittenden's first step was a July 1881 meeting with various railroad and express company leaders, at which Crittenden persuaded them to sponsor a $10,000 reward each for the capture of Frank and Jesse James." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/james/peopleevents/e_death.html or http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWjamesF.htm

http://shs.umsystem.edu/famousmissourians/folklegends/james/jamesford.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=AojGmy4HSh8C&dq= Age of the gunfighter: men and weapons on the frontier, 1840-1900 by Joseph G. Rosa page 45

http://lernen.bildung.hessen.de/bilingual/Englisch/geschichte/materialhistory/wyoming.pdf

The man responsible was called Jesse James. For years after that date his name ... Governor Crittenden of Missouri offered 10.000 dollars reward for Jesse's ... http://books.google.com/books?id=Df4nAAAAMAAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s

Bob Ford, killer of Jesse James, who holds the pistol that slew the ... which caused Missouri governor Thomas T. Crittenden to offer a $10000 reward for the http://books.google.com/books?id=3TbelG-xZjwC&source=gbs_navlinks_s

Hoping to claim fame and the $10000 reward, the younger Ford met in secret with Governor Crittenden and police officials in a Kansas City, Missouri, hotel. ... http://books.google.com/books?id=oK9kTwN_GoMC&source=gbs_navlinks_s page 1881

Perhaps the argument is based on the recollection of how Bob Ford shot Jesse James in the back because of the $10000 reward offered by Governor Crittenden http://books.google.com/books?id=hm95AAAAMAAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s page 250

Governor Thomas T. Crittenden of Missouri offered a $10000 reward for the capture of the James brothers ... TOUGH JESSE JAMES Jesse James was a very tough outlaw http://books.google.com/books?id=CZP0Ca9I-zEC&source=gbs_navlinks_s page 18

What I really don't like is your attempt on change of articles based on our dispute with me.

Thomas Theodore Crittenden Your attempt on changing 10.000 reward to 5.000 on 01:54, 29 August 2009, without any "dispute resolution" or a full WP:RS source claims exactly it was 5.000, the sources you provided don't assert the reward was not 10.000 yet 5.000, they only show a previous reward for him was 5.000. As a note, the rewards for outlaws tend to raise. The issue with the reward money is it is 5.000 + 5.000 for each brother, 5.000 for capture, 5.000 more for conviction.

I assume good faith on your edit, if you knew it was 10.000 you possibly wouldn't change it to 5.000, yet as the same way I edited as it is 10.000

However again the issue is, you don't trust my edit which is not an issue, you don't ask me about my sources which may be an issue, you attempt to search for 5.000 reward yet you don't bother to search for 10.000 with the same method which is an issue, therefore your approach on history research is a bit sided, you make accusations based on your sources ignoring the others for an irrelevant case, You recently changed another related wiki article from 10.000 reward to 5.000 without letting others know

You search Jesse James 5000 reward in google books and get 174 books, You search Jesse James 10000 and get 609 books, search count doesn't mean much

Yet if you just try to prove me wrong, instead searching for the truth, that is an issue

Even tough the sources, I still might be wrong about 10.000 and it may be 5.000, though possibly not since I edited per a quote from reward letter of Crittenden, then we may simply correct the factual error, or tell it is disputed.

Any factual error by my edits can be fixed clearly by any other editor, I have no objection, and thanks for clearing things out and correcting attempt.

Conviction is possibly my interpretation mistake, since they were convicted of murder after killing yet pardoned by Crittenden.

"Bob and Charlie Ford were convicted of murder, but Governor Crittenden pardoned them and got the railroad companies to pay out the reward." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/james/peopleevents/e_death.html

You try to insert a single view as the only one. You try to use The Seattle Times journalist's article that is based on historical-fiction author Ron Hansen interview, author of historical fiction novel titled "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford", who is not a historian himself, yet you argue not to use Kuper who directly quotes from Historians. You tried to label Kuper as a "film critic" before, which only asserts you haven't read his article by the time of arguing. Let alone Kuper is not a film critic, the article was not a "film critic article", too. On the other hand you try to impose historian T. J. Stiles's views, whose text we can't read-verify since it is not available online as the solid and only truth, yet you try to WP:CENSOR world's one of the leading historian Eric Hobsbawn's views and social bandits thesis and book. Unless you approach the case WP:NPOV, it is clear that you will object every progressive attempt to add other views about the myth.

What I object is your attitude to WP:CENSOR any other view objecting Stiles' thesis, including historians. If you have no WP:COI to the case, why you try to CENSOR other views, and if you don't like to source why don't you try to search for better ones if you have WP:GOODFAITH about the case. Kasaalan (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

And you may always use a collective preview change with the last version you read and the last version I edited. I constantly improve the claims I make with new sources I find, read and share in talk page. And since I am not a native English speaker, I have to constantly improve grammar mistakes, or make my comments more neutral. less harsh, more clear. Kasaalan (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand even if I am wrong about the reward money or conviction by misinterpretation, does it mean you are right on WP:CENSOR other WP:RS views other than Stiles, like Eric Hobsbawm. Kasaalan (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Revised proposal

On April 3, 1882, Jesse James was shot in the back of the head and killed by Robert Ford at his home, after James left his revolvers on a sofa and standing on a chair to clean a picture frame above the mantle. Ford brothers from James gang who believed to agreed assassinating James upon a full pardon and 10.000 reward promise by Missouri Governor Thomas T. Crittenden, later convicted of murder yet pardoned by Crittenden who denied the "plot" claims.

Revised proposal to clarify misinterpretation. Kasaalan (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Reminder Per WP:LEAD

"The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article."

We should avoid both lengthy paragraphs with specific details and short sentences that doesn't contain any info, or doesn't lead reader's interest at all. Kasaalan (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• It is not just your grammar that needs fixing. It is also your syntax & your sentence construction. You are trying to say too much in one breath while ambiguously switching forward & backward in the sequence of events. Further, the lede is not the place to include every detail, and especially not several disputed issues in run-on sentences. --JimWae (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

If the issue is my syntax and grammar can be corrected by better English speakers, if they even put a quarter of the effort I put on research, or of their own effort in discussions.

There is not much of a controversy about the "plot" actually. And even if the issue is controversial, we should also mention that in the WP:LEAD

Crittenden self-denies the "plot" yet it is widely accepted he gave the full pardon promise, consequently he pardoned Ford brothers even though they convicted murder of James at court, anyway.

Without mentioning bounty reward by Missouri Governor Crittenden, exact date, Ford claims's on how he killed James the lead has no information about the article. Kasaalan (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• In saying "...[then] the lead has no information about the article" you are surely exaggerating. The lede CANNOT contain EVERY detail of the article. Certainly, that James was unarmed could be included in the lede - but that he "put his guns on the sofa" is WAY too much detail - as is "standing on a chair". "Dust a picture" MIGHT be included on on basis of future cultural references, but is NOT necessary. The "believed" it totally vague (who believed? what did he/they believe?) Ford believed he would get a reward. He may have believed he would get a pardon, but whether one was promised has been disputed. The dispute cannot be properly presented in a single sentence or two in the lede, much less resolved. Only the body of the article can properly present the dispute over a "plot" planned by the governor. ((Btw, The actual circumstances of the shooting sound far from "planned"))
• I am aware of many "Dead or Alive" warrants. Discussion of "plot" in body should mention whether such warrants ever existed in that state at that time.
• How much time elapsed between Ford's meeting the governor & the killing? From what I read now, ROBERT Ford had been living with James about 10 days. When did RF meet with governor?
• Is it true or false that nearly all historians agree on whether the governor plotted with RF or not?

--JimWae (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"On April 3, 1882, Jesse James was killed by Robert Ford" near no detail

"On April 3, 1882, Jesse James was killed by Robert Ford, who was a member of the gang living in the James house and who was hoping to collect a reward." much better, yet still missing lots of aspects

Again, even if the cases are disputed, we should mention them as disputed cases. We should mention Crittenden's name, 10.000 reward since the main turnpoint was his reward attempts

We may discuss about how the proposal might be improved even further, yet I am posting proposal so another editor improves it further, yet none of you helped on improvement yet

The thing about dusty picture is, according to Ford's own argument James possibly found out he was there to kill him, yet did not like to kill him in front of his family, he put of his guns knowingly and turn his back, to leave no suspicion, and Ford thought it was his only chance to instantly killed him there, while his back was turned to him. So possibly it was not about dust at all.

Why I added "believed" is only because Crittenden, denied he set up a plot against James, which is expected because he might be assassinated, got a trial himself or couldn't have pardon Ford so easily if he admits he was in a scheme.

I am posting proposal, not to dictate it as it is, on contrary so that other editors can improve it further, yet none helped yet. So instead stating it contains grammar and syntax errors, you may actually try to improve it. Lead is too weak, and mentions only a few turn points about James gang. Kasaalan (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, I'm not going to debate this with you, as I said, all of this is for discussion under dispute mediation. I am not going to sit here and sift through lengthy postings by you now when it is all subject to discussion in mediation. You have absolutely no idea what I searched and what I read, the context under which those reward figures were mentioned in sources, what sources are considered most definitive and what sources are questionable, when varying rewards were offered, the context of those rewards, blah, blah, blah. I note you finally start changing your figure. Indeed, it was $5000 for Jesse, $5000 for Frank, and at one point it was $5000 for arrest, $5000 for conviction. All of those google hits and the search terms you mention do not in any way distinguish between rewards offered, and contrary to your assumption, I in fact did read excerpts on at least a score of them, so once again, you're making accusations based on nothing. You will kindly desist in accusing me of censorship, ownership, POV, bad faith. It is not productive nor is it accurate. And for the record, it is completely contrary to basic Wikipedia behavioral tenets. You are entirely off base when you state that I am trying to use the Hansen book as a source, that article is about Jesse James, his actions, how Hansen came to write a fictionalized historical novel based on those historical facts, and how it then became a film. I'm aware of the comment made to you by another editor elsewhere about it. The Seattle Times article does in fact refer to factual sources besides the ultimate book by Hansen so you're way off base in your accusation that I'm using the novel as the source. Please stop making assumptions with no basis in fact. Quite frankly, all of these bad faith comments about me, my motives, my viewpoints are contentious and you have worn out your welcome in regard to making them. This is part and parcel of why I requested mediation. Beyond that, you are wasting a lot of energy making these posts because no proposal will entertained at this time, pending dispute mediation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I read direct quotes from Crittenden's reward letter in a book, he exactly says 5.000 for arrest, 5.000 more for conviction, per each brother which makes 10.000, and "20.000 in total" as later mentioned. So you are possibly wrong about the issue.

If you read our discussion, you already know I am even defending Hansen to be used as a source, unlike selectively using references. Yet you try to use him as a source, while you objecting other similar quality sources. Yet no, the article is only based on "factual sources" Hansen provided within his interview. Second Hansen is a literary professor, yet not a historian, again you try to use him as a source, where he doesn't give any detail for the point you try to dictate, the quote just says he was not giving money to poor, his opinion piece [whether acoording to his research or not], which is too weak of a source for lead to dictate a single point. You try to object Kuper, a journalist who directly quotes from historians. So you have double standards on references, and try to WP:CENSOR OTHERVIEWS in the lead and sections.

Also since we will have a dispute resolution, this research will also be used in discussions, so earlier discussion starts the better. Kasaalan (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, please consider this a warning. The next time you accuse me of attempting to censor anything, I am going to make a report at WP:AN/I and request adminstrator intervention regarding your bad faith accusations. You were asked nicely to stop making such comments. And once more, I am not trying to use, or using, Hansen as a source. The article in the Seattle Times was not written by Hansen, it is not entirely about Hansen or based on Hansen and the article is also based on interviews with others, specifically the director of two museums, one of them being the Jesse James House. I am sorry you cannot see the distinction, but it is there. As I said, I am aware of the discussion you had with another editor on another page and I disagree with his statements regarding that article. An article that incorporates an interview with a writer as well as other persons that includes museum directors is not an article based on only one of those persons and is not an invalid source. I reiterate my dispute with using Kuper, whose article you were only using to repeat, questionably, content written by Hobsbawm. My statement was quite clear. If Hobsbawn is the source, then that is the source that should be used, not a quote by Kuper restating something Hobsbawn said. Two different adminstrators have clearly spoken against using the Kuper material in this way as well. That is a non-starter. Three separate persons have agreed on this. This is why dispute mediation has been requested and this is absolutely why no one is currently making "proposals" or discussing improving your proposal. I have no interest in continuing a discussion until dispute mediation has begun solely and completely because you cannot contain your bad faith accusations. Sincerely, do not make another bad faith accusation of censorship, ownership or anything else similar to that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You try to object Hobsbawn's quote by WP:RS, yet do you have any doubt about quote is not intact, or did you put any effort to verify it before arguing Kuper is not RS. He not only quotes from Eric Hobsbawm with his summary, he also quotes from other historian, "Professor Richard Etulain of the University of New Mexico, an expert on the history of the West", so why you try to object an independent journalist who directly quotes from historians, in his published article at The Guardian, yet you try to insist on an opinion piece of the Haygood at The Seattle Times which is based on literary professor Hansen's views, as the single argument about the issue. Can you explain any rationale on this. You tried to label Kuper as film critic, though neither he is film critic or his article was about film, yet you try to use a book critic about historical fiction novel of non-historian literary professor Hansen, which the film is based on, so relies almost entirely on Hansen's interview and book quotes. You may argue The Guardian is not a RS on history and non-scholar, yet it is more reliable than The Seattle Times. You object a journalist's direct quote from 2 historians, yet you try to keep another journalist, Hayword's opinion piece on the case which relies on non-historian Hansen ["A belief circulated that he robbed from the rich to give to the poor. Not so." this is the part you used as a source] http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2003885037_jessejames17.html. Did you read the article fully, since it is almost entirely based on Hansen's views, and his book later filmed, museum director Chilcote quoted only once about his death count, yet Hansen quoted over 10 times with lengthy blockquotes, film director Andrew Dominik quoted a few times about the film, "a big admirer of Hansen's book" Bob Boze from Arizona-based True West magazine, also quoted to praise Hansen's work. So can you possibly explain how the text is not entirely based on Hansen's views, except death count quote of Chilcote in the section. Since other quotes about film or praise of Hansen's book are not releated. Kasaalan (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Not going to debate this with you now, Kasaalan. This is subject for mediation. The only comments I'm going to make here are 1. The only thing you put in your proposal was a mangled quote that includes partial references to Hobsbawn. If Hobsbawm is the source, then the Hobsbawn work is what should be used, not someone regurgitating his words in a manner that isn't clear what words are what. Two administrators have also given the opinion that the way you are trying to use that article isn't acceptable. It's not just me. Three people stating the same thing constitutes a consensus. 2. The Seattle Times article is not solely based on the novel, it also cites material from director of two James museums and your dismissal of it as an opinion piece is invalid. 3. If you make one more bad faith statement such as "Did you read the article fully", I am taking you directly to WP:AN/I. You were asked to stop making such bad faith accusations and comments and frankly, I'm sick of it. This is not going to be settled here with your entirely italicized posts with the bolding. You have become contentious and it will stop now. Period. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Template

Not done for now: I've removed the template requesting that an administrator change the article: when you're quite sure what change you want to have made, then please feel free to add the template again. Maedin\^talk 16:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

The request for formal mediation was declined because a request had not yet been made for less formal mediation. Thus, I have submitted a request to WP:MEDCAB here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The entries for the mediation request were POV that reflects only 1 side's views, so I added replies, which indicates a mediation might help since we can't even solve most basic issues. Kasaalan (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

And this posting is part and parcel of why I requested mediation. Of course the request that I made is going to reflect my viewpoint. But each time you have ever posted regarding this, you only end up contentiously throwing around words like POV. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Your viewpoint with false WP:POV accusations against me. Exactly why request is required. Kasaalan (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Admins can we edit or not. Kasaalan (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line answer is not like you did it tonight, Kasaalan. You do not return removed unsourced content, stick it in a hidden note and then tag it with a fact tag. Here is a clue to your question: You do not revert an administrator to return to a version that you edited, especially when that revert was what was the last straw that resulted in the article's protection. We do not blankly wikilink dates. We do not use cquotes in the way that you placed it. And finally, moving the statement that Zee James died alone and in poverty to before the epitaph moves it out of chronological order. Dispute resolution has been requested. Try and contain yourself until the time that the request is accepted by someone and has concluded. Your editing on this article is being disputed for many reasons. These problems I've outlined is only the tip of that. I have already requested that the page be reprotected. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you just revert just to revert. I inserted as hidden comment since the claim was possible true yet needed WP:RS. There was no source at the entry even before the IP anyway so I tagged it with {{fact}}. You try to lecture, yet if have any expertise on the case why you revert true yet unsourced claims. Do you bother to research before you delete contribution by others about if they are true. http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/16176 The source for museum is added after my research. Which proves the claim of IP is true.

I reverted admin, because he reverted to end dispute before locking article and possibly without checking the edit's content, so the revert of admin was not about content, it was about dispute. There is no dispute in the section that I added wikilinks, arbitrary commitee already rejected your application, other process takes time and they also not answered yet. If the article is unlocked and everybody else edits, I also edit and improve non-disputed cases to improve article. Yet if you try to turn every progressive improvement into a "disputed case" it is your choice ond editing style. Try not to waste my time. Kasaalan (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL, you are violating it. Please read WP:3RR, if you revert this again, you will be in violation of it. You do not revert administrators, and you are wildly reading into the adminstrator's revert what you want to read into it. I have already posted my dispute with the changes in your revert. At present, your editing of this article is in dispute, reverting and moving along as if your edits are acceptable stylistically and per guidelines is an issue. We do not arbitrarily wikilink dates as is in that edit. We do not use cquotes in the way you have used it. You have moved content and made it out of sequence. And the roadsideamerica.com website is not a reliable source, it is a self-published website that may well have pictures, but it still does not meet the requirements of WP:RS. In fact, what you originally did was returned the unsourced content, stuck it into a hidden note, then put the fact tag on the sentence, which made it appear to be tagging something else entirely. Editing does not equal improvement, so please do not call your edits progressive improvements, especially when you are arbitrarily sticking in wikilinks to things that do not require links or are not supposed to be linked. You have stated repeatedly that your English isn't that good, yet you make changes that are not logical or grammatically correct. How is that an improvement??? Do not revert, you will be in violation of WP:3RR. As I said, I have already requested that the article be reprotected. Nothing has changed here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Do WP:CIVIL or WP:3RR contains unnecessary edit-war style reverts. If it does try not to turn any progressive edit into an edit war, why you don't improve the edit and only revert others.

My revert of administrator's temporary revert for dispute resolution is fully right, admin did not revert because of the content as I stated before. Wikilinking years especially on history, helps checking the historical events in the same year. So unless you back up with a solid guideline, "we do not this or that" do not solves anything.

You are pushing boundaries on WP:RS for non-necessary cases, yet you even use it selectively, only when I edit. For example do http://www.1st-stop-county-kerry.com/Asdee.html is WP:RS. Not the slightest. So if it is not, why you try to claim better quality reference with photographical evidence, http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/16176 is not WP:RS, a reference added for an unreferenced entry, 1 line above. That is pushing the boundaries and selectively using sources. It is not WP:RS, yet again it is reliable enough for the coffin stays in the house [he photographed] which is not a disputable case. We may even present it as "it is claimed that ..." Yet having an entry without any reference, is much worse than having it with no-reason to doubt middle quality source with provided evidence.

cquote again was correct, since it is one of the most important detail in the article, the saying in James' stone. We certainly use cquote for cases like that. If I am wrong again provide a guideline. If out of sequence is an issue I will add it after the cquote.

reverting is not improvement at all. Again if your grammar is better, you may always correct grammatical errors, yet you didn't use your "superior grammar" even once yet to improve my edits, so you just complain without any help or effort. Kasaalan (talk) 09:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, when your second edit to the page was to revert an administrator, and you are only giving your opinion of why he reverted, you do not have a solid foundation for arguing for your revert. I would suggest to you that you ask the adminstrator why he reverted you, not just guess. There's nothing anywhere that says his revert was temporary. You are basically making up reasons for wikilinking dates, because that is not what Wikipedia guidelines regarding year linking says. MOS:NUM#Year linking says "Year articles should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter—that is, the events in the year article should share an important connection other than merely that they occurred in the same year." That is not the case for the repeated links to years that you made. You are not making "progressive edits", you are reverting an adminstrator. I have been reading your talk page, you have repeatedly accused other editors of singling you out, only making changes to your edits and no one else's and you have been involved in multiple disputes ever since you started here. I would suggest you examine why that is. Editors who have been on this project for years, edited thousands of articles and spent a huge amount of time reading and using policies and guidelines are not picking on you. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that a source doesn't meet WP:RS and then say that the source is good enough for something. That just flatly is not true. Anyone can take a picture and post it on a website. That doesn't make the source meet WP:RS requirements. Sticking any old webpage you found from running a Google search doesn't make it a reliable source by the policy WP:RS. Those are not third party vetted independent sources. If your edits were something that had enough merit to warrant fixing your grammar errors, that would be one thing. But the stylistic errors you have introduced aren't improvements and don't merit fixes. They weakened the language. As for cquotes, the instructions for use are quite clear: "This template should not be used for block quotes in article text." We don't use cquotes in the way you put them in the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• I will ask admin. Yet as you know admin is not editing the page or checking its content. So again you only revert just to revert, and "do not revert admin" is a tactical excuse. Before asking admin, I am asking you, do you have any objection in the addition of wikilink improvements, other than year wikilinking claim of yours, which I prove false.
• Clearly false argument. You try to use guidelines selectively. If you partly take a guideline, then present its half in a misleading way, you may be correct in your own view, which does not reflect the guidelines. Try to remember this is a historical article. So the historical events in the same years are connected, as I and Wikiguideline is clearly stated. Read fully, do not assume guidelines.

Year articles (1795, 1955, 2007) should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter—that is, the events in the year article should share an important connection other than merely that they occurred in the same year. For instance, Timeline of World War II (1942) may be linked to from another article about WWII, and so too may 1787 in science when writing about a particular development on the metric system in that year. However, the years of birth and death of architect Philip C. Johnson should not be linked, because little, if any, of the contents of 1906 and 2005 are germane to either Johnson or to architecture.

• Clearly false argument Template:Cquote "This template should not be used for block quotes in article text." is not relevant, how it is supposed to relevant anyway. I did not use a block quote within cquote, only a sentence. the cquote might also be applied as Template:Epigraph as it is an epigraph.

• If you read my talk page, even with most conflicted cases, by terms of truth there is a consensus resulted in keeping the info in reasonable terms. Also if you read them, you may understand the serious conflicts only raise by waste of editing efforts like AFD or removal of other criticizing views than a single POV point. I am not WP:CIVIL against WP:POV info removals or reverts which waste others' editing efforts, since that actions aren't WP:CIVIL in the first place.

Either come with better arguments or stop reverting. Kasaalan (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me all to hell, but you asked for policy or guidelines to support what I was saying and I provided you with them. That I didn't copy and paste an entire paragraph when a sentence was sufficient is not using anything selectively. Did you think I believed you didn't know this was during the Civil War?? This article is about events during the Civil War. There is no reason to wikilink to dates during the Civil War, the individual events that have relevance in the article are already linked to direct articles about the events and are individually more detailed than just a general year. Those are more specific and relevant. There is a lot more going on in a given year world wide than one event. I read the entire policy, I've read it often.

Do not patronize me or talk down to me. You are in no position to do so.You've been on Wikipedia for what? 5 months? You've not been here long enough, nor is your editing/dispute record stellar enough to talk down to an editor who has been here for years. Neither is it stellar enough to second guess an adminstrator who was fed up with your editing on this article. Your first action on this article when the protection expired was to revert me and your second action was to revert an adminstrator. The adminstrator has not weighed in on this at this point because it is in the middle of the night here. That's why. Please try to remember that there are people in widely varying time zones. However, I happen to know he fully intends to look in on what you've begun to do here.

As for the cquote issue, you clearly do not understand what the instructions say. Blockquotes and pulled quotes are both tools that are used to indicate quotations. I did not say you were using a blockquote within a cquote. I said you are misusing a cquote template for a statement that is directed to be used, at most, with a {{quote}} format. Cquotes are rarely if ever used in the main body of an article, and it is not properly used to quote a gravestone quote in this article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Also for the record, posting here, or on the WP:MEDCAB request, that I am supporting an old source that is in an article that may not meet WP:RS, while at the same time disputing the new addition of a source that does not meet WP:RS is basically a blatant lie. Please do not go around posting such misleading statements. The issues at hand are the sources to private, self-published, non-vetted sites that you are claiming are reliable because they have photos.

Progressive improvements

An example of your "progressive improvements". Your change made this run-on, illogical sentence:

The James-Samuel family took the Confederate side at the outset of the war while Frank James joined a local company recruited for the secessionist Drew Lobbs Army and fought at the battle of Wilson's Creek, yet returned home soon after he fell ill.

That was a change from this:

The James-Samuel family took the Confederate side at the outset of the war. Frank James joined a local company recruited for the secessionist Drew Lobbs Army, and fought at the battle of Wilson's Creek, though he fell ill and returned home soon afterward.

You made a very long, illogical sentence. You set up a contrasting sentence where no contrast exists. The James-Samuel family were on the Confederate side. Frank James joined a company that was also fighting on the Confederate side. Your change makes it sound like he did something contradictory to the family. The use of the word "yet" indicates he did something not in keeping with expectations, which isn't true. He got sick and went home. That is logical. There was no need to change that sequence and the change wasn't improvement.

Immediately following that, you took four sentences and made them into another very long, unconnected run-on sentence. You then wikilinked dates and words that did not require wikilinks.

At the end of the section, you changed these sentences:

"His killer, Edward Capehart O'Kelley, was sentenced to life in prison. When O'Kelley's sentence was commuted because of a medical condition, he was released on October 3, 1902."

to: "His killer, Edward Capehart O'Kelley, was sentenced to life in prison, yet his sentence was commuted because of a medical condition and released on October 3, 1902." This now says that his sentence was released on October 3, 1902, not that O'Kelley himself was released. Again, the use of the word "yet" in the sentence indicates that something was contradictory, although the whole purpose of the sentence is to explain why it occurred. Perhaps this is a difficult distinction to explain, but when you set up a contradiction, you're indicating there is something amiss. That's not the case. These edits aren't progressive improvements, they introduce confusion to sentences that were not in need of "improvement". Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If there are grammatical errors, reverting that parts or improving is up to you. I never object any grammatical improvement. Yet that is no excuse for a full revert including all my additions, along with grammar errors you try to bring front. Kasaalan (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Kasaalan, but that's just not productive. Your text is not an improvement, in fact it's significantly more problematic than what's already there without adding anything. You are suggesting replacing passable if mediocre text with something markedly inferior, and then have others clean up after you.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. If anyone reverts a grammatical error I am not against that. Yet factual debate and grammatical errors are 2 different things. If anyone has so much time to criticize my grammatical errors 1 by 1, they sure has time to improve them. On the other hand if she chose not to improve and revert only grammar issues, that is also fine with me as I said earlier. Though she reverted cases by various arguments at that time, I later clearly proved her argument and assumptions are wrong, just like 5.000 dollar reward or James' casket case. Now that I provided enough WP:RS, she has no right to revert me unless she proves my arguments are wrong by solid WP:RS. Kasaalan (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I will move personal debates and old proposals into an archive page, leaving here a link then I will add more clean and compact factual arguments here, if it is alright by everyone. Kasaalan (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not archive things selectively on this page. Informal mediation was referred to more formal mediation and that is how it has been directed to proceed. It's obvious that I do not agree with your statements and Cúchullain appears to agree. It is much too difficult to sort any valid changes you might make from the grammatical mess in which they might reside. You still cannot simply make a post without some modicum of attack or disparagement, which is why this must go on to mediation. I will not discuss anything with you without a mediator to observe and direct the discussion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Then I have to repost latest proposals here in addition to previous ones, which makes page longer. Mediation or not, you will have to answer my factual arguments over history which you can do now or later. However you stick out grammar mistakes, there are facts waiting to be debated, which I prove my point by WP:RS 1 by 1. Kasaalan (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not have to respond here. As noted, a request for formal mediation will be placed. I will not debate anything with you without a mediator to oversee. Formal mediation means that entire entries will be required at the mediation page. Posting here is like talking to the air. Perhaps you could write your posts in a page in your userspace for future use, but debate will not occur here. I believe Cúchullain agrees with this step, which is the one I will take. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You formally declare you have no intention of pre-debate including minor issues to save time in mediation, though I did all the work for additions and research. That is the way with you for numerous weeks anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Overtagging

Kasaalan, please stop overtagging this article. Take a minute to read WP:POINT and don't disrupt things in order to make one. There is no valid reason to put both a tag for POV and for it being unbalanced both. They both go to the same page. There is no issue warranting using the refimprove tag. If you see a sentence that needs a source, then either post it here, or put a {{fact}} tag on it. I am going to file the ArbCom request regarding you and this article and that will be the time to make your myriad and endless points. Bear in mind, however, when something ends up at ArbCom, there are usually rulings covering why the case ended up there. Snowing a MedCab case that led to the dispute mediator withdrawing from the mediation and putting pointy templates on the article are covered there. For the time being, however, STOP overtagging this article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I still feel {{refimprove}} is seriously needed for robbery-robin hood cases, double linking to same guideline might not be suitable as you say.

Again http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesse_James&action=historysubmit&diff=320573418&oldid=320570787 you fully revert instead partial revert so, you may have to reread WP:POINT.

Again http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesse_James&action=historysubmit&diff=320580515&oldid=320578389 article needs improvement and reference improvement for sections we discussing.

You try to use "a newspaper book review, heavily based on a historical-ficton author literature professor's interview, about his own book and the issues paragraph refers" http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2003885037_jessejames17.html to be used for all arguments in the paragraph [10] is like a joke for WP:LEAD section. We should either add better references, or add other arguments to keep neutrality, which you don't do yourself and revert when I try to do.

Whatever arbcom does, the dispute is a 1-1 case, which I will put the case over facts. Also arbcom etc. without any RFC is your own way of approaching dispute resolution. I put many clear references for some of the disputed case, did you participated any discussion but personal ones, not really. Yet if I bother to put your attitude in case it gets unnecessarily waste of time, over your waste of my time for weeks. So however you put the case, try to put some effort over facts too along with personal debate. I will start with debating facts, and if you could do the same over facts we could solve it weeks ago anyway. I still find your lack of contributing to factual debates is because your non-expertise in the area along with lack of research, if it is not the case show everyone by contributing references to the article. I never deny any fact, whether I am right or wrong about the issue. And whoever is right the main issue is improving article. Kasaalan (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Put a RFC at history section. Kasaalan (talk) 12:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what is going to be put forth at ArbCom is your trying to push through things despite the fact that it can't be discerned what you're tring to say, your personal attacks such as the ones you've just made in your above post, your bad faith commentary and your disparaging remarks. They will not simply settle content disputes, that isn't what ArbCom is about, it is about dealing with issues with editors, like the nice examples you've just posted above. This is why I will not discuss things with you. You cannot do so civilly. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

For all those weeks, you ignored factual debates, you still do claiming I can't be discussed civilly, call me whatever but that is a simple excuse to avoid factual debate. You try to avoid discussing facts for all these weeks, excusing this and that, then talking about faith, pushing my limits with edit-warring in an area you are no-expert, and add no expert opinion against my additions. Kasaalan (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Please desist in going back and changing your posts after someone responds to them. It changes the post, making responses unclear to anyone else who reads them. Please familiarize yourself with what the refimprove tag is for, which is not asking for specific citations, but instead stating the entire article is under referenced, which is decidedly not the case. The original mediation request was filed at the wrong place, for ArbCom, mostly because the instructions weren't that clear. I then filed a request with MedCab for dispute resolution. When the mediator who accepted the case came back to your 30000kb+ posts, he promptly looked at it, declared it too much for him, turned it down and closed the case, referring it to ArbCom. Since the original dispute also centered around trying to wade through your issues with proper English usage, an RfC was not the way to go. Since that time, I have lost any desire to discuss anything with you unmoderated. I will not discuss anything with you without a mediator or moderator involved because you cannot stifle your impulse to demean my knowledge, discount my education and question my ability to read, understand and discuss anything. Your entire post above is an attack, is demeaning and is a disparagement of me and I do not have to, nor do I intend to accept that sort of commentary from you. Unless you are an historian, which you have clearly said you are not, this is simply a case of the pot calling the kettle black. It's an American expression, look it up. This is precisely the reason it was referred to ArbCom. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't change my posts after someone replies them to confuse anybody. After I make post, I was editing it to correct mistakes and add a few points, yet apparently you were writing a reply so posted before me. Since I correct grammar mistakes and add new points I try improving for other readers can understand fully what I try to say.

I assumed {{Refimprove|section}} for sections like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_James#Assassination in general since it fails to prove certain claims in paragraphs, but however http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2003885037_jessejames17.html which is an interview with a literature professor over his historical-fiction novel is not good to be used as a single source, especially unless it is backed up by supporting, or neutralized by counter claiming sources. Though if we can have any kind of fact discussion they will be revealed anyway, no need for additional tags as you say, if you don't revert 2 tags I added.

The issue is long why. You reverted most of my additions, I tried proving them by multiple references, you avoided factual debates, one way or another when no historical debate occured personal debates took the lead. Only way to solve issues is beginning factual debates immediately or get 3rd party sources.

English grammar is not an issue, as I said before I never objected any of your reverts about my grammar and I accept any kind of grammatical revert. Yet you put an insistence over stressing grammar issues.

I am not a historian, possibly won't be one, I helped historian about history research before but that is another issue. I have not an expert in history in general, I have knowledge and interest in some specific cases or periods only. For example I don't have much knowledge about early days of Jesse James, I only recently read that period, I am not a fan, hater or James expert either, though I have more knowledge about assasination of Jesse James, James Gang or Robert Ford. However I do extensive research when it comes to details or facts.

Pot calling the kettle black, I assume it is about eligibility to accept one's own mistakes rather then bringing others' right. When I made any factual error, I accept it. Just ask yourself if you can do the same. Kasaalan (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

For example introrewrite exists, another {{leadtooshort}} might help to stress, a specific detail about multiple issues in WP:LEAD, you may argue it is over tagging, but that is not about WP:POINT and you didn't do almost any improvement in the WP:LEAD for the past 8 weeks anyway. Yet you do in this case, what you have been doing all this time, no partial revert but full revert excusing some parts of the edit, no improvement or help but criticizing and lecturing, bold statements only focusing on smistakes ignoring rest of edits ... and when I begin debate about what you doing you try to claim it is personal attack which leads turning it into a bigger personal debate.

Though if you are ill as your talk page suggests and if it is serious, I don't want to affect your health in bad way with discussions right now. Yet if it is the case tell me the span and seriousness of your medical condition, so that I can arrange something. I am considering to take a wikibreak after some point for the thesis, I lately edit a fraction of I used to edit anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC

If anyone from RFC history comes, we have some issues to debate over historical facts and wiki guidelines. Proposals above are old versions. If anyone is willing to help I will add new proposals here. Kasaalan (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleting personal arguments which can be accessed here, if wildhartlivie also agrees.

I came here to respond to the request for comment, however, I can't find any coherent request. Please either state (concisely) what is being requested, or remove the RFC template. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This RfC will prove unproductive for several reasons. Most importantly, Kasaalan is not in the slightest clear about what he's requesting comment on. The Jesse James dispute was already filed at MEDCAB, but the informal mediator couldn't resolve the case and closed it. He referred the participants to formal mediation (not to Arbcom, as was said above), noting that the issues at this point are too overwhelming to be resolved by RfC. Please file for formal mediation as the next step in the dispute resolution process.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

We both have busy schedule, I will try summarized style mentioning of disagreements, replacing personal debates with a link to history if wildhartlivie also agrees, so we can have a quick and fact-debate, as I proposed earlier. We both have no-stamina or free-time for personal debates anymore, even if we have it is not productive. I really like a fresh start for discussions. If she also agrees, this time we may solve issues real fast and clean way. Kasaalan (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Cases

If you willing to help about improvement of article I can provide more detail or links. Kasaalan (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute may also help. Kasaalan (talk) 11:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Eric Hobsbawm quote by 3rd party

Kuper further claims, many historians consider James as such a "social bandit" while opposing view consider James Younger gang as "the forerunners of modern terrorists". In the revised fourth edition of his 1969 book titled Bandits, British historian Eric Hobsbawm argues, Robin Hood alike social bandit concepts appear "in times of turmoil", reflecting the "universal longing for freedom, heroism and the dream of justice" amongst the poor, symbolizing their yearning for "bold champions" who fights for the "weak, oppressed and cheated". Phil Shannon from Green Left Weekly reviewing Bandits argued, reputations of such "ideological gunfighters" may fairly depend the "embellished myth and selective idealization" by their poor admirers, than the "psychological hit" they provide when dealing with "the enemies of the poor" is which is more important to them than the real acts. Shannon further wrote, the story of Jesse James loaning 800 dollars to a widow to pay the bank debt on her farm, and subsequently robbing the bank, is "improbable".

1. Whether http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2007/dec/04/jessejameswildwestrobinho by independent journalist Jeremy Kuper's article [printed at movie review page yet writer is not a film reviewer, and it is not a film review except mentioning 1 short paragraph latest film about james] is a WP:RS to use his quote from historian Eric Hobsbawm's social bandits thesis-book and his quotes from Professor Richard Etulain
2. similar quoting from same book similar way http://www.greenleft.org.au/2001/447/26155
3. and supportive source http://books.google.com/books?id=1Y0Ef-wgziYC&hl=tr&source=gbs_navlinks_s page 61
4. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=01481A919B4D2CBDB70FBFFFF6E70FBE.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=2339988 may also have a quote but not sure since I don't have membership right now

Reward amount

Whether reward money over Jesse James was 5.000 or 5.000 (capture) + 5.000 (conviction) = 10.000

Unreferenced sections reference additions

Heaton Bowman Smith Funeral Home [11] in 36th and Frederick Avenue, St. Joseph, Missouri claims its predecessor conducted the original autopsy and funeral for Jesse James. A devoted room in the back is claimed to hold the log book and other documentation, as well as the casket that James' body was transferred to the funeral home in. http://www.stjoenews.net/news/2009/aug/31/property-past-aug-31-2009/ http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-14682531.html http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/16176 [contains photographs so I added

Whether we should add funeral house that buried James, claims they are keeping James' casket or not. Currently the section contains first 2 sentences with no reference. I added they claim [we don't have enough proof about if their claims are true] they have the casket, and found sources backing case up.

Additional sources over Heaton-Bowman-Smith Funeral Home [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]

"See Fintan O'Toole's book, "A Mass for Jesse James" <!-- A note in old wiki history after canon william ferris the section maybe helps for reference -->"

James' father hometown section has no reference. I found a source in article history. It should be restored as a hidden text.

LEAD

Whether we should improve WP:LEAD or not over not having other views about james including Eric Hobsbawm's [[[social bandits]] for counter-balancing T. J. Stiles' thesis [Stiles' work is recent and nice, though he stresses too much terror for marketing purposes to boost sales after 9-11], and not much detail over assassination of James, which tagged as {{introrewrite}}. Also a better reference for "James gang didn't give money to the poor" claim is required [which might be true, however it stays in the lead like a solid fact with a weak reference] and addition of myths around James as a western robin hood.

Wikilinks and layout issues

We had a disagreement over wikilinking years, places, technical terms, under-subtitle see also etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesse_James&diff=313540776&oldid=313539347

3rd Party response

I'm at the Useability Conference this weekend so I don't have enough time to do a proper analysis of the problems, but maybe I can offer a few suggestions.

Regarding the two conflicting views of Jesse James (terrorist or hero), you should take a look at the lead section of Emma Goldman. This is a featured article about someone who was viewed as a cold-blooded terrrorist by some, and as a hero for the common people by others. Notice how both points of view are presented neutrally in the lead.

Regarding events for which there are conflicting sources, you should discuss the conflicting sources in the article. There is no reason you have to choose one and ignore the other if they are both reliable sources. Present both versions to the reader and let them decide.

Regarding linking, do not link years or technical terms, but do link places that are relevant to the events.

Sorry I can't be of more help at the moment. Kaldari (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)