Talk:Johnny Behan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Gunfight at the OK Corral

This section is decidedly non-neutral; even weasling a bit does not help much. The comment in this section also indicates that I am not the first one to notice that. Being not particularly familiar with the topic, though, I merely added a pov-section, and will leave the npov-ing to more knowlegeable people. There are, afaik, undeniably two contrasting POVs regarding who were the "good" guys there, but then both POVs have to be shown in a neutral manner -- which is not exactly the case here. -- John Smythe 01:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement of gun ordinances and the question of authority in democracies

I have removed the following section:

Contrary to later claims that indicated the Earps were involved in the noble enforcement of the law, another opinion, more favourably towards the Cowboys, states their interests were less noble, and they were no more in the right than the Clantons were, short of having a misdemeanor law they could enforce at their disposal. The "No handguns in the town limits" law, although effective, was enforced at their convenience, which brought about animosity from the opposition, as friends to the Earp's often would not be disarmed, whereas those the Earps considered a threat or an enemy would be.

As I put in the article: So what? I fail to see how this makes Virgil Earp, police chief, no more "in the right". Any law enforcement officer, then or now, will relieve of a weapon anyone who is offensive or threatening or behaving in less than civil manner, EVEN if it's legal for them to be carrying the weapon. "Selective enforcement" of gun and weapons law as officer safety issue is just common sense. To which I might add that the disarming of Ike Clanton the day of the gunfight was in response to his going around town openly hunting Holliday with rifle and pistol. The attempted disarming of Frank McLaury was made in response not only to his open threats on the officers lives made in the presense of witnesses several days before (reported in court and no rebuttal attempted by the McLaury side), but ALSO in response to reports from several citizens of the town on the day of the gunfight, to Virgil that the McLaurys and Clantons were talking war. One of these reports, that of R.F. Coleman who was a stranger in town and didn't know either faction, is preserved in the trial record. Under such circumstances I fail to see what else an officer of the law could do, but what Virgil did. If you have any evidence that Virgil and deputies ordinarily disarmed their openly-armed political rivals, but ignored gunbelts on their "friends", please present it. That's an allegation made here and by a few partisan historians (and I see in this article, too), but so far as I can tell, without any foundation whatsoever. What happened on the day of the gunfight was under very abnormal circumstances-- so abnormal that one town citizen offered Virgil a posse of armed volunteers before the gunfight (Virgil refused). But this was not routine unfair differential law enforcement. This was a bunch of armed cowboys riding around town talking themselves into a gunfight with the police chief, and finally getting one. If they'd won it instead of lost, I have no doubt they'd have been hanged. And rightly so.

In short, if Frank McLaury wanted to be police chief of Tombstone, or one of its deputies, he should have gotten himself elected, or appointed to the job. Then he could have openly carried a weapon about town. That's the way authority works in a democracy, even if it's semi-honestly gained. For example, nobody tried to disarm Behan, whose own deputies were out of town. But also, nobody complained that Behan was only appointed sheriff in the first place, because he'd first been appointed undersheriff by a sherrif elected on a stuffed ballot box, and later thrown out of office by an election judge. How fair is that? SBHarris 02:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Folklore removal

I have removed:

Behan was closely allied with the Clanton faction, and was often at odds with Tombstone Marshal Fred White. White also was well liked by the Clanton's and the "Cow-Boy" faction, and was generally treated with more respect than Behan, who was looked upon as an ally of convenience rather than a lawman with any particular strength, whereas White was viewed as a respectable lawman who did his job regardless of biased opinion.

I had to take out a similar fiction in the bio of Fred White. Citizen John Behan arrived in Tombstone in October 1880, only a few weeks before White was killed. We have no evidence on how well the two men did or didn't get along. If White ever knew Behan, it was as a bartender at the Cosmopolitan, not as a lawman. He never saw Behan with a badge, as Behan succeeded Wyatt as deputy sheriff a few weeks after White's death, and of course it was Wyatt who arrested Brocius for the White shooting. White and the Earps had spent 11 months together in Tombstone, the last part of this time in town and county law enforcement positions, and no doubt knew each other well. But Behan was a newcomer in town at the time White died. SBHarris 00:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverting parenthetical statements

Regarding these reverts:

While I'm pretty sure the avoidance of parenthesis is mentioned somewhere in the guidelines, if someone adds information in parenthesis, that alone doesn't make the information any less viable. It's just been styled in a less-than-ideal way, and should be reformatted, rather than reverted, if anything. Editors should be careful with reverts and not use them as a catch-all solution to any problem introduced into an article. More often than not, with a little effort, a better solution exists. Equazcion (talk) 03:16, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

See above

I took this to SkagitRiverQueen's talk page, and this is what I got back. At this point, it needs input from others. My answers are below. SBHarris 05:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Harris:

You have reverted several of my changes, saying that parenthetical statements are discouraged. Please provide a citation from the MoS. All I see is this, so [citation needed].
I don't have a citation, just what I have learned through my years here at WP. As a general rule, parentheses *are* discouraged - but I don't think it's a "rule" per se. There are certainly other ways of writing what needs to be included without using parentheses - and I still believe they are to be avoided in WP. Of course, if you really don't agree that parentheses should be avoided, you could always ask a seasoned editor or administrator and get their opinion.

COMMENT: I am a seasoned editor. I've been on WP longer than you have, and have 3 times your edits. You can ask me, and find out that you're wrong. Parenthetical information has the same function in an encyclopedia as anywhere else.

Speaking of which, if you see something that needs a citation, put in a [citation needed] tag, don't remove the info.
Well...I think it's really personal preference. Some editors are real strict about unreferenced statements being left in an article. I personally prefer putting a [citation needed] in place and will usually do so in order for time to be allowed to get a ref in place. In all honesty, I was probably having a bad day and rather than do what I should have (placing a cite needed tag), I just removed the statement.

COMMENT: I know you did. As a personal preference, I prefer it the other way, thanks. Input from others is solicited.

Behan's grave is in fact lost, according to Boyer.
(a) Boyer has a questionable reputation as a historian who isn't exactly known as a reliable source regarding Arizona and Earp history (I know that from having lived in Arizona for quite a while and having spoken with a number of state history experts), and (b) where's this reference from Boyer? Have you included it in the article previously? Or is this all original research?

COMMENT: I'm well aware of Boyer's reputation and problems as a history. Most of what you'll find on Wikipedia about THAT problem, is courtesy of Yours Truly (I have included cites from historians about Boyer's problems on various TALK pages). Your experience in Arizona and conversations with historians are about on par with mine. Is this your original research about what constitutes original research?? I find that Boyer is sometimes right-- most often when he's visited some historical place himself.

Find-a-grave says this also (there is a memorial placque, but not at the gravesite). [1].
Find-a-grave isn't considered a reliable source for WP articles.

COMMENT: Says WHO? It is often the only available source of grave photos, and is cited many, many times in WP. The common understanding among Arizona historians is that Behan's grave is lost. There are no photos of an original 1912 headstone on the web (there is a marker from a historical society). Obviously people have looked for his original headstone and haven't found it, or else you'd see a photo of it, from the person who provided the photo you do see. Why do I have to explain this?

The article now states he contracted syphilis while in Tombstone, but that is an inference from the "30 years" date on the death certificate
Yes, it is. Since the only reference found for Behan's syphillis is his online death certificate, that's all we have to go on and refer to. Anything else would be original research.

Comment: Spelled syphilis. Yes, and it's original research to presume the round figure, given in years without filling in the months and days, is exactly accurate. Again, it comes from Albert Behan, who cannot (as I noted) be expected to have exact info on when his father contracted syphilis (unlikely he was there at the time, don’t you think?). Albert doesn't even include the day of his father's birth-- just the month. Odd. This is not an exact historical document; it's a death certificate which has been rather sloppily filled out on the son's historical part, but rather exactly on the institutional part. Notice Behan has been hospitalized 2 months, 26 days at the time of his death. Not “about 3 months” Pretty specific. His time of death is also to the minute (the doctor wasn't there, having seen him the day before, but obviously somebody was there at 3:15 AM).

and should be stated as such.
I guess.

Comment: You guess??

These things are rarely accurate,
According to whom? A death certificate is an official record.

COMMENT: According to me. And many others. Official or not, it can be wrong or incomplete if nobody is interested in it being otherwise. Having filled out my share of them, I can tell you that, but if you need scholarship you may google "death certificate errors" and get 41,000 hits, many to scholarly studies of this phenomenon.

and info here was provided by his son Albert, who would not expected to know exactly when and where his father contracted syphilis. Albert is also off by a year on his father's entrance into Arizona, by comparison with records. Furthermore, Albert possibly got his father's year of birth wrong and his age wrong (they also are off by a year from other records).
And without another reliable reference available, it's all speculation that means nothing in the scheme of editing the article.

COMMENT: When sources conflict, that needs to be mentioned. It isn't mentioned here.

Lastly, although I cannot give you reference now, the term "arterial sclerosis" did not mean in 1912 what it does today. What it probably meant in 1912 was the Behan was demented, a condition then thought due to "hardening of the arteries."
More speculation (and seemingly, original research) that, without another reliable reference, means nothing in the scheme of editing the article. Of course, if you are able to come up with reliable references that meet WPs referencing guidelines, you're welcome to include any (or all) of it. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: WP articles very often begin with text that is not fully referenced, and then references are often provided later. It's quite possible to find out what arterial sclerosis meant to an average doctor of 1912. Good encyclopedia articles are not written by people who don't know anything about what they doing. Even the fact that the man had been in the hospital for almost 3 months when he died at the age of 66(?) or 67(?) tells me something, even if it's just an (un-noted) fact to you. In 1912, people would not be expected to spend 3 months in the hospital for heart problems. There’s nothing a 1912 hospital could do for your heart that would require that long a stay. You do know what the symptoms of late stage syphilis are, if there are any? Do you need a reference for these and if you had it, what would you do with it? Behan had symptoms attributed to syphilis, or otherwise syphilis would not have been listed as a contributing cause to his death. Do you need a reference for how that works? How about an education in what death certificates are, how they function, and what the information in them is supposed to mean, and what it is used for by the doctor and the state?

Here is where WP's ideas about synthesis and original research are subject to IAR. Sometimes, it's fairly obvious from knowledge of history and other general or specific things, what happened. To take a silly example, if Behan had died from going through a windshield in an automobile accident in 1912, it would be obvious that a likely contributing factor was lack of a seatbelt or restraint harness and lack of safety glass. But it wouldn't say that on a death certificate from 1912, or in anything else from the era. You'd just have to figure it out from what else you know, in the time you look at it from. Again, this is why neither encyclopedias nor history can be written by people who don't know the topic. If you expect me to be impressed with your Arizona experience, or anything else you learned from life outside of a library, you should admit this. SBHarris 05:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure why you are being so snarky, snippy, and rude. Is there a purpose behind this? Does choosing to be that way make for a better editing atmosphere and collaboration? In the bigger picture, does choosing to employ such an attitude make for good faith between you and I and anyone else who comes along to comment on the above? Does that choice contribute to the WP standard of civility? I don't think so, but maybe you have some insight here that I lack. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
As you've been told before, SRQ, respond to the content of the arguments rather than commenting on the editor who made them. Addressing people about their attitudes has never gotten you anywhere constructive before. Stick to the issues, respond to the points brought. I see some valid points above. What's your response to them? Equazcion (talk) 05:33, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
My response is exactly zilch until SBHarris decides to be civil and get rid of the attitude. Until that happens, I have nothing else to say to him/her. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Well, here are my thoughts. As I said, parenthetical statements should definitely not be reverted wholesale. As for use of {{cn}}, this is more a matter of context than editor preference. If statements are blatantly false they can be removed, but if they could easily be true and verfified, especially when you know the editor who added them, know they are probably making a good-faith effort, and can easily have a dialog with them to try and verify the facts, {{cn}} is preferable. As for the reliability of find-a-grave, I honestly don't know if it should be considered reliable, but can't see any reason why not, yet. That's all I've got so far, maybe I'll read the rest of the dialog and comment further. Equazcion (talk) 05:45, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Find-a-Grave, like the text in WP and IMDB, is edited by folks like you and I - that's why it's generally not considered a reliable source (from what I understand). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Since SkagitRiverQueen is not talking

And otherwise seems preoccupied with her own recent awards for civility and correct attitude, and maintains above that I myself am not properly endowed with these qualities and she's not going to talk to me until I behave properly-- may the rest of us who would like to work on this article, decide what we'd like to do with it in her absense, please? SBHarris 00:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Better idea: don't try doing end runs around people who are going to be back in a day or two anyway. It's rude at best. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't trying to take advantage of a block. I was trying to "take advantage" (if you can call it that) of a situation an editor who said she wasn't going to interact with me, period, until I lost my attitude. No time limit set. I'm not likely to lose my attitude. It's a poor thing, but mine own, and I've been here for more than 4 years without being blocked by anybody, with the exception of Essjay, which I wear with pride not shame. So I don't get too many complaints about my attitude, unlike some very difficult to work-with editors I could mention, but will not. Hope that clears things up, Sarek. (And BTW, in that last Trek movie I don't think you ever would have said what you said, felt or not). SBHarris 01:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me, SB -- my logic is uncertain where blowing up my home is concerned. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone added "(or Mansfield or Sadie or Pete or whatever her name will change to in the next sentence, thereby confusing the reader even more)" to the last sentence of the first paragraph of "Behan moves to Tombstone." I changed it so it doesn't sound so combative and refer the reader to the talk page. Does anyone have information as to what it is supposed to read or where the info came from so I can put it in myself? PredaClone 03:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PredaClone (talk • contribs)

Date of Death

Find-A-Grave shows DoD different than this article... Can we get a third source? Quebec99 (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think we need a third source? The date we have here is from his State of Arizona Death Certificate (as noted at the beginning of the article in the reference). Find-A-Grave is not considered a reliable source in WP, anyway. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Johnny Behan

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 Johnny Behan'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 Virgil Earp: Marks, Paula Mitchell (1996). And die in the west : the story of O.K. Corral gunfight (Oklahoma Paperbacks ed. ed.). Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 978-0806128887. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
  • From Josephine Earp: Marks, Paula Mitchell (1996). And Die in the West: The Story of the O.K. Corral Gunfight (paperback ed.). Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 978-0806128887.
  • From Wyatt Earp: Paula Mitchell Marks (1989). And Die in the West: the Story of the O.K. Corral Gunfight. New York: Morrow. ISBN 0-671-70614-4.

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⚡ 18:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

They are all the same work, the 1989 (the last) in hardback, the others (with the different paperback ISBN) in paperback. I don't like the first one since the title is not capitalized. The others look okay. Is AnimiBOT trying to make us replace them all so they are all the same? If I had to pick one, it would be the second paperback ref, since it's easiest to order and find, and it has no errors. I'll stick in the Behan article here where the ref name is simply given as <ref="marks"> (which is what caused AnomieBOt to geek).

Orphaned references in Johnny Behan

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 Johnny Behan'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 "lubet":

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⚡ 01:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Johnny_Behan/Archive_1&oldid=1136852688"