Talk:William Desmond Taylor

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

message: In the text of the article it states Minter's age as 19. However, according to the book WORLD FAMOUS UNSOLVED CRIMES, apparently it was revealed in the aftermath of the murder of Taylor that Miss Minter's age was 30, not 20 (or 19 as listed in the article). Halfabeet (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read Colin Wilson's recap of the Taylor case.  It is very unreliable and contains many errors.  I have a copy of Minter's birth certificate, which states 1902.--Pikabruce (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mary Miles Minter

message: In the book WORLD FAMOUS UNSOLVED CRIMES by the eminent Colin Wilson, it states that it was later revealed that Sands was in fact Taylor's brother, Denis, who had come to America with him years before. Wilson is usually a very reliable source Halfabeet (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That notion was debunked long ago, the two did not even resemble each other. As the article says, many later authors used newspaper reports which they did not understand had been sensationalized and even fictionalized. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sands

message: I fail to see how Gibson's history of lying and blackmail can seriously be put forward as evidence of her credibility.  Under normal circumstances, doesn't a proven history of dishonesty actually hurt credibility?Revmagpie (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to read Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and original research. As editors, our opinions on her credibility have no sway. This said, referring to Gibson as having a "history of lying and blackmail" is not supported as such. The actress had a history of arrests for prostitution and blackmail (with no convictions). Gwen Gale (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  So being arrested and prosecuted but not convicted of prostitution and blackmail doesn't support the idea that she has a history of lying and blackmail, but not being arrested, prosecuted or convicted of murder does support the claim that she shot Taylor?  Interesting...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revmagpie (talk • contribs) 05:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that "As editors, our opinions on her credibility have no sway", which is why I don't think that the description of Gibson's confession as "credible", or passages that attempt to argue (directly or indirectly) that Gibson's confession should be accepted--absent any corroboration-- as credibleshould be in this or any related article (except perhaps the one about Gibson herself).Revmagpie (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said anything supports a claim she shot Taylor. All that matters here is what the sources say. If you can provide some verifiable sources which dispute her confession (or the report of it), by all means let's put them in the article too. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "All that matters here is what the sources say." Exactly, and none of the sources cited are in any position to state that Gibson's confession is "credible" (and in fact Mr. Long never does).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revmagpie (talk • contribs) 06:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~). The article cites three sources to support use of the phrase "wide credibility." Another is cited above but hasn't made it into the article yet (I've added it now). Wide credibility does not mean "everyone thinks she did it." Gwen Gale (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, you seem to be confusing "wide credibility" with "wide distribution".  And two of your three sources are merely summarizing the first (Taylorology), which again makes no comment on the credibility of Gibson's confessionRevmagpie (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my note above on use of the word credible: It need not be used by the cited source. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Wide credibility" may not mean "everyone thinks she did it", but it does imply "a lot of people think her confession is true".Revmagpie (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Truth be told, it implies a lot of folks think her confession may be true. The article clearly states that no independent confirmation of her confessed role in the murder has emerged and that the murder is officially unsolved. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If "a lot of folk think her confession "may" be true", with no independent confirmation to support that belief, then they have come to their conclusion based on nothing but opinion--again that is not a neutral point of view.Revmagpie (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Following WP:V, lack of independent confirmation does not prevent the sourced inclusion of Gibson's reported confession. However, please see my comment about the word credible in the next section, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gibson's credibility 

message: "...none of the sources cited are in any position to state that Gibson's confession is "credible" (and in fact Mr. Long never does).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revmagpie (talk • contribs) 06:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Pikabruce.  That is all I'm suggesting.Revmagpie (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It should be noted that Pikabruce has identified himself as Bruce Long on my talk page. He has said here that he would "allow Gibson a 10% probability of being connected with the murder." Being as all the references are circular references to Long - I think it is high time editor GwenGale backs off on this matter. Her own source is disputing her "synthesis". Cleo123 (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Being as all the references are circular references to Long..."  I do not regard the statements of the witness on the televised History Channel documentary as a "circular reference to Long." --Pikabruce (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed any use of the word credible in reference to Gibson's reported confession from the article, since this characterisation seems to be causing much dispute. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gibson's Credibility, 2 

message: The alleged confession of Gibson, which I continue to contend as improperly sourced, has no place in the opening paragraph of this article. This is an unsolved murder. That is the fact. Inserting this information into the opening paragraph is IMO an act of editorial bias. The article reads as if Wikipedia is trying to offer readers "its" solution to the murder. It reads as if we are trying to "lead" readers to a conclusion. I am removing it in accordance with WP:NPOV. Although I am very busy for the next couple of days; I think may be worthwhile to open an RFC regarding Taylorolgy as a reliable source and the neutrality of this article and Gibson's biography. When I have the time, that is what I will do, if someone else doesn't do it first. I think some objective "outside" eyes might be helpful in resolving this content dispute.
I will also note that Raphael Long's interview with the History Channel is apparently scheduled to be re-run on the History Channel this Saturday, April 3, at 12:00am. I plan to record it and compile additional information on Ralph Long. Whenever possible first hand sources are always preferable. I believe we should stick to the facts and allow our readers to decide for themselves how credible Long's revelations are. Cleo123 (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: His name is Bruce Long, not Ralph Long. You still seem to be showing a thorough lack of familiarity with the sources relating to Taylor's murder and truth be told, I think you now may be edit warring for your own PoV that Gibson could not have possibly killed Taylor, rather than a neutral reading of the sources. I don't support this latest edit of yours, nor your edit summary which implies that including a sourced mention of Gibson in the lead is PoV (especially since the lead text already said the case is officially unsolved). I am especially worried to see you carry on with cutting material from the article without discussing your thoughts and building consensus on the talk page first. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: As I mentioned in a note left I left on your talk page on March 21st; I suggest that you actually take the time to READ the original source material that you continue to site as your rationale for edit warring on this article. When you do - you'll find that that the "widely credible" witness you cite as justification for your antics is named RAPHAEL LONG. The only thing being revealed here is your own lack of familiarity with the facts surrounding this case. And AGAIN - you DO NOT WP:OWN this article. No one needs your prior permission to make edits which conform to Wikipedia's policies. Cleo123 (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, the witness was Raphael Long, the source was Bruce Long's Taylorology. In the meantime, please take a moment and review WP:CIVIL (along with WP:ICA) and if you can, please try not to capitalize whole words, since this can be alikened to shouting. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Glad to see that you acknowledge your mistake. As for WP:CIVIL AND WP:ICA the contribution history clearly demonstrates that you are the editor who needs to review those policies. FYI, capitalization of entire sentences is interpreted as shouting. Capitalization of individual words for emphasis is considered perfectly appropriate polite Internet Protocol. Cleo123 (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is driven mostly by our disagreement over a source, along with how it has been presented in the article narrative. Please read my thoughts below, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Given the apparent good faith disagreement(s) over sources and content, I'm ok with keeping any references to Gibson only in the Margaret Gibson and Case still officially open sections of the article. I think it's unlikely the MSN source will ever meet WP:RS. Taylorology is mostly a vast collection of reproduced primary sources which I believe holds up handily under WP:RS. However, although I have never seen a hint of published scepticism (aside from that MSN blurb, which is unattributed and so sweeping as to be demonstrably false) over Taylorology's publication of Gibson's reported confession, I would like to say again that any published commentary on her reported confession from a reasonably reliable and attributable source, of whatever take or outlook, should be helpfully added as it shows up. An example would be, "Writer Foo in her book Bar (2003) dismissed the delayed report of Gibson's confession as 'utter codswallop.'" Meanwhile, with the removal of Gibson's name from the lead along with any references to the report's credibility I hope we can stabilize the discussion among ourselves for now, talk about these sources some more as time allows and wait for other editors to have their say. How does this sound to everyone? If I'm missing anything, please let me know. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gibson does not belong in the opening paragraph 

message: In the past few months there have been many media interviews with Kimberly Peirce the director of Stop-Loss.  In a lot of those interviews she discusses her preparation work for a William Desmond Taylor film, which has not yet been made.  When discussing that Taylor project, she says she has solved the case.  For example, in the Washington Post it says: So Peirce says she solved the murder ("We did! I'm a big researcher"),... There are links to many of her media interviews on the Kimberly Peirce Fan Website; I've only looked at a few of them, but the claim to have solved the Taylor murder appears repeatedly.  In the interview at Movies Online, she says, "I got everything that had ever been written on it. We solved the murder mystery. We figured out who did it, how they did it, and how and why it had to be covered up."
I'm not sure if this is worthy of noting in Taylor's Wikipedia article (or on Peirce's Wikipedia article) so I'm tossing it up for possible discussion here.  --Pikabruce (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd wait until the movie is released and then start a cultural references section (if one isn't begun by then). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kimberly Peirce's solution? 

message: Alma Rubens didn't die until 1931. Your paragraph refers to scandals of the early 1920's that brought about morality clauses.  As her tragic death and downfall occured long after the introduction of these morality clauses, I have removed her name from the paragraph so it does not contain this innaccuracy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.47.13 (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 2009 

message: The recent numerous edits by Kingstowngalway seem to be primarily sourced to Giroux's "A Deed of Death", which contains many errors. Some of the errors were included in those edits (like the erroneous statement that Taylor was in the Canadian Army). Just because material has appeared in a book does not make it a trustworthy source or worthy of inclusion in a Wikipedia article. The Peavey abduction incident is probably more suited to the page on Henry Peavey than here, and if it is included it should be based on the verbatim statements made by Peavey and Woolwine, and not on Giroux's inaccurate second-hand retelling of Muir's account. --Pikabruce (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kingstowngalway edits 

message: I'm doubtful about the 21 December 2011 edits made by Lockley. I have seen no contemporary evidence that Taylor directed A Soul Astray, A Story of Little Italy, The Son of Thomas Gray, The Beggar Child, The Song of the Sea Shell, or A Slice of Life.  Taylor's film career is fairly well documented, and I have seen nothing to indicate that he worked for American Film until 1915. IMDB is very unreliable.  According to the scholarly U.C. Santa Barbara web site http://www.filmandmedia.ucsb.edu/flyinga , A Soul Astray was directed by Thomas Ricketts; A Story of Little Italy and The Son of Thomas Gray were directed by Lorimer Johnston; The Beggar Child, The Song of the Sea Shell and A Slice of Life were directed by Henry Otto;    Even if Taylor did direct those films (which I doubt), what makes them "notable"?  They were not feature films and made no impact, then or afterward.  If they are listed, then I suggest the "notable" adjective be deleted.  --Pikabruce (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Pikabruce, I've reverted that edit.  I agree with you that IMDb is unreliable.  My source was other wikipedia pages that list Taylor as director.  My intent was simply to provide links and consolidate information about his films on this page.  I'll go further and correct the cited director on those six films based on your UCSB link.  Glad to see an accuracy watchdog like yourself on this page.  Cheers!  --Lockley (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Yes, unfortunately many other web sites use IMDB as their source, making the errors there seem more credible because they are found on so many sites.  --Pikabruce (talk) 10:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lockley edits 

message: This has no source.  On the other hand, Sydney D. Kirkpatrick in "A Cast of Killers" says "And the family wasn't from a long and important line of Irish families, as Taylor had told many of his Hollywood friends, but from a simple hard-working, and uprigth Catholic family..." (p. 40, 1987 Penguin ed).  The Wiki article linked to at "Anglo-Irish people" specifies that Anglo-Irish means probably Anglican but at least Protestant affiliation. Now, I have no reason to take Kirkpatrick's word over that of the author of this article, but a source would be good.   --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree with you, I don't think it is a good description of his family. I have gotten a book from a local Irish researcher which might help clear that up a little. I would also think that the term "Irish-American" implies that he is first or second generation American to an Irish family rather than an Irish immigrant, what do people think? Smirkybec (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Anglo-Irish gentry" 

message: Why use British English when he was an American and most of his life was spent in the USA? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: British English

message: More substance should be required before including the speculative rumor that Norma Desmond's name was taken from Taylor's middle name and Mabel Normand's last name. In lack of solid evidence, it seems more likely that Norma was taken from Norma Talmadge and Desmond was probably taken from the actor William Desmond.Pikabruce (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Norma Desmond

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on William Desmond Taylor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.literateweb.com/taylor/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150818191923/http://www.taylorology.com/issues/Taylor50.txt to http://www.taylorology.com/issues/taylor50.txt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Shortly before she died in 1964, Gibson reportedly confessed to murdering Taylor."
"Reportedly" is being used here to sneak in an uncited assertion.
The word means that there is a report of the factoid and yet no report is cited.
::A reference was cited on the Margaret Gibson (actress) page, and has now been repeated in the article page. Pikabruce (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reportedly"