Vintagetes

I would like to see the unsubstantiated and slanderous references removed from this article. 1. No member of the Shirleys rode with the Quantrill raiders. There are several lists of Quantrills men . The James brothers, the Youngers and James Reed are on those lists. James Reed was 17 when he rode with Quantrill.2. John Allison (not Alexander) Shirley rode with a group of Carthage, Missouri men who wanted to join Gen. Jo Shelby in his raids againt the Union in Missouri. The young John A. Shirley was called Captain Shirley by the local confederate sympathizers. These groups were called partisans by some and bushwackers by Union sympathizers.3. It is alleged in this article that Belle committed a number of crimes and yet there is no documentation for these crimes other than the horse stealing charge on which she and her husband Jim July were convicted.In the US we are are innocent until proven guilty. 4. Rosie Lee Reed was the daughter of Belle and Jim Reed. She was not Cole Youngers daughter , See Cole Youngers and Jesse James Memoirs. Belle Shirleys behavior was often "scandalous" to people of those times, however, then as now , gossips exagerrated and often manufactured scandal in an attempt to humiliate a woman who was flamboyant, opinionated, and often arrogant.5. There is no proof that Belle Starr slept around.In fact she didnt even know Blue Duck but was merely asked by his defense attorney to pose with him in a photo. See Glen Shirleys Book Belle Starr and Her Times5. There was a great deal of circumstantial evidence that Edgar Watson killed Belle Starr. There is no evidence other than hearsay that Belles son was involved in her murder. 6. I would like to see Belle Starr placed in the historical context of her times using links to other wiki articles about "States Rights" , the "Missouri Compromise" , the border wars and the Civil War in Missouri. While I am a Shirley cousin, I am of course appalled that Belles family chose the Confederate cause. Her grandfather ,Christian Shirley,(See the Shirley Association website for her genealogy) belonged to a branch of Reformed Lutherans who did not believe in slavery.Vintagetes (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I came to your page hoping to find that you had contributed further to Wikipedia. I find that you were never welcomed, never received any feedback, positive or negative. When I see a nonexistant talk page (I don't have any problem with you using it as a sandbox, I've used mine the same way in the past. It's not customary, but that's not to say it's WRONG. Consensus decides all these things, and consensus requires people to be BOLD, to choose their own course.), I feel a bit of sadness, an opportunity lost. Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot be all things to all people. You have 'followed the rules' by announcing your personal interest in Belle Starr, putting all of your inside information on the talk page, proposing the changes rather than making them yourself. This saves confusion, possibly contention, down the road. Unfortunately, as you most likely are aware, some articles get more attention than others. This is not my first visit to Belle's article. I returned today to check a link I had created. Certain categories get neglected by editors, but that makes for opportunities for those who would like to correct inequity. Heroes get more visits than villains (in general), and men more than women. This is unfortunate, but fact. Biographical falsehoods cannot be totally wiped out here, usually, as rewriting history is not an encyclopedic mandate. But often progress can be made, at least in the direction of a more balanced presentation. The outrageous characters of the old west sold lots of newspapers and 'dime novels.' An argument could be made that they, along with other characters, of otger frontiers, are responsible in a large way for the development of the vigorous American publishing industry, certainly including lots of exagerations and other inaccuracies. You seem to have a good grasp of what a secondary source is, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that you refrained from editing based on OR. On the other hand, it's been 7 years! If your arguments and sources have not been represented (in fact, after only a few months), I would see nothing wrong with your making those edits. Since you seem no longer to be around, I will do my best with them, or if someone else has or does, so much the better. And thanks for making your points. Just having them on the talk page gives them exposure, to those of us who dig! rags (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)