Talk:Soapy Smith/Archive 1

Original research

Sorry Mr. Smith, but research that you yourself have performed is *not* acceptable in Wikipedia. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research . I've tagged the page accordingly. Jaysbro 18:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Jaysbro: I have spent close to thirty years researching the life and times of Soapy Smith. That means countless days of going through newspapers of the era. For years I have researched thousands of original unpublished personal letters and business documents. My family was lucky, in that Soapy considered himself a businessman and thus saved most,if not all his papers. I have not looked into it in detail, but I am willing to bet we have one of, if not the, largest single collection of original paperwork for any one "outlaw." No one outside the Smith family has had access to these important papers. I have a room in my home that is devoted just for storage of the research materials I have collected over the years. All the years of research will blossom in my upcoming book on the true life and death of Soapy, which is at the publishers. I consider myself the foremost historian on the subject of Soapy. I can't make you or wikipedia view my research as acceptable knowledge. Soapy 00:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Jeff's "research" consists almost exclusively of gathering information from primary sources (though some are unpublished). This is the kind of research that makes Wikipeda strong. I quote from the policy mentioned by the original poster: "...research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged." The "original research" that is prohibited is more in the area of data formulated by the researcher himself (such as from an experiment or a survey). There is absolutely nothing wrong with Jeff's contributions. Xuehxolotl 02:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Mr. Smith's research is unpublished (a website is not publishing), and thus has not been subject to peer review. Since he has the only copies of the primary sources and has not shared them with other scholars, their authenticity (and even existence) can be called into question (and he does not even cite them in this article). The sources are thus unverifiable, contrary to Wikipedia policy. Get your book published and criticized, and get your primary sources out in the open for other researchers to study and criticize, and then let someone else add the info to WP.Jaysbro 19:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I used the data from the Smith's page for the first version of this article and I am glad he is willing to include more information. I think that his knowledge about this guy definitely makes him an "expert on the subject". He does not concoct conspiracy theories or something like that. - Skysmith 06:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • (to Xuehxolotl & Skysmith)- Thank you gentlemen. It's nice to be recognized. Soapy 18:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • How do you know he's not just making stuff up? Nobody else but him has seen the primary sources he claims to be using. Jaysbro 19:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Smith has mainly added additional details to variouus things other sources (many of them in the external links) have also mentioned. He has not invented anything out of nowhere. Skysmith 20:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I am not accusing him of inventing anything; rather I am asking you why you are 100% confident that he hasn't. The most prominent external link was also written by Mr. Smith. Jaysbro 17:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
      • (to Jaysbro) I am first and foremost, an honest historian. Why lie? The truth about Soapy Smith is far stranger than fiction. I invite you to check out my website. Soapy 00:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
        • There is no way to know whether your claims are true or not. Your word is not good enough. Cite specific sources, and not ones that are solely in your personal collection. Jaysbro 17:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
        • In other words, Wikipedia:Verifiability is what's important here, not "truth". I don't know if your claims are true or not, because they're not verifiable. Jaysbro 20:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that Jeff's information, at least the major portion of it, is "original research." Looking back through his edits, most of what he has written are facts that are well known or known within the Western history community. There may be some items that may need citing, but my understanding from reading Wikipedia:Citing sources is that citing is required only for direct quotes and that are challenged or are likely to be challenged. So what is the specific objection? Which item set this off? Xuehxolotl 22:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It may be "common knowledge" but that's not acceptable in WP. The problem is that he readily admits that his main source is his private collection of documents. It is completely unverifiable. See WP:V. The specific items that bothered me were Soapy's death, and the siege of town hall. Jaysbro 22:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There, was that so hard? You only had two specific items that bothered you, but instead of listing them right at the start, you went on a full rampage scale attack of the page's references and the fact that I am the main source. As a matter of fact I am varifiable. Soapy 02:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Smith, are you patronizing me? Are you and Xuehxoltl the same person (you seem to act exclusively in sync with each other)? The whole piece bothered me (the first thing that popped into my head was that the stories sounded like a "Paul Revere and his big blue ox" epic myth). Xuehxoltl asked me to cite certain items (Mr. Smith never asked me to cite anything, and never even seemd to think my vagueness about what bothered me was an issue) but there are plenty of other questionable, unsourced, unverifiable claims. The verifiability issue was and remains the largest issue. Could you explain how you, personally, fit the standards of verifiability mentioned in WP:V? Simply stating you are trustworthy and verifiable does not make it so. Jaysbro 20:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Jaysbro, are you for real? Xuehxoltl and I are not the same person and a quick check into each of our profiles should settle that. I think you have issues with me because no one sided with you so far. I often run into people who feel that I, nor the Smith family, should or could properly represent my/our ancestor. What's with the "Paul Revere and his big blue ox?" Now you are calling me a liar? Have you ever read any other books on Soapy Smith? Why don't you cite some sources that disagree with the content of this page? Soapy 21:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(to Jaysbro) Trust me, my personal collection of original letters and documents is far better than any other source available. Soapy saved most, if not all of his letters and business papers. I am willing to say it just might be the largest private collection of any one outlaw. But you would rather me use someone else's work as a resource over mine? I won't go through the page and add other resources as citings, just because you don't believe my research. The Wiki page here is pretty simple, straight forward and to the point...and only the tip of the iceberg. My plan all along, was to return, once my book was published, and do the page up in style. Hell, even the photograph needs changing! Soapy 02:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying I believe you or I don't believe you, but that I have no way of determining if what you say is true or not. Your information based on your private sources is not verifiable. Verifiability, not truth/trust, is the key issue here. Please see WP:V. I can't just "trust you" or "take your word for it." Jaysbro 22:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue is whether the article is OR, unsourced, and/or POV, contrary to Wikipedia policy.

Mr. Smith's research does have a place here, but I believe that citations are called for. If the reader is aware that the factual representations are drawn from particular primary -- but proprietary -- sources, they may then decide for themselves how much weight to give them. Over time any given source would be open to verification by other researchers. One assumes that some portion of Mr. Smith's library would become public at some later date.

On the other hand, I must emphasize how important Mr. Smith's research would have to be to the study of his subject, given the breadth and detail he can derive from his sizable library. That it remains proprietary for the moment is an important aspect of the information's provenance, but shouldn't exclude it from inclusion in the larger body of knowledge concerning Smith and con men of the time.

Researchers need all the information they can get, including sources they are not allowed to read themselves. If the reader understands that the sources are private, they may draw their own conclusions. Or better yet, seek other ways to test a source's veracity.

In other words, Mr. Smith should be allowed to make his claims, citing his sources, on the assumption that he is vulnerable, as are all of us who publish our words in some form, to being labeled a fraud if his claims are proven false at some later date.

In the interest of disclosure, I must state that, for my part, this is not a theoretical question. With my brother I have been researching one of Soapy Smith's competitors in Denver, Lou Blonger, for several years. The majority of our sources are public, mostly censuses and newspapers, but naturally Mr. Smith has some information on Lou Blonger as well, and we appreciate his sharing with us when he discovers something previously unknown to the historical record.

Even though I do not have direct access to his source material, I am nevertheless very interested in whatever Blonger references he may find, and understandably so. It's then up to us both to cite the nature of the source, and to use that new information to seek additional sources that will either refute the original, or build upon it. Digidak 18:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Digidak, thanks for your comment. But you didn't address the issues, such as whether the information is verifiable or not. Jaysbro 22:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue for me, in Wikipedia or any publication (or non publication) is verifiability. This can come in a variety of forms, including documents, persons with certain credentials, common sense, historical resonance—on and on. In the several years I have conferred with Mr. Jeff Smith on a number of historical topics, he has proved a thoughtful and careful resource who is flexible in his interpretations as facts and analysis require, and eager to ascertain and promote realities, especially over myths and fictions regarding his legendary great-grandfather. It is my good fortune to be associated with Mr. Smith in research on a biography of his great-grandfather. As it proceeds slowly and carefully toward the press, Mr. Smith ties every fact, date, statement, quotation, and analysis to a specific source. Documentation in the manuscript is copious. Later on next year, my working visit to the Smith family archives is anticipated. "Digidak" in the previous entry well states, in my view, a variety of realities for the researcher--both the casual visitor in search of information and the constant inhabitant of historical time who seeks to "know" the realities it contains and to share them with others. Primarily, Mr. Smith's Wikipedia entry recapitulates what has already appeared in print about "Soapy Smith. Several dozen histories and fictions of the period include sections on the man. Jeff Smith has, however, left out the mythical and unsubstantiated and begun to add threads of detail about associations, such as with the Blonger brothers in Denver, and about events, such as how Soapy met his end, which varies from standard telling. Probably Jeff Smith is the foremost living authority on matters concerning Soapy Smith. He has a long interpretive association with a large archive of original correspondence, "paperwork" of all sort, personal possessions, and photographs. All of these seem destined one day to reside in a university library, such as the Bancroft. There will be time to ascertain Smith's interpretations of these materials and other data in the Soapy Smith website, Wikipedia, and the forthcoming biography. Readers of Wikipedia are fortunate that one such as Jeff Smith is willing to contribute his expertise to one of its subject entries. It fills an important gap between the repeated, unquestioned facts and outright fables about Soapy Smith between his 19th Century life and the definitive biography to come. Klondike1 20:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Klondike1, you don't appear to have made any contributions to WP, ever. Could you put some info on your user page so we know who you are? Could you also explain how this article fits within WP:V? You assert that it is without saying how. Jaysbro 22:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Jaysbro, which item(s) that Jeff added do you think need to be cited? You should give him the opportunity to cite those that you wish to challenge. I'm curious, because I don't think very much of this article is controversial. Would you be making the same objection if Jeff had not mentioned his private collection? Xuehxolotl 00:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Xuehxolotl, why are you replying to a question I asked Klondike1? Anyway my answer is above, before the RFC section. Jaysbro 22:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Xuehxolotl, why are you and Mr. Smith suddenly focusing on "controversial" which was never an issue? Wikipedia does not shy away from controversy. I'm only concerned that the article be supported by verifiable sources. Jaysbro 22:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I did indeed stay away from the controversial and there is plenty, especially surrounding his death. My book will show that Soapy was actually shot while unarmed...with his own rifle! Which means he was murdered. I knew I would have to back that up with all my facts, that I am not willing to release until after my book is out. To show that the private collection of letters does exists, I ask you to see my website page dealing with my little museum [1] While you may not be able to actually read any of the letters and documents, you can see that they are everywhere, in display cases, in frames on the walls. This is but a very small sample. Soapy 02:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't mind controversy; you do not get any points for avoiding it. Adding more unverifiable facts to this talk page does not bolster your point. Nobody is disputing that the letters exist; I am calling into question their verifiability as per WP:V. Framed letters on a wall cannot be authenticated. Jaysbro 22:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

And why are you and Xuehxolotl bringing "controversy" into the discussion at the same time anyway when it was never an issue? Jaysbro 22:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Soapy and I are not the same person – we are fellow Western historians. Thank you for pointing out the specific issues you were questioning – that’s all I asked – so that they may be properly attributed or removed. Xuehxolotl 01:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am the great nephew of William Sydney "CAP" Light, a well-known Texas lawman, who was Soapy Smith's brother-in-law. While doing research on my own relatives, I stumbled across the "Soapy" connection. I have never met Jeff Smith, but have exchanged several emails with him. I have no "axe to grind" and nothing to gain by supporting his information. I have been to Temple, Texas and researched Soapy's family. I am presently researching Roundrock, Texas due to its connection and will be going to Abilene and Big Spring, Tx this coming March. Just this past September, I spent a whole week in Creede, Co. researching my own relatives and also Soapy Smith. There is no doubt that Soapy was a western "Robin Hood" of sorts. He was respected by the local Clergy and whores alike, simply because he treated all his friends with respect and was always the first to offer assistance in times of need. Was he a con man? Of course. Was he a thief? I'm sure. Did he cheat at cards? Not likely, because you didn't last too long in those days with a reputation as a card cheat. You might beat your wife and kick your dog, but don't get caught cheating at Poker. To sum it up, Soapy Smith was a Rascal and probably had many “illusions of grandeur.” I have found nothing in my research at the Creede museum, court records, newspaper archives, cemetery records, etc., etc., that disagrees with anything that Jeff Smith has published here or anywhere else about his Great Grandfather, Soapy Smith. Curtis Light Curtislight 06:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Curtislight 06:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• All of what you said is completely irrelevant to whether the information Mr. Smith posted is verifiable. Please see WP:V. Jaysbro 19:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Citations are welcome, althought I think that Mr. Smith has already honestly stated what his sources are. Most of the information he has added to the article is more detail to things others have already mentioned. He does not promote personal POV or unorthodox theories (in the shooting incident he states what sources his conclusions are based of) or try to invent details or events out of nowhere - Skysmith 12:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Who is allowed to take those tags/banners on the main article down? I think enough has been said to warrant it. Soapy 16:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • WP is freely editable. Anyone can take those tags/banners down, and anyone can put them back up again. Anyone can remove the offending material, and anyone can put that back too. Since there has not been a consensus yet about the verifiability of the information, if anybody removes the tags (or the questioned material) that person likely only stir things up further. Jaysbro 19:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Mr. Smith stated several times that his source was himself and his own research. That's not acceptable per WP policy. So far nobody has been able to provide any evidence that any of the information is verifiable as per WP:V. Jaysbro 19:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Jaysbro: I quote from the guidelines, Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material and non-notable or little-supported personal opinions that have not been published or supported by a reliable third party source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. There are no non-notable or little-supported personal opinions. This has all been published before as numerous people have been telling you. Soapy 19:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The issue is Verifiability, not original research. I was wrong about the definition of original research. Using yourself as a source is a violation of Verifiability, not Original Research. Please read the Verifiability page. Jaysbro 16:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)