Talk:Doc Holliday/Archive 1

Holliday in Popular Culture
Somebody has added the Wiki box suggesting that this particular section of Doc's bio doesn't conform to the "formal" encyclopedia tone expected of a Wiki article. I didn't write most of this section, but my general response is: "why should it?" The encyclopedic style is fine for most of this article, but in this particular "pop culture" section we discuss something more nebulous, which is the impact of Holliday on the national psyche, and on art and pop culture. Should this be a separate article?

And what do we do for the separate article? This is part of a more general issue. Wikipedia has entries on a number of pop culture things, from rock and roll bands to particular modern films, which would never appears in the Britannica. Should they all be removed, or should they be rewriten in Britannica style? Do you even want to read an article on Alice Cooper (say) or Night of the Living Dead part II, as they might appear in the Britannica?? Somebody is very confused, or very conflicted, on what Wiki "should" be (or perhaps, on what it already IS). So read the Wiki on Alice Cooper, and get back to me.

As a further addition, I'm having problems with the idea that all POVs are equally valid (let's disregard engineering and the sciences where opinions can tested objectively). If POVs are qually valid they would need to be equally represented. But there's not space for that. However, for many things there's a majority POV and it should get majority space. Most cultural icons are cultural icons for a reason. That they are icons is a fact. There's not much point in devoting equal space to the few people (and there are always a few) who can't stand them, and think they shouldn't be. Sbharris 03:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Doc Holliday (band)
"Doc Holliday" is also the name of a Southern Rock band. Their "the last ride" on "Doc Holliday rides again" of 1981 is a classic heavy metal song about motorbike riding. The band has a website Doc Holliday --Matthead 03:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Photograph section
Surely we can get someone to better organize that section (someone with more knowledge of formating than I have. Donwilson 04:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Can't help more than I have. I did take out the Earp photo which was messing this section up somewhat. The Kilmer photo actually works to introduce Doc in popular culture, but we're going to get flack from the Quaid fans. Feel free to add an equal size Quaid one right here.Steve 02:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction
In this section

The dedicated gambler, gunman reputation

We have this

One documented instance happened when Holliday was employed during that railroad dispute. On July 19th, 1879, Holliday and noted gunman John Joshua Webb were seated in a saloon in Las Vegas, New Mexico, when a former Army scout named Mike Gordon began yelling loudly at one of the saloon girls. When the man stormed from the saloon, Holliday followed him. Gordon produced his pistol and fired one shot, missing. Holliday immediately drew and fired, killing Gordon. Holliday was placed on trial for the shooting, but was acquitted, much based on the testimony of Webb. [1]

Then in this section

Tombstone, Arizona Territory

We have this

Despite Doc Holliday's reputation for deadliness over the years, which has grown in the telling, Tom McLaury remains the only man that there is contemporary historical evidence that Holliday killed up to that point. There is little doubt that there were later victims of Holliday during the Earp Vendetta Ride, but evidence is sketchy.

Didn't the Gordon Incident happen before the McLaury one?


 * It did, but the problem is that there's no good contemporary evidence Doc killed Gordon. A drunk girl-grazed Gordon did fire a shot or two into Webb and Doc's saloon in Las Vegas, NM July 19, 1879 (more than two years before the OK Corral incident). This fire was returned by one or more citizens but the newspapers of the time don't say who. One hit Gordon in the high chest/shoulder and he died the next morning. The coroner's jury returned justifiable homicide. There's no historical evidence Doc was ever tried for this. The article claiming the facts does not give its own references, and I'm going to ask for cite. No, Doc didn't leave town because of this incident. The stories of Doc having killed Gordon come from reform politicos in Las Vegas writing years later, trying to make hay of Doc's (by then) even worse reputation. And Bat Masterson, who was known for a tall tale, and in any case didn't like Doc, wrote in 1886 that Doc had killed Gordon. But none of this is strong evidence. S  B Harris 11:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Get It Straight!
Has no one read the Fourth Horseman. It is John Henry Holliday's biography. I think, before you write about someone, you should research ALL materials on their life. You only give one point of view for Doc Holliday's life. While he was no hero, he was not a cold blooded vicious killer either. He simple had a death wish in my opinion. He didn't want to drown in his own blood one night while hemorraging. Who would? Also you implied he that he was a drunk and not a very good marksmen. Well, if that were so he would've never had a legend grow from his life. He had to be somewhat good in order to survive several shoot-outs wouldn't he? Just because you don't have concrete proof doesn't mean it didn't happen. If your going to report on someones life, make sure you get them from the right angle. I've looked at several pages on this site for westerners. All the ones I have read have been negative. Either they are crooked lawmen, or cheating gamblers, or they are back shooters and rapist. No author alive was there back then. You cannot cast untrue images of people without knowing them. I would appriciate it if you could write without making strong willed people, who opened the way west for us, look like petty criminals or killers. No one is concerned about YOUR view of these people. We want to know them! Also it was reported he shot a carpetbagger and his driver before he ever left Georgia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.223.40.130 (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC).


 * The Roberts and Tanner full length bios (1998 and 2006) have been read and used for this article. If you have another one you like better, cite it fully. Not counting cartoon versions (Bob Boze Bell uses mostly Tanner's material), there are at least 5 full- length book bios of Doc (all of which I've read carefully), but only these last 2 are very good (fully citing sources, and not trying to get inside Doc's mind when he left us no letters). If you have something you think is better, fully cite it and tell us why you think it's better than the other bios out there (which I assume you've read-- you do demand we look at "all sides", right?). As to how good Doc was, there aren't many newspaper and witness verified shoot-outs to go from, save the OK Corral fiasco, and the Milt Joyce saloon fiasco-- neither of which make Doc look all that good (he shot an unarmed man with a shotgun in the first, and shot other guys in the hand and foot on other occasions and only survived because the law took him in hand before he could be clobbered). If you have other evidence, let's see it. S  B Harris 22:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Holliday OR Halliday?
Reading about this topic, I have noticed a couple of things.

The newspaper article reporting the gunfight at the O.K. Corral lists "J.H.Halliday" which could just be a typographical error, but Doc's own autographed photo is spelt "Halliday" as well. Have a closer look.



His handwritten "o" in Yours has a small loop at the top which runs straight across into the next letter. The second letter of his surname appears to be an "a" - the loop of the "a" is properly closed (unlike the "o") and finishes on the bottom line as an "a" should. Doc was clearly a literate man.

Has everyone been misspelling his name all these years?

I note the Cesar Romero's character was also called Doc Halliday in Frontier Marshal (1939). DrX au 06:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting observation, but I'm not so sure it has been misspelled. The newspaper article could either be a typo or it could be that the author of the article didn't know how it was spelled when he was writing it. Just as an observation, handwriting often varies, even in signatures, depending on the circumstances. Myself, I'm not so sure the loop of the "o" goes as far down to an even line as the other letters do, so it's a bit ambivalent.


 * A bit more digging is in order. The biography of Holliday that was written by a descendant family member - Doc Holliday: A Family Portrait", Karen Holliday Tanner, University of Omaha Press, 1998, ISBN 0-8061-3036-9 - confirms that the family, at least now, spells it with the "O". In and of itself, that doesn't prove the correct spelling.


 * We know that Doc's father was named Henry Burroughs Holliday, he was in the 27th Regiment of the Georgia Infantry, and he was a Confederate. So, checking in the Civil War Soldiers and Sailors System of the National Parks Service, we find his listing. The information there is taken from the actual enlistment General Index Card, and it is, indeed, spelled Holliday. Hmm, maybe I should add that as a reference!! Hope this helps answer your question. Wildhartlivie 07:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The handwriting analysis is inconclusive, but comparing the letter in question with the loops completing the 2nd "l" and "d" as opposed to the "o" in yours creates doubt for me.


 * The way you write your own name has to carry more weight than what some army recruitment clerk wrote, but that's useful evidence. I'd like to see his birth certificate.


 * Thanks for your helpful response. DrX au 23:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Photo of Doc
One thing we need to get straight first, is the picture of "Doc." I don't think the one being that was used in the first Wiki bio, is Holliday. It doesn't look like the only authentic closeup of doc, which is the 1872 graduation portrait of the 20-year old Holliday in Karen Holliday Tanner's book _Doc Holliday: a Family Portrait_ (the one I've put up now). That one is of an "ash blond" man (as in Wyatt's description). Also, the authentic (but poor quality) standing portrait of Doc in Prescott from 1879 (which is signed) shows he hadn't changed all that much, by then. The "other" guy, in the 3 photos we have of this other guy, not only has darker hair but also different ears and I think a squarer chin. I don't think it's Doc. I've labeled them all as questionable but put them in, and haven't even included the various photos of yet other men who are not even close to being Doc. The standing 1879 Prescott photo should eventually be included in the bio, but I've yet to find a print good enough to digitize.

On advice about pre-1923 photos, I've copied a bunch of "Doc" photos from various old sources, none of which are copyrightable.

Sbharris 03:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sbharris, below [above], is correct. The only documented photos of John Henry Holliday, aside from a baby picture included in the Tanner book, are the graduation photo as displayed in the entry here, and the 1879 Prescott photo, which, quality aside, IMO, really needs to be included in the entry. All other images--and there are many of them in circulation--are to one degree or another problematic at best in terms of their provenance. However, of this latter group, there are two the provenance of which clearly is superior to the others. Both are portraits rather than photos. One is the professional portrait that currently hangs in the Glenwood Springs Historical Society and Museum building, dating, as I recall, from 1883 or 4. The other is a pen-and-ink drawing located by writer/researcher Mark Dworkin in the Yale Unviersity library depicting an ailing Doc in Glenwood Springs. My own advice would be to replace the photos in the entry--save, of course, the graduation photo, which ought remain--with the Prescott photo and, with proper qualification, the two portraits. (68.20.35.4 18:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)user: Bruce Olds, author, BUCKING THE TIGER)


 * "Bucking the Tiger" = playing against the dealer and owner of the "game" in a saloon, yes? If you can find and upload the drawings, that would be great. I'll try putting in a version of the headpart of the 1979 Precott standing photo and see how bad/good it comes out. I still haven't made up my mind about the "Bowler Hat" Tombstone photos. It could be Doc with heavily blackened hair. Such tints were available. There's a newspaper interview to the effect that soon after going from Tombstone to Colorado he was seen in a new black suit, and that fits with him buying one in Tombstone in early 1882 and what we're told happened to his old navy-blue suit (probably the one he wears in the Prescott photo, which is light and probably colored), which is the one Doc reportedly gave to the Earps to lay out the murdered Morgan in, in March 1882. If he bought the new suit a bit before that, that would explain the photo session: it's several portraits of Doc in his new duds, with a new haircut and tint to go with it. Except I can't believe Doc would buy a bowler hat, since there's a record of him making fun of a man wearing one! We also know Bat Masterson favored a bowler, and since he and doc didn't like each other, that's another thing to make you scratch your head about that headgear. Perhaps he changed his mind, as people who laugh first at something will.  Maybe it was borrowed just for the session.  S  B Harris 19:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

cperko1 The image of Doc with the oval matte looks more like a drawing to me... is there documentation that it is a photo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cperko1 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)