Talk:Cochise County Cowboys

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cochise County Cowboys article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Crime and Criminal Biography: Organized crime Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Organized crime task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Mexico Low‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Old West / Arizona Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject American Old West (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Arizona portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Mid-importance).

I don't know what a header is or how to sign a post

What is the significance of their political leanings on the article and are they represented in conjunction with party ideals of the time? Otherwise I see no reason to keep the mention of political preference if not validated. Hitler was a Nazi party member, Shclockendorffle is a Neo-Nazi. They are not the same - nor are they polar opposites but the distinction is quite clear. The article needs to reflect this in some way. Very UNWiki to throw that in there the way it is. User: 65.27.44.56 (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

Well, you successfully created a header, unless I am mistaken. The sig is very simple. Don't overthink it. You could, I suppose, create one manually, but the MediaWiki way is not only easier and much faster, it also creates a kind of credibility, sorta. Just look on your keyboard for the tilde, the "~" symbol. (On a typical qwerty desktop keyboard, look at the upper lefthand corner, to the left of the "1" key. My phone, standard Android font, has it in the alternate symbols, 'SHIFT "5".) When you have had your say, type 4 of them, thusly: "~~~~". The MW firmware will create your sig, along with a date/timestamp in Greenwich/"universal" time. Type ONLY the ~'s, not all the wiki markup rigamarole I used above, which I used to prevent the creation of my own signature. Three tildes creates a sig w/o datetime stamp, if memory serves.

I realize this post may be a decade or more old. I just see so many talkpages filled with unsigned comments, and in spite of various efforts by sundry eds. there is still confusion about this simple conclusion to a task. I usually leave 2 spaces before the tildes, but that's just me: rags (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Cowboys

Considering "The Cowboys" is not a brand name or something, there is no reason why the word "The" needs to be in the title or emboldened in the opening paragraph.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree, and I am glad no one has moved this. We have many readers from around the globe, and if this reduces confusion with those less familiar with the American "Olde West", all the better. We are not talking about cowboys in general, here, of 'the cowboy code,' "Wild West " shows, dime novel mythos. We are referring to a specific group of outlaws from a specific place and time, who intentionally self-identified as Cowboys in a sort of blatant 'in your face' disregard, even an agrandizement, if you will. Despicable. "They robbed the stage ... killed the driver and all aboard ...". These were not typical beloved singin', poetizin', coming to the rescue Roy Rogers — Audie Murphy cowboys. The distinction is important.

As far as capitalizing 'The', MOS mandates a cap for the first word of an article title, and within the article I believe it helps emphasize the distinction. rags (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Capitilization of "Cowboy"

The usage of "Cowboy" in the article is based on the usage by Professor Douglas O. Linder, American author, narrator, and historian, in his article The Earp-Holliday Trial: An Account. It's a formal noun used to refer to those who were outlaws. Unless someone can post a reason why, I will revert those uses of "cowboy" as outlaws) from lower-case to initial caps that have been made previously. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 07:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable source?

User:GenQuest, I am startled to find that you consider history.com an unreliable source. Their series, This Day in History, appears to be well cited, for example Wyatt Earp uses these sources:

Who Was Wyatt Earp? American Heritage.
The Life of Wyatt Earp. PBS: American Experience.
Wyatt Earp. West Adams Heritage Association.

Please provide some reference to this finding. Thank you. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 03:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, btphelps, See the perrennial sources for discussion entry at History Channel; History (The History Channel), at history.com. 1 2 3. "Most editors consider The History Channel generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for accuracy and its tendency to broadcast programs that promote conspiracy theories."

History.com is basically one step away from being totally deprecated and has been pretty much unusable for several years now. GenQuest ^"scribble" 06:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]