Talk:Shootout on Juneau Wharf

Murphy's finishing of Smith is unsourced and contradicts other sources

I googled "Frank H. Reid" on google books. Not a single one of the descriptions of the shootout I came across (in "Aunt Phil's Trunk: Early Alaska", in "Hub City: Nanaimo, 1886-1920" and in "The Rotarian" - aug 1983, Vol. 143, nr. 2, "Moon Alaska", "Gold Fever: Incredible Tales of the Klondike Gold Rush") said Smith was killed by Murphy: all of them say he was killed by Reid during the fire exchange.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• There are numerous books that discuss the shooting of Soapy Smith in which two men shot at him. The best and most thorough book is his biography by Jeff Smith, Alias Soapy Smith: The Life and Death of a Scoundrel, Juneau, Alaska: Klondike Research, 2009. ISBN 0-9819743-0-9. This book contains the newest finds and documented facts that clearly show Jesse Murphy was the man who killed Soapy Smith. Jesse Murphy himself claimed bragging rights and the claim was verified by J. M. Tanner, both having been guards on the wharf the night of the gunfight. User:Bunco man (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've just stated both versions, citing your source for the Murphy version. But note that there are problems with the source itself - the author is Smith's great-grandson and thus, despite the title of his book, inevitably has a strong motive to be biased and portray his most famous ancestor in a more positive light and his slayers in a more negative light - as ineffectual (Reid) or cowardly murderers of unarmed, wounded and possibly fallen men (Murphy). According to this blog, he actually had the impertinence to argue that Murphy "murdered" poor innocent Soapy. Also - couldn't you perhaps be recalling incorrectly the bit about Murphy and Tanner confirming this? The author of the blog also argues in favour of the Murphy version, but he explicitly claims that Murphy and Tanner testified that Reid had killed Smith, and the newspaper reports also said that, whereas the Murphy version was given later by another eyewitness, one Matthew Sundeen.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• There are no problems with the source itself. You have not read the book and are assuming the author "has a strong motive to be biased..." I own the book and can tell you that he uses very strong provenance, including newspapers and documents in libraries and museums in the US and Canada. The author uses all the known facts with no second guessing or inventing on his part.

I don't need to have read the book or to know anything about it to see that the author has a strong motive to be biased: it's just a matter of being a relative of a person involved (just like I don't need to hear the reasoning or sentence of a judge to know that in principle, he has a conflict of interest if his son or father is being tried). Whether he actually acted on that motive is another matter - I understand that you have been convinced by him and you may be right, but this is still just your assessment. Until his version has become generally accepted by others, I don't think that it should be stated as the only correct one.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The "murder" of Soapy, according to the author, is due to the fact that Soapy Smith was unarmed after Murphy took his rifle away and shot him with it. Not that Murphy would have ever been convicted but technically Murphy did in fact shoot an unarmed man and should have been arrested on that charge.

Well, the man was pretty dangerous, could have wrestled back the rifle, had just practically killed another man, and his gang was approaching. I don't know what the laws were at the time, but the idea that Murphy ought to have been arrested, in addition to all the drama about the poor innocent lamb crying "My God, don't shoot", the emphasis on the vigilantes being no better, all of this coming from Smith's descendant, certainly raises suspicions of some kind of "pro-Smith revisionism" in me.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of the website and blog and I do not see anywhere that Murphy testified that Reid shot and killed Soapy. I did read in the authors book, website and blog that the US army was threatening martial law after Soapy was killed and that the vigilantes did not want martial law (sourced by newspapers in Skagway) The author shows with newspaper sources that Murphy fought the ruling that Reid had killed Soapy, even demanding and getting a second autopsy. Unfortunately for him the doctors were working for the railroad and the railroad was strongly involved with the vigilantes. Tanner even sent a note to the Canadian commander Sam Steele stating clearly that "Murphy was the man who killed Soapy Smith and not Frank Reid as stated in the newspapers." At the time of the gunfight Tanner and Murphy were the closets to Soapy so there is little room for error when both men tell the same story at first. Tanner later changed his story so that it appeared that Reid was the man who killed Soapy. The author contends that the vigilantes did this to maintain their new found political power, much like what happened in Deadwood when Hickok was shot dead.

I was referring to the part where the blog says "Tanner, Murphy and Landers all agreed to lie to the officials to let Reid think he'd died a hero." The blog also says that both the Skaguay News and the court announced that version from the start, based on eyewitnesses, so if Murphy was the man, one has to assume at least that the witnesses lied. I didn't quite get how the issue of martial law depended on who killed Soapy. Whatever. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The Sundeen version, also stating Murphy killed Soapy, was many years after the gunfight. The author sources numerous eyewitnesses and facts at the time of the fight. He leaves little doubt that Murphy did indeed shoot and kill Soapy Smith. User:Bunco man (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, he leaves little doubt in you, fair enough. I'm just saying it's a little premature to declare this to be THE truth until it has become accepted by other people besides the author and you. You know, WP:V, WP:NOR, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them due weight", and all that.

Best wishes,

--91.148.159.4 (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I now see you've also reverted my addition, where I mentioned the alternative (in fact hitherto dominant) view. Please note that according to the NPOV policy, if a significant percent of the sources express a view, it should be mentioned. No matter how sure you personally are that their view is wrong. You personally have no authority allowing you to impose on the reader of Wikipedia which version to believe. Even if your version is 100% right and the other one 100% wrong, the article before my edit didn't even mention that there had ever been more than one version about the events in the first place, not to mention the whole intrigue that you've outlined above - surely this is inadequate! Any such controversy should be reflected in the article. You have also restored my "dubious" tags that I had removed - incorrectly, because I no longer consider the information "dubious", since you have sourced it and I have no business doubting it. All in all, it seems to me you're being territorial (WP:OWN), you're seeing angry mastodons and you're violating other policies in the process.

Note that I won't argue anymore about this (I was never particularly interested in the issue in the first place), so you're free to do as you wish.

Best wishes,

--91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I’m not all that familiar with Wikipedia, but I know that some of their policys are that no original research be used and that competing versions be referenced. In this case, I don’t understand why the allegation in this article that Jesse Murphy killed Soapy Smith is allowed to stand solely on its own when it comes from original research by the poster (Jeff Smith), is disputed within the historical community, and directly contradicts the finding of the United States jury at the time. Maybe if anyone has any interest they can tell me what I’m missing. Ruthiegirl9 (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The evidence is strong that Jesse Murphy shot Soapy Smith, but did he kill him? Not according to the Coroner’s Inquest which concluded that Frank Reid fired the fatal shot. Without knowing all the evidence available to the 6 man jury, how can it be stated as “fact” that it was Murphy that shot Smith through the heart? Isn’t that a hypothesis? Ruthiegirl9 (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Update: According to a recently discovered 8 page issue of the July 9, 1898 Dyea Trail newspaper, Murphy shot and hit Soapy Smith with bullets from his own revolver. When the next day he insisted to the Coroner’s jury that it was he who killed Smith, not Reid, an additional autopsy was ordered and the determination made that it was Frank Reid’s bullet that did the fatal work, not Murphy’s. Ruthiegirl9 (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Josias Tanner

Si Tanner was also the brother-in-law of Emery Valentine and very much involved in Valentine's business operations. I'm pretty sure that the "Juneau Wharf" was a counterpart to the People's Wharf that Valentine had built in Juneau just a few years before. Tanner also later served as mayor of Skagway and as a U.S. Marshal.RadioKAOS (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

John Sayles novel

This incident is included in the plot of John Sayles' fine historical novel A Moment In The Sun, as is the so-called Wilmington (NC) Insurrection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.68.254 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 22 September 2012‎

And another name

There is an article on Bobby Sheldon which has languished in Articles for Creation purgatory for well over a year. The significance to this is that Sheldon spent approximately the last forty years of his life claiming to be the last living eyewitness to the shooting, as mentioned in Patty, Stanton H. (2004). Fearless Men and Fabulous Women - A Reporter's Memoir from Alaska & the Yukon. Kenmore: Epicenter Press. ISBN 0-9745014-0-9. and no doubt in other sources as well. This was only one of many things Sheldon was notable for in his lifetime. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 23:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Bobby Sheldon told the story to numerous authors and historians that he had witness the shootout on Juneau Wharf. When the Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park interviewed him in the late 1970s he changed his story. If true, he no longer claimed to have witnessed the shootout, but rather said he was in the general area just as the fight started. An adult dragged him to the ground to keep safe. There are other more credible witnesses to the fight. Jeff Smith (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Did the guy get his money back

I need resolution to the story! Or at least a statement that it's unknown. 128.8.202.12 (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'll add the information. Jeff Smith (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Add complete 2/12/2014. Jeff Smith (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Reassessment: Downgrade to C-class

This article was rated B-class but is in need of clean-up. This is not consistent with a B-class article, so I have reassessed it as C-class. The article needs the following improvements:

• Additional citations to verify the article's sources. Editors should note that all that might be needed is to read the already cited sources and extend these citations to the various statements that need more citations.
• The term "bunco men" is used twice, but without explaining of where this term comes from or what it means. While Bunco is a dice game that was commonly used by swindlers, its use in this context is confusing because the men were playing cards when the swindle occurred. It would make the article more understandable if the term was replaced with the word "swindlers". However, if that specific (slang) term was used at the time then that should be explained, too. I don't really know enough about this event to say which wording is better, but found the current wording obscures and distracts from the article's narrative. Also, while bunco is a Wikipedia article, there isn't any explanation in that article of what "bunco men" might refer to, so simply wiki-linking to the article is unhelpful.

I would welcome discussion on either issue - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Shootout on Juneau Wharf

Let’s not forget that the coroner’s jury ruled that it was Frank Reid that fired the fatal shot, and not Jesse Murphy. They may have had information at the time that we don’t know about. Certainly they had two autopsies to go by, and their professional judgement was that it was Reid’s bullet that caused the death. So while it is an interesting hypothesis that Murphy fired the fatal shot, with references that back that hypothesis, it is still not the official record. That’s why I find it troublesome to see statements like it is “clearly proved” that Murphy killed Smith. To prove that Murphy killed Smith, you would also have to prove that a U.S. Commissioner, three doctors, a minister, and six citizens under oath all perjured themselves at risk of severe penalty, and I don’t think that can be done. 24.237.31.191 (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

As noted above, recent information from the July 9, 1898 Dyea Trail newspaper has become available that revealed Murphy shot Soapy Smith with his own revolver, not Soapy’s rifle as some believe. The Coroner’s jury listened to Murphy’s account of the gunfight, as well as seven other eyewitnesses, and together with the results of two autopsies, determined that it was Reid’s bullet that killed Smith, not Murphy’s. Ruthiegirl9 (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)