Talk:Wyatt Earp/Archive 2

Top Image
We've gotta have the image of Earp, with the handle bar mustach, at the top of the article. It's in the article, just should be at the top. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why? It's six years after the gunfight, and long after Wyatt's lawman days are over. Not only is the one used a better looking one (the women here must judge) but it's closer in age to the Earp of legend. Of course the closet pic we have to THAT is also in the article, taken from the Dodge City Peace Commission, 1883. I thinnk Earp there is actually dressed in the same clothes he wore to the OK shootout, hat, peacoat, and all, but can't prove it. They are very similar to descriptions though, and how many good suits did the man have? 70.164.185.235 (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wyatt Earp in the Arizona Gunfighters
I went to a western town in Arizona and saw a show about the shootout at the vacant lot behind the OK Corral, and the man playing Wyatt was a decendent of the real Wyatt, and his name was actually Wyatt Earp. He was a decendent of Wyatt's father's brother. And he has been portraying him for over 15 years. His website is www.wyattearp.biz this needs to be added!Quinlanfan2 (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If he's descended from Wyatt's uncle (his father's brother) then he's not a descendant of Wyatt! Saintmesmin (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

He is related to Wyatt! he is the closest thing to a decendent. wyatt had no kids74.231.186.104 (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I bet they never imagined immigrants would be socially acceptable... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.68.234 (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Stuart Lake
Why is Stuart Lake's biography of Earp repeatedly used as a reference and then disputed as being inaccurate. Don't use the source except when it can be corroborated. If Lake's book is deemed relevant then create a section about the biography stating it's lack of accuracy on many points. I believe however that Lake should just be left out of this article.

Also, can we do away with words such as bagnio? If you have to define the word in the text then you shouldn't use the word.Free4all76 05:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

--Free4all76 03:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Free4all76 (talk • contribs)


 * I agree that Lake's "biography" has had considerable discredit heaped upon it. Although references using Lake's book are not well documented, there are several references to Lake as the source. I'm going to begin editing those out. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 06:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible item issued to Wyatt Earp from the residence of Dodge 1878
Trying to authenticate an item that I just found today. It's a spyglass that has what looks like a tin or copper badge folded over it's lower barrel with the following inscription. Wyatt Erap '' Peacemaker From the grateful people of Dodge City Apr 1978'' Has anyone ever seen or heard of such a gift to Wyatt Earp? Or has anyone ever seen or heard of these spyglasses as a tourist item?

If anyone is curious let me know I have taken pictures of this item and would be glad to share these for any information at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Netpicker2000 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Boyer/Josie Marcus source questionable
I'm concerned that a significant portion of this article is based on  I Married Wyatt Earp, a book that has been widely discredited by historians and journalists alike.

In Tony Ortega's article I Varied Wyatt Earp, the book is revealed to be, at best, a mix of fact and fiction. Other articles on tombstonehistoryarchives.com similarly address Glenn Boyer's questionable work.

I suggest that the article undergo a rewrite, specifically the passages that name Boyer and/or his books as sources. I may tackle this myself, but would like to get input from the good folks who contributed to this article, as well as any other interested parties, before proceeding.

Regards, Kkbay (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur. The Boyer material is extremely questionable, if not downright fiction. It cannot be cited as original source material; there is no evidence Boyer ever met Mrs. Earp. Stuart Lake's book does contain errors, but no one questions the fact that he had personal access to Wyatt Earp and interviewed him before his death. Few sources of historical biography are infallible, but the Boyer material is worse than most. I recommend it be deleted. Munchkyn (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Also agree. I've been complaining about Boyer for a long time in these articles. See  S  B Harris 03:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed that both Lake's book and Boyer's book are not reliable sources. I'll begin editing these portions. Feel free to join in. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 06:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Buntline Special?
The paragraph addressing Earp's liking of "buffaloing" suspects with his gun is very believable--at Tombstone I was told he was really a lousy shot. He depended on Doc Holliday to help him in shootings. He bragged how "good" he was after not getting hit at the O.K. Corral shootout--his blind luck!68.231.189.108 (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no proof the Buntline Special ever existed, that Ned Buntline ordered one, or that it was presented to Wyatt Earp. See [| this article] for an exhaustive discussion of the urban legend that has grown up around this weapon.

I am sure there are people in Tombstone who claim today that Earp was a "lousy shot"; the OK Corral event still raises blood pressure in that town. Better to rely on actual facts than handed-down stories passed along by the descendants of the Earps' political rivals. One fact: Wyatt was never shot in his life, despite many confrontations. He adopted his policy of "buffaloing" drunk cowboys because it was safer, more humane and in the end more profitable than shooting them. The town fathers of Abilene and Dodge preferred live, hung-over cowboys who could still spend money to dead cowboys who could not, hence Earp's popularity with town government. Munchkyn (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. Especially bad is the idea that Wyatt relied on Doc for shooting, as there are a number of occasions where Doc shot at somebody and missed, or hit them in some non-vital area, and there's only one well-confirmed kill for Doc, and that's shooting Tom McLaury with a shotgun. Much the same as Wyatt, actually. Wyatt probably shot Cruz, but his pistol shots from distance are not in the kill zone, and the last to the head was probably a close up coup de grace. Wyatt probably shot Frank McLaury dead-center with a pistol, at least, and not quite point-blank. Evidence for that is better than evidence that Doc ever killing anybody with a pistol, even from across a card table. Morgan could well have shot Frank the second time, not Doc. For all we know, Doc missed everybody while shooting his pistol at the O.K. Corral. S  B Harris 04:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Frank Stilwell biography proposed
It has been proposed to delete the biography of Frank Stilwell, due to notability problems. You are invited to go to Articles_for_deletion/Frank_Stilwell and leave any opinions you have about this matter. S B Harris 02:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Article needs reworking.
There are a number of things wrong with this article. I don't know enough about the subject to write about it but the prose is, simply put, bad. For example it is mentioned that Wyatt moved to Vegas, then there is nothing at all about it. It then skips backward to talk about a gun then skips forward to Tombstone. Why mention Vegas then? Next problem is Mattie. In the Life After section's 2nd paragraph we read about Mattie's addiction and overdose then suddenly there is a one sentence paragraph, stuck in the middle of a discussion on Josie, repeating this same thing. Also a sudden Wyatt quote about George Hoy shows up in Life After section. Why? That should be addressed in the Shooting of George Hoy section, don't you think? Shouldn't the flow of the article be improved? There are so many names that it would be best done chronologically and in a simple flow. There are jumbles of dates inserted into paragraphs that are great for timelines, but not necessarily for articles. It makes reading the actual information a daunting task. Besides, dates don't belong like that anyway. Dates are factual information, granted, but perhaps another article for a timeline is better for that. Lost of examples are at List of timelines. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this is NOT Wyatt Earp
If this is Wyatt Earp then I'm Santa Claus. I don't care if True West Magazine needs to sell issues, it's not him. Every other photo of Wyatt Earp in existence has a sort of beetle-browed lowering look, like he's looking at you from under a manhole cover. You even see the beginnings of this as a child. Morgan has the same face in the only photo we have of him. Ever Virgil has a bit of it. But this new photo is another guy-- somebody not related to any of them. Bleh. S B Harris 00:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion
I suggest that you remove the reassessment template and renominate at WP:GAN. Reassessment is really only concerned with the article as it was when reviewed. As you have now fixed ity up, check against the good article criteria and if you are happy that you have met them, renominate. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion, I have done as you suggest.— btphelps (talk) (contribs) 20:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Article length
The article is already pretty long at 60 kB and I don't think we should burden the reader with extra details from related articles like the Earp Vendetta Ride. The reader can easily get all the details from the other article. The article is up for Good Article review and I'd like to keep it as brief as possible. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 19:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No problemo, I just wanted to keep it more interesting, as a good article, there are a few changes I might do for the Earp Vendetta Ride, you are doing terrific.... Carry on. Corusant (yadyadyadya) 21:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'd like to see the Earp Vendetta Ride improved as well. It's pretty close but needs more citations. I just added some info on the various versions of the gunfight at Iron Springs. More info on the posse led by Cochise County Sheriff Behan would be interesting. It appears that they actually avoided the much smaller Earp posse. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 17:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Disputing image: File:Josephine-Sarah-Marcus-c1881.jpg
In reading this article and the one about Josephine Earp the image of her from File:Josephine-Sarah-Marcus-c1881.jpg is used. However, I have just been watching a documentary with an interview by an author who has researched the life and photos of Josephine Earp who claims that this is not an image of Josephine. Please see the entire segment at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgKAbDPsjk0 ("Who Was Josephine Earp? A Photo Analysis by Cary Lane (4/8)", YouTube, 7 minutes). Perhaps another suitable yet authentic image can be found that is not being disputed by biographers and historians. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Buntline Special
The "debunking" of the Buntline Special may need to be revisited. There is an excellent of the subject available online at http://home.earthlink.net/~knuthco1/Itemsofinterest3/Buntlinesource.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.28.44.81 (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC) 69.28.44.81 (talk) 06:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Lead is too long
The Lead seems long for someone who did not contribute much and whose reputation is mostly mythical; as he was more important as a symbol, there does not need to be so much detail about his life in the Lead.Parkwells (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Despite your personal feelings that Wyatt Earp isn't an important figure, the length of the lead is not determined by the supposed notability or lack of notability of the article subject, but by the article's content and overall length. As stated in LEAD, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 23:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Earp and that prize fight
Hi, Bt. I am responding to your reversal of my edit, in which I tried to make the point that WYATT EARP was accused of fixing a fight, but never proved guilty. The fact that one self-described conspirator made the claim years later may be an arresting fact, but it would never stand up as sufficient proof in any court of law or other forum. More evidence is needed to persuade Earp historians. I still think Earp must receive the benefit of the doubt, and hope you will re-reverse the subhead. However, I will not do it myself, because I don't want to get into a tug of war.

Boud355 (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the courtesy of a reply.I researched and wrote the complete Fitzsimmons vs. Sharkey article and have over the past four years contributed substantially to the article about Wyatt Earp and to other articles linked to him and his family. I think there's abundant circumstantial evidence that Wyatt Earp was in on the fix. While the evidence may not stand up to the proof required in a court of law, or that required for a biography of a living person, Earp's actions are completely in line with his character: he was always interested in a quick buck.


 * The vast majority of those present thought the fight had been fixed. Dr. B. Brookes Lee (not a physician and a known criminal) treated Sharkey in private shortly after the fight, barring the other (legitimate) doctors, and he later confessed he had treated Sharkey to make it appear that he had been fouled by Fitzsimmons. If the hit below the belt was fake, then Earp's call of a foul was empirically a lie. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 04:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Earp and Alaska
As the GA review hasn't started yet, I'll post this here. I doubt that Wyatt and Josephine would have departed for Nome, Alaska in 1897, as Nome didn't exist in 1897. That year was during the height of activity of the Klondike Gold Rush and several years before the Nome Gold Rush. "Alaska Gold Rush" redirects to the former article, in spite of all the confusion it has caused with other gold rushes and other uses of the term, but that's the fault of those editors active with that article.

The dates given in this section suggest that they may have wintered outside of Alaska. This was fairly common at the time, as not only a serious lack of infrastructure existed everywhere in Alaska outside of perhaps Juneau and Sitka, but the lack of laws providing for clear title to land hampered the development of such infrastructure. Legislation passed by Congress in 1899 and 1900, plus the influx of tens of thousands of people at around the same time, many of whom stayed, helped change that situation around.

"and boxing promoter Tex Rickard, with who Earp developed a long-lasting relationship." Rickard had his own saloon and gambling house in Nome, but I've yet to come across anything which explicitly mentions competition of any sort between the two. I did come across a distillation of early Polk directories in Alaska and Yukon published by the Elmer E. Rasmuson Library, which indicated that the two operated their respective establishments on the same block of Front Street.

"Wyatt was arrested twice in Nome for minor offenses, including being drunk and disorderly, although he was not tried." Probably because there was no real civil authority in Nome until years later. I doubt that a lone U.S. Commissioner could handle a caseload in a place such as Nome at the time of the Gold Rush or if one was even installed. The aforementioned legislation of 1900 created a judgeship for the area, originally based in St. Michael, but the judgeship was quickly moved to Nome. The real-life events fictionalized by Beach in The Spoilers point out that McKenzie, Noyes and their gang were not necessarily interested in dispensing justice. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Good eye for detail, thanks. I found a newspaper article for September 1897 that places him in Dawson and changed the article accordingly. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 17:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

"Shoot the Moon"

In the liner\program notes of my local cable provider, in the "Wyatt Earp" movie, the character(and therefore alluding to the actual historical person,) was said to be a "Southern boy". However, the actual history is plainly seen that Wyatt and his family hail from the north (Illinois, later California, with Wyatt rambling about in Missouri, and Kansas). His brief troubles in Arkansas would hardly qualify him as a "son-of-the-south", to say the least. The tag on the liner notes suggests that arguably the greatest "cowboy" who never was can be claimed by "Southern Revauchists"

Nothing is obviously further from the truth. Although most Hollywood films(and vintage dime-store novels) have been out right lies about Earp and his exploits and personal dealings, the Kevin Costner film ironically comes closer to the truth. Added to the fact the the ENTIRE EARP CLAN were fierce Lincolnite Republicans, fought for the Northern Union, and despised the sothern, pro-slavery Democratic Party, of which the Earps' nemeses the Clantons, Mcclarys, and the Cowboy\Rustler gangs belonged.

What's ironical in this is that the elongated bio-pic of Earp, gives a more accurate account of the wherefores and whyfors of Wyatt's personality and motivations(unlike the current trend of deconstructionism in most modern biographies in film and print). The curious "public" reaction of disfavor in the iconic western hero presented as yet another pragmatic and woefully flawed H-U-M-A-N, is more likely limited to the cracker-minded mentality of those who would rather live and die by fantasy over historical veracity. Also the boiling-up of old hatreds between "Yankees" and "Rebels". (Of course it must be said that Hollywood had-as yet-an unexplained growing hatred towards Costner at about this time.) Wyatt can't be claimed by 'southern' romantics, not now, and of course, never.

The misleading liners on the cable program must be changed.

Veryverser

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Veryverser" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.207.3.192 (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

typhus verses typhoid fever
1.The lede specifies Earp's first wife died of typhus while the body text under first marriage identifies the disease as typhoid fever. These are different diseases, similar only because of the symptoms.

2. The end of the narrative indicates last wife, Josephine, as a Jew but the footnote for this section does not support this statement.

162.195.90.110 (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Good eye for details. I corrected the lede, and added refs noting her Jewish heritage. Thanks. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 18:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Pop culture section
The section is currently nothing more than a link farm, mostly to the imdb site, which is not considered a reliable source. Nothing in the section currently explains why a particular entry is presently listed or what notability in relation to the article subject exists. As such, I will be gleaning the section shortly to remove this dreck from what was once a GA class article. As it now stands, most of it will go away. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 21:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Carlstak, GenQuest, the two lists (Earp legend in film and television and Earp as a character or adaptation of the legend) were part of the article when it was given GA status. While I agree that the notability of these various appearances of the Earp character may require more substantial references, can we discuss these wholesale changes to a GA article before they are made? Thanks — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 21:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That's why I posted this here. To open a discussion about the Pop Culture section.  I think a section dealing with fantasy, theatrics, and trivia which just might mention Earp is wholly a blemish on this fact-based article and should be spun off as a stand-alone article or deleted entirely.  IMDB is a notoriously flawed wiki, and should certainly not be used for referencing, although I fear that is a loosing battle here at Wikipedia anymore. I doubt any serious reader missed the cut that  made, and I also doubt the cut made it less of a GA status article.  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 22:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It feels weird to reply to an anonymous non-IP, but I assume this is . I would say first that deletion of a trivia section sourced to the IMDB (which, like WP, can be edited by anybody and thus is not a reliable source), is not a "wholesale" change to the article. Second, the inclusion of non-essential fluff like this diminishes the authoritativeness of the article, GA status or not. I say drop it. Carlstak (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't know what happened to my signature in the prior comment posted after I restored the sections deleted by . I re-added my signature. I can see how IMDB is not reliable when referring to the user-contributed portions. I am using IMDB to validate that the actors in the films named portrayed Earp, which is currently a disputed use of IMDB as a source. I don't believe the lists of actors are user-generated, but I might be wrong. In any case, I have also added several references to third party sites that refer to the named films as noteworthy. Most of them also name the actors. If IMDB is no longer pertinent, you can certainly delete those references.


 * As to the notability of a section about films depicting Earp, he was and remains a character with many detractors and believers. I believe given the see-saw depiction of him as an individual and in his role in the Tombstone shoot-out that the various films and the eras in which they were made illustrate that trend. Yes, it'd be nice if the section explore how the films do that. It's certainly possible to write an entire article about the public's reaction to and the media's treatment of Earp, but it's not on my agenda any time soon. If anyone is interested in starting that article, go for it. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 03:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Introduction section is BY FAR too long
So I just came here by checking recent changes and I saw the top of the article, thinking "Hmm, maybe I should add some sectioning..." until I scrolled down. The introduction also has a POV problem, "Earp lived a restless life." Not encyplopedic.- Immernoch EkelAlfred (Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever you like)) 21:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent heavy edit by user
@user:Dilidor, thanks for your edits. However, as the article has been a Good Article for quite some time, I question the necessity of some of your edits. For example, because one Earp is often confused with another, avoiding pronouns in some instances makes it easier for the reader to follow the narrative.

You have also in some instances joined sentences unnecessarily, creating long, windy run-on sentences, as in this example:


 * "Earp was embarrassed on January 9, 1876, when he was sitting with friends in the back room of the Custom House Saloon and his loaded single-action revolver fell out of its holster and discharged when the hammer hit the floor."

While you may feel some of the wikilinks are unneeded, for those unfamiliar with the subject, links like this in the lead which you removed may provide needed context:


 * was an American Old West

— btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 03:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * When inserting pronouns, I took into account the fact that there are several Earps involved, and also that some instances included more than one subject. For example, we have these two rather convoluted sentences:
 * Shanssey told Earp that Rudabaugh had passed through town earlier in the week, but he did not know where he was headed. Shanssey suggested that Earp ask gambler Doc Holliday, who had played cards with Rudabaugh, and Holliday told Earp that Rudabaugh had headed back into Kansas.
 * These were a tangled mess when I started, and they could still be improved for clarity. But in the first sentence, I inserted "he" twice in reference to two different people, yet I feel that most readers will quickly discern the referents in each case: the first refers back to Shanssey, who was explicating to Earp, the second to Rudabaugh, about whom Shanssey was speaking. In the second sentence, there was no room for a pronoun simply because there are too many people speaking and explicating. It is important that we assume a certain degree of intelligence on the part of our readers, enabling them to determine the reference of a pronoun. But the incessant repetition of Earp Earp Earp only starts to sound like someone has indigestion.
 * The article links simple words and place names and concepts and just about everything else, to the point that nearly every word is a link. It is possible that a reader is unfamiliar with the American "old West", but I think it's unlikely enough to warrant removing the link. If you feel it should be restored, feel free. But the vast majority of links which I removed were warranted, and it has cleaned up the article significantly. Also please bear in mind that, ideally, links are only provided once in an article——not on every appearance. That is an ideal and not a concrete rule, obviously, but it is worth keeping in mind.
 * I have joined sentences in order to remove the choppy short sentences. This is merely a stylistic preference and not some didactic rule of grammar or syntax—but it does make the article more smooth and readable. The "embarrassment" example which you cite is not the best possible edit, I acknowledge, but I was merely attempting to improve what was there previously. Feel free to improve it further. —Dilidor (talk) 10:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * , I appreciate that you have made some positive contributions to this article by removing overlinks and unnecessary content. But I have held back from commenting on what I believe are unconstructive edits with the hope that you would desist. However, your changes continue to veer far into personal choice and style, and do not contribute to materially improving the article. You move things around, rephrase sentences, remove some links, and join sentences, without improving the article except to your liking. For example:


 * You have repeatedly massaged the text to your flavor: Here are a few instances: here, here, here, here. These changes and others like them add little to help the reader understand the content or improve its readability.
 * In your haste to "improve" the article, you have deleted references here and here.
 * While you may favor fewer small sections and subheadings as you state here and here, that is your personal style. The MOS describes sections as follows:


 * "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading."


 * What constitutes a "very short" section is obviously open to interpretation. Before you began to make changes, the article did contain three or four short sections which described specific incidents or periods in Earp's life, for example, "Mattie asks for divorce". You didn't like that and combined these sections to suit your personal preference, but these changes did little or nothing to improve the article.


 * You have in the past reverted the work of other editors which you described as, "editor did more than copy edit---changed meanings, inserted new notions and bad syntax and grammar; thus the reversion." Excluding the word "bad", that is pretty much how many of your edits can be described.


 * You objected to a section on Josephine Earp's possible history as a prostitute that you didn't understand, and arbitrarily commented it out here. You commented, "hiding this entire section because it serves no purpose in the article and is nothing but speculation and conjecture." You betray your unfamiliarity with the subject. Josephine worked hard to obscure the facts about her life in Tombstone. Her life during those two years is subject to speculation because few facts are known. There is substantial discussion among experts who are familiar with the Earp story about her life during that period. The description of that time period can't be other than speculative, but the content -- supported by reliable sources citing experts in the field -- is material to understanding her complicated contemporary life in Tombstone, her later life with Earp, and her life-long attempt to control the media's description of their lives in Tombstone. You can't just throw the baby out with the bath water because it doesn't make sense to you personally. You ought to have sought input on this talk page before making such a large change by commenting out that content. I'm going to restore that section.


 * Furthermore, as someone who has labored hard to improve the article and make it worthy of Good Article status, your critical, sarcastic, mean-spirited edit summaries are offensive.


 * If you had attached an editor's name to your edit summaries below, they would be regarded as a personal attack and subject you to arbitration, and if continued, a block. A few examples, among many:


 * 11:33, 11 October 2018‎ doing my desperate best to make sense out of this gibberish, translating its mumbo jumbo into English and trying to resolve the countless contradictions
 * 10:11, 10 October 2018 removing "better source" b/c reason was total speculation; why is he constantly referred to by his first name??; removing cutesy attempts at clever writing, a style unsuited here
 * 10:57, 11 October 2018 more of same in endless array of over-linking, bad syntax, non-sequiturs, etc. ad infinitum ad nauseum
 * 09:54, 10 October 2018‎ more ridiculous over-linking and ruptured syntax
 * 07:55, 10 October 2018 grossly over-linked and badly written; removing extraneous detail that does not belong in intro; countless other problems too numerous to list; can't use direct quote w/o citation


 * They do not belong on Wikipedia which is based on good faith, civility, and courtesy. They violate WP policy about indirect criticism and WP edit summaries. The latter states:


 * "You should explain your edits, but without being overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause resentment or conflict. Explain what you changed, citing the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but do not target others in a way that may come across as a personal attack." (emphasis added)


 * Others have previously objected here and here to the tone of your edit summaries and commented about the nature of your editing style. You have been warned more than once about edit warring, a fact that testifies to your editing style. The concerns with the tone of your edit summaries and editing style are not new. The issue of personal style has been addressed by the Arbitration Committee, which stated as quoted here that "When either of two styles are [sic] acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change."


 * Without discussing your changes or involving other editors, your combined edits are substantially modifying what has stood as a Good Article for three years. I see that 99% of your edits to WP are constructive, and believing you are a good-hearted person who responds to a reasonable request, I ask that you desist from arbitrarily massaging the article to your liking and from your offensive edit summaries. I ask that you discuss any further changes to this article on this talk page beforehand. You might consider applying your editorial skill to articles that need substantive help before they can be considered a Good Article. Thanks! — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 19:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * All edits to a GA need 'vetting', but these seem to have been generally constructive. But I agree that the critical comments are unnecessary, and should focus on specific improvements... or the removal of any references, etc., for everyone's convenience. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I will endeavor to tone down the summaries, as you have both pointed out. The edits themselves have addressed a great many problems within the article, which tends to be bogged down and cluttered with minutia as to where Earp went on his way someplace else. It also rambles and tangles with character names, referring to a cowboy first as Brown then as Fatboy then as Johnnie then as Johnnie "Fatboy" Brown (I made up the example, obviously, but it illustrates the point) or Josephine then Sadie then Josie. These are just a couple of examples. I recognize that the article has a "good" status, but frankly we should be striving for a featured status. The way to that goal involves tightening up the writing, staying focused on the content, and curtailing unimportant and confusing material.
 * Incidentally, it is bad form to call out a user by name in the header. —Dilidor (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * @Dilidor, thanks for agreeing to refrain from the attack-like language in your edit summaries. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 19:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Milt Joyce vs Mike Joyce
Both Milt Joyce and Mike Joyce are used on the page. I have looked and I am unsure if this is one to two persons. Did Joyce have a name and nickname? Or is this two persons? Are they related? Does anyone know?
 * "Mike Joyce gave Earp a 25-percent interest in the faro concession"
 * "Earp's ally Rickabaugh sold the Oriental Saloon to Earp's adversary Milt Joyce"

Note there are bios on Milt Joyce. He died in 1889 at the age of 42 in San Francisco, he was the owner of the Baldwin Billiard Parlor in 1883 and later the Cafe Royal in San Francisco.

I can find no info on a Mike Joyce. Telecine Guy (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)