Talk:Doc Holliday/Archive 3

Poor proofreading - needs amendments
This section ...

''The posse Spence's wood cutting camp in the South Pass in the Dragoon Mountains. They found and killed Florentino "Indian Charlie" Cruz.'' During which "Curly Bill"Brocius and at least two other men thought to be responsible for Morgan's death were killed.

... is poorly written / proofread. There's a verb missing after "posse"; "wood-cutting" needs a hyphen to avoid ambiguity; "During which" (which shouldn't be starting a sentence anyway) does not refer back to anything; There should be a space after "Curly Bill". It needs tidying up. 88.108.96.33 (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Another Photo
There is another recurring photo of Doc Holliday, as seen here for example: http://trianglecranch.com/catalog/images/doc_Holliday_001.jpg

There aren't websites that specifically compare this to the other Holliday images, but it is often given as a graphic on articles or sits about him. Does anyone have any information regarding that picture, also found here:

http://groovyvic.mu.nu/archives/images/Doc%20Holliday.jpg http://www.s9.com/Biography/Holliday-John-Henry

and other sites. Should this picture be included in photograph comparisons as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.24.164 (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have had this picture examined by two forensic photograph analysts. Both say this is not the same person who appears in the other purported photos of Doc Holliday. Texas Star Thrower 13:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zambaman (talk • contribs)

Lead photograph is obviously wrong
I don't think the beautifully perfect studio photograph currently used as the lead picture could possibly be Doc Holliday. Doesn't resemble him in the slightest except for the moustache and comes from an article also blithely using photos of actors Kurt Russell, Val Kilmer, and Sam Elliott from the movie Tombstone as illustrations! The fellow in the photo looks extremely familiar but I think it's some actor or other, certainly not Doc Holliday. I recognize him but can't quite place him. I went through the list of actors who played Holliday, trying to figure out where the source article got this guy, and it could be young Dennis Hopper, who played Holliday toward the beginning of his career but I don't think so. (Coincidentally, Hopper's son Henry Hopper looks like the real Holliday, though.) Upsmiler (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Actors
It is possible this gunfighter may have been a possible influence for the t.v. series Maverick and the film Maverick.--74.34.91.138 (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's possible. Proving it is something else. Personally I think Holliday is the inspiration for Ratso Rizzo, lung disease and all, with Jon Voight doing a very sarcastic version of sometime-pimp Wyatt Earp (in the modern Big City Version, the cowboy sells himself on the streets). But that's just me. S  B Harris 01:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's actually a very interesting observation regaring Midnight Cowboym hadn't thought of that before.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Burial
I just noticed that the box to the right states his resting place to be Pioneer Cemetery, where as the article notes Linwood Cemetery. Just wanted to point this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmf1025 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing. It is actually formally Pioneer/Linwood Cemetary see here, having been renamed since his burial. I'll change it. The map coords are correct. S  B Harris 00:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced content
Archiving content unsourced aince 2011 here:

There are many supposed photos of Holliday, most of which do not quite match each other. The one clearly visible adult portrait known to be authentic is the March 1872 Pennsylvania School of Dental Surgery graduation photo taken when Holliday was 20. This photo shows a light-haired man with light and slightly asymmetrical eyes, a thin mustache, and fine features. It matches the other known authentic photo, a poor-quality (but signed) photo of a standing Holliday taken in Prescott, Arizona Territory, in 1879, the year before he went to Tombstone.

The 1879 photo, of known provenance, is of very poor quality and barely distinguishable. It shows Holliday had not changed a great deal in seven years, though he sported a larger mustache and perhaps also an imperial beard (triangular bit of hair below the lower lip, combined with a mustache). In the 1879 photo, Holliday is also wearing a tie with a diamond stickpin, which he was known to have worn habitually and which was among his few possessions (minus the diamond) when he died. This stickpin is similar to one Wyatt Earp wears in his own best-known photo.

The photos allegedly from the Tombstone era clearly show the same man in three different poses and slightly different dress. This man shows some slight differences from the Holliday in the two authentic photos. The man in these later photos has darker hair, possibly because the photo has more contrast than the previous ones, or his hair was pomaded (a typical fashion at the times) or unwashed, both cases yielding an "oilier", darker hue.

None of the three photos of the darker-haired man match each other exactly in certain clothing details, so they are not exactly the same image (though they may be poses from the same session, since this man is dressed in the same suit). For example, a cowlick and differently folded collar is present only in the oval inscribed photo, several different cravats are seen, and the shirt collar and vest change orientation between photos. Although perhaps described by Earp as "squared jawed," his graduation photo shows arched eyebrows and a pointed chin, which are matched by the second authentic 1879 photo, but not in the rest.

The last of the three later supposed photos of Holliday&mdash;in which the subject has a more open overcoat, a more open vest (allowing the bowtie cords to be seen) and an upturned shirt collar and is holding a bowler hat (derby hat)&mdash;exists as a print in the Cochise County Courthouse Museum in Tombstone. It is evidently the same dark-haired man shown in the other two photos but is yet another image (perhaps from the same photo session in which the upturned detachable shirt collar is worn rather than the folded-down collar of the oval portrait). Other, even more questionable, photos exist as well.

— btphelps (talk) (contribs) 03:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Questionable Source....
Under the "legacy" subcategory, it says that Doc Holliday was responsible for popularizing the practice of calling doctors "Doc". This seemed odd to me, so I checked the source. Turns out that the page was citing Urban Dictionary for this. I doubt very much that this is a valid Wikipedia source, and I doubt even more that this factoid is true. I'm going to remove it. Flag-Waving American Patriot (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Graduating from dental school at 20 was a problem.
Roberts notes that Holliday graduated too young to be licensed and had to wait until later in the year to turn 21 and practice as other than an intern. That's notable as it nicely fills in the gap as to what Doc was doing through the summer of 1872. Fat&Happy's snarky edit summary is not apprectiated: rm unnecessary & unsupported OR/Synth. Yeah, it's not supported at this instant, but that's easily fixed as soon as I get home and get my copy of Roberts. No, it's not synth or OR. Basically, suggesting that is ignorance. The correct action here is to add a tag if you don't believe it, not revert. Don't you have anything better to do, F&H than make editing on WP frustrating? Unless you've read all of Holliday's biographies, you have no RIGHT to be skeptical about information at this level of detail. Just politely ask for the source. S B Harris 21:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Or here's a novel idea. Maybe when adding specifics of no apparent importance about a brief five-month period; "explained" by an edit summary implying assumptions, not only about the content of Georgia law 140 years ago but also about how stringently that law was enforced in the Reconstruction-era South; specifics which directly contradict the existing – admittedly questionable RS – source already cited for the sentence; perhaps you might want to supply a source for your addition at the time you add it. That way, having things like a five-year-old Category:Articles with unsourced statements from February 2007 containing over 9,000 articles might be avoided in the future. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no contradiction even with the questionable source used, so I fail to see your problem with it. "Later that year" means after he turned 21 in August. And BTW, if you think 9000 articles with unsourced statements is a problem you are missing the point of Wikipedia. Most of Wikipedia is unsourced. We long-time editors know that it's only unbelievable statements that need sourcing, and that even for the marginal rest, there needs to be some period allowed for the editor to get his source if somebody questions it. And if you'd read the Roberts bio of Holliday you'd have found out all kinds of things about dentistry in the post reconstruction era south. So why don't you? Learn something about the subject you're editing, maybe. S  B Harris 03:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can only hope that your reading of Roberts is more accurate than your reading of the existing source. It very well may be less than reliable, but it's been used for over four years, apparently without being (successfully) challenged; even you did not tag it or anything like that. Since you chose not to either enhance or replace the existing citation, any of the poor readers who lack your perfect knowledge of Holliday and read the cited page for more information will find:
 * "Doctor John Holliday returned to Georgia to set up practice ... His first office was in Valdosta, but with the old charges still pending against him, it was deemed too dangerous to remain there. He moved to Atlanta, where he shared an office with Dr. Arthur C. Ford on the corner of Alabama and Whitehall streets. The Atlanta Constitution of 26 July 1872 printed this notice: "I hereby inform my patients that I have to attend the session of the Southern Dental Association in Richmond, Virginia, and will be absent until about the middle of August, during which time Dr. John H. Holliday will fill my place in my office. Office: 26 Whitehall Street - Arthur C. Ford, D.D.S.""


 * Since his 21st birthday was August 14, 1872, the source is clearly stating he was set up and attempting to practice while still 20, first in Valdosta and then in Atlanta; whether he had any patients is, of course, a different question. But your addition is in clear conflict with the cited source. Adding the content based on a better source – Roberts' published bio would undoubtedly fit that description – is fine; adding unsourced content conflicting with existing sources is not. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Look, I didn't read the actual source, I read what Wikipedia said using the source as its cite, and my addition was not incompatible with that, it seemed to me. Now, I find you have a problem that what I wrote conflicts with some additional material in the source itself, all the while admitting that it's a crappy source to begin with! (www.outlaws.com that you need the Wayback Machine to read?? Come on). That's pretty cheeky. Why not just admit that it's a crappy source that doesn't meet WP:RS and so it really doesn’t matter if what I add conflicts with it? I’m not only going to tag it WP:RS, I’m going to be bold and remove it totally. Let’s see you defend the re-addition of it. I’ll put in some synopsis from Roberts as soon as I figure out how to do it succinctly. There were no “old charges” pending against Holliday in Valdosta. After his first 5 months of classwork for his first year of dental school, he was required to spend 8 months under a proctor, as a student dentist. He did that with Dr. Frink in Valdosta (March-Sept 1871), before returning to Philadelphia for his second year of classwork. This is not considered “practicing dentistry” for purposes of business. Holliday was a student, 19 years old for most of this time. As Roberts makes clear (page 50), legally one needed in Georgia to be 21 to “practice” dentistry (advertise yourself as a dentist, run your own office, work independently), and in Pensylvannia you needed to be 21 even to be granted a D.D.S. degree, something that Holliday’s school would certainly have been aware of. That makes it an interesting question as to what happened when Holliday “graduated” in March 1872, still 5 months shy of his 21st birthday. Was he illegally granted a D.D.S. on that day, or simply listed in the graduation record, but not sent his diploma until later? Tanner thinks Holliday went to a commencement ceremony (no evidence of this presented), but even if he did, that still doesn’t mean he was handed a real diploma (as anybody who has been to many commencement ceremonies can attest-- the rule is that you are not). What Holliday did in the Spring and early Summer of 1872 is not fully known, but Roberts finds him practicing with a classmate in St. Louis, MO (presumably as an assistant, however, not a full colleague). Yes, by July 26 (two and a half weeks before Holliday’s 21st birthday) there is an announcement from Dr. Ford that while he is away at dental association meeting, “Dr. Jno. H. Holliday will fill my place in my office.” Ford returned from the meeting to Atlanta, the day Holliday turned 21. Do the weeks before count as “practicing dentistry,” and does this newspaper card/notice count as advertising Holliday as a privately practicing fully qualified dentist? If you read them, it skirts the law on that point. This is no formal business advertisement as had been made by Ford and Hape when they had practiced together (Holliday replaced Hape). By the end of July, did Holliday finally have his diploma in hand, a few weeks early? We don’t know. Ford refers to him as Dr. and that’s it. We don’t know how long Holliday’s association with Ford lasted, but we know it was over by December. But so far as anybody has been able to tell, this short period in Atlanta was was the first time Holliday had worked as other than a student dentist or dental assistant. S B Harris 01:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

———————————— Excuse my lack of Wiki formatting knowledge. In the "Early life and education" section, the article claims that: " He graduated five months before his 21st birthday, which would have been problematic since this age was needed both to hold a D.D.S. degree and to practice dentistry as anything other than a student under a preceptor in Georgia."

The logical usage of "would have" here suggests that there is some sort of circumstance that indicates that, despite his age, Holliday was able to hold his D.D.S. degree and to practice dentistry. If possible, and I realize you individuals seem to be having a bit of an argument, I would recommend either altering the wording, or presenting the information that exempted Holliday from whatever was "problematic." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.238.46.67 (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Doc Holliday
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Doc Holliday's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "marks": From Earp Vendetta Ride:  From Morgan Earp:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Doc Holliday
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Doc Holliday's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "guinn": From Virgil Earp:  From The Life and Legend of Wyatt Earp:  From Ben Sippy:  From Gunfight at the O.K. Corral:  From Glenn Boyer: </li> <li>From Wyatt Earp: </li> <li>From Johnny Behan: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

More encyclopaedic, less romantic
A lot of the Western-style romanticism should be purged from this article. It's not too bad, but there are times (e.g. "Nobody every thought he would die with his boots off, or in bed") that it really is too much. --Saforrest 15:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree, there. That one's not MY line. Feel free to go in and soften up anything that really stands out as too smarmy. It's a community project, after all. If you have this reaction, so will some other readers, and we want to create a reference which does not draw attention to its own style. WP:NSB (No Singing Buckaroos). This can be a problem with Old Western bios, which sometimes tend to sound like they's all written by Will Geer, parder. You know? S  B Harris 17:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * On that note, why the use of the archaic term "colored" for the private he may have gunned down? It reads like a quote from somewhere, but is not attributed, in which case it's a slur. 162.156.25.161 (talk) 07:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Not Respectable?
From the second paragraph: " he moved to that region and became a gambler, a reputable profession in that day".

"Gambler" is still a profession today, and I don't know that it's considered any less "respectable" than it was in Doc's day -- the IRS even has specific forms for gamblers filing their tax returns. The qualifying phrase in the article seems both unnecessary and misleading. 74.95.43.249 (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It think it only means what it says: in that era, place, and social setting, gambling was respectable. In some places, at other times, and in some social settings, gambling has not been respectable. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 16:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

This is not an article about Doc Holliday movies or Val Kilmer
We can put this photo in the "Doc in film or popular culture section," tho. Steve