Talk:Soapy Smith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article is part of WikiProject Alaska, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Alaska-related articles to a feature-quality standard.

Contents 1 Smith Soapy 2 About source for Soapy Smith 3 Is that Soapy in The Far Country 4 How could anyone honor this guy 5 Original research 6 Request for Comment 7 Message from Jeff Smith 8 Citing WP:V on the article page seems to be against policies and guidelines

[edit] Smith Soapy

Mr.Smith's estate at the time of death at the barrel of a winchester rifle was $500.00

For an excellent TV program see: Ghost Trails and Ghost Towns @ BCTV British Columbia , Canada. This show has unpresidented items of early 1800's pariphinalia; including gold bars and coins, stock and bond certificates. Thiis is thehas spent a lifetime in first hand study on these sites of early Americana and Canadiana.

== From Jeff Smith == (great grandson and family historian)

The above information is incorrect. According to estate records he had more, but court fee, and inquest costs were attached to Soapy's estate. By the time they were finished with the fees, Soapy had a tad over $100.00 to his name. Jeff Soapy Smith 23:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About source for Soapy Smith

• As of 1/9/2007 Jeff Smith and the Soapy Smith Preservation Trust will no longer contribute to this page. PLEASE NOTE: The information published after 1/9/2007 is not sanctioned or endorsed by the Trust. Thank you for your past support. Soapy 23:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My name is Jeff Smith, President of the Soapy Smith Preservation Trust. After spending over twenty years researching the life and death of my great grandfather, Jefferson Randolph ("Soapy") Smith, I am, without a doubt, the foremost authority on the subject. I was invited to re-write the Wiki page on Soapy. After much hesitation, due to the fact that anybody can make changes, I did so, and listed myself as the main source of information for the page. I apoligize, and thank, the previous authors. As of this date, the article is historically accurate. If such a time comes that too many incorrect edits are being made, I will remove my name, and association with the page, so as not to confuse people into believing that the Soapy Smith Preservation Trust, and the rest of the Smith family, endorses any incorrect information. This may come off as egotistical, but past lessons necessitate this kind of reaction. Currently, there are two books in publication that use my name as a source to "prove" false statements.

The Soapy Smith article, as it is now, is vague. Once my book is published, I will add more information and photographs. That being said, I look forward to working with Wikipedia. Jeff Soapy Smith 16:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is that Soapy in The Far Country

Someone claimed John McIntire was portraying Soapy in the 1955 film The Far Country. The film is set in Skagway, Alaska during the Klondike gold rush, and he does look like Soapy, but his part is that of Skagway sheriff "Gannon." It is possible that the film company feared legal issues, as Soapy's son was known for sueing film companies for using his fathers name. Does the original poster who placed this film on the Soapy Smith page have any additional information revealing that McIntire played Soapy? Otherwise, this posting might be removed as inaccurate. Soapy 15:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been one week since the poster listed the movie "The Far Country." I did not see or hear any information that John McIntire was portraying "Soapy," so I am deleting the information from the article. Soapy 03:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

After some more research, I opted to restore The Far Country. I did find that although the producers did not use Soapy by name, the character is loosely based on Soapy. Soapy 19:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How could anyone honor this guy

One thing I dont get is this part "Every year on July 8th, there are several wakes held around the U.S. in Soapy Smith's honor." ... Holy shit, this guy was probably one of the worst guys of his time - bringing pain to soo many people and ruin to lots of families. On top of that he was a murderer. How can anyone honor that? --Thomas 23:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Thomas, At the time Soapy was killed, Frank Reid was the hero and Soapy, the bad guy. No one would dispute that assertion. As the years went by and the fears of exportation from town waned, the old timers began to tell their stories. Several citizens claimed that Many, if not most, of the businesses in Skagway owed their success to Soapy. Soapy was the largest donator to charities according to the newspapers, which included building the first church and school, the volunteer fire department and the humane society that aided stray dogs and horses. Turns out Frank Reid was not the good guy portrayed in many history books. He had killed an unarmed man in Oregon and had worked for Soapy as a bartender, and was an instrumental member of the real estate grifters, selling lots in Skaguay to more than one owner. Many old timers stated there were two gangs vying for control of the city. The bunco men and the real estate grifters. Soapy was the undisputed leader of one, and Reid was a member of the other. The tide changed when the railroad moved into town. They backed the real estate grifters, why? because that group was willing to give total control over to the railroad company, and Soapy did not want them to have it all. Turns out it was a railroad man who fired the bullet that killed Soapy (this will all be explained in great detail in my upcoming biography on Soapy). So today, the roll of goodguy/badguy has been blurred greatly, some even going to a point of stating that "Soapy was not all bad." Yes, Soapy was a badman, of this there is no doubt, but a murderer? Hardly. If you are talking about the killing of Frank Reid, I will say that Soapy did not go meet Reid on the evening of July 8th to kill him. That was not the normal method of operation for Soapy and the bunco men, and Skaguay mirrored Denver and Creede, Colorado in the ways Soapy operated. If you are talking about all the deaths that occured on the trails, then I will state that none of these have been layed at Soapy's doorstep. These are bunco men we are talking about here. They were noted for using their brains, not their brawn. As the beginning dialog of the daily Soapy Smith play (Days of '98) in Skagway says: "No names of those portrayed in this play were changed to protect the innocent...because no one was innocent." Soapy 21:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the detailed answer "Soapy" :). Quite interesting that he has this 2 very different sides. It makes it so hard to judge what he really is - he spend a lot of money to charity ... but then again, this money he stole from the poor before that. And even the charity might have just suited his needs (e.g. getting reputation). I can still imagine so many people that I personally would consider more worth of these honors - even (or because) they didnt have the money to spend on charity.
    • With "murderer" I refered mostly to the part "He faced several assassination attempts and shot several of his assailants". Also you don't stay boss of the underworld, as nice man - ordering some liquidations I assumed part of the job.
    • His character is surely interesting - and more deep than "just criminal". And these times were tough indeed. Thanks for the insight. --Thomas 23:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
      • You are very welcome Thomas. Here's a little more insight on your comments: I don't pretend that Soapy was one of the good guys, but it was indeed hard to see Soapy's bad side while he was alive. There are many "good" people in the world that never give to the poor as Soapy always did. He did con his victims, but these were not the poor. He, along with all bunco men, depend, and go after people with money that tend to be greedy. Soapy would set up a victim to think he had a "sure-thing," and could not lose. Take three-card Monte for example. The operators bend a corner of the winning card and the greedy player thinks he is going to cheat the operator, but it is a trick to get the greedy to fork out more money. Soapy always felt vendicated in his methods as he felt the victims were more than willing to cheat him if they could. If you were not a greedy person, you really had little to worry about. The old saying "You can't cheat an honest man" rings true in this instance.
      • The business men of Skaguay in 1898 loved Soapy because he was keeping money in circulation in town, rather than going with the miners to the Klondike. Then he used that money to help build up the town. After his death, old friends and members of the gang continued to visit his grave and his widow in St. Louis. A decade after Soapy was killed one old member of the gang in Denver refused to bad mouth his old friend in the newspapers. Now that's loyality! Soapy 20:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• There is no Hollywood good guys and bad guys in the real world - Skysmith 10:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Request for Comment

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)

[edit] Message from Jeff Smith

I wish to thank all those who have supported this page from the very beginning. Sadly Wikipedia has sided with Jaysbro being that I won't release my research until after my book is published. As of 1/9/2007 the Smith family no longer will be apart of this page. Jaysbro, congrats, the page is yours. Soapy 23:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• What do you mean, Wikipedia has sided with me? I only saw one other user on my side in the whole discussion, and no admins ever weighed in. In any event, when your book gets published and it and your sources get commented on and written about by notable experts, feel free to come back, make chanes, and cite those sources. Jaysbro 16:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I note you went to my User page so you did know that ONE volunteer administrator took your side, no matter how wrong he was. I don't recall anyone else siding with you. I enjoyed your attempt to discredit my expertise by stating that I would be "welcomed back when other notable experts comment and write about my upcoming book." Since when do the students grade the teacher? I sense great jealousy coming from you. As the recognized foremost historian on Soapy Smith (whether you agree, or not) I am paid well to speak on him (see the About Jeff page on my website to view a partial list of organizations I have lectured for). I note that you have not tried to alter the information on the page, good for you. As long as it stays up people will be able to read the true, previously documented and published facts regarding his life. One of the main reasons I am backing off from Wikipedia is the vandalism. I no longer have the time to constantly battle (and yet here I am) what is described by other users as "destroyers" much like yourself, who find any thread of a loop-hole to attempt to try and make themselves look good. Just know that you can only do that here on Wikipedia, where information changes faster than a toxic diaper. As for me? The world is my oyster. If you happen to be in Yucca Valley, California at the White Horse Movie Ranch on January 27, 2007 or at the Coweta County Historical Society museum in Newnan, Georgia on March 24, 2007 come by and catch my presentations. I will be displaying some of the documents talked about in previous postings here. Soapy 19:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citing WP:V on the article page seems to be against policies and guidelines

I have scanned this Talk Page and I understand that there is an issue about the verifiability of the assertions made in the article. That notwithstanding, I do not believe that the big quotation of WP:V in the middle of the article is warranted and so I am removing it. If there is disagreement, please re-insert it but also please explain your reasoning for doing so here. --Richard 15:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I am moving the {{verifiability}} template to the top of this talk page. I have no objection whatsoever to the point made by the template and fully support it. What I do object to is having it prominently displayed in the text of the article. --Richard 15:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I think you made a good choice to remove the template from the article itself. --Yksin 18:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)