Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Discovery Institute

2012-06-01T13:37:40Z

98.231.231.231: /* Add to Category: Cults? */ new section

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Low|class=B}}
{{WikiProject Intelligent design|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=B|importance=Low}}
}}
{{Notable Wikipedian|216.163.84.151|Discovery Institute}}
{{Notable Wikipedian|Truthologist|Discovery Institute}}

__FORCETOC__

{| class="infobox" width="270px"
|-
!align="center"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]] [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|
* [[Talk:Discovery Institute/Archive 1|Up to Apr 2007]]
* [[Talk:Discovery Institute/Archive 2|Up to Jan 2008]]
|}

==Articles are linked too muliple times==
Is there any good reason that articles are be linked too multiple times? Per [[WP:GTL]], that does not seem necessary? I removed a FEW but there still are a LOT more still in the article. I brought this up a while ago but here we go again. If this has aleready been addressed or there is a different consensus I apologize ahead of time. Cheers! --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 15:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
:I did mention this under "See also section" in the last archives with not much comment. Anyways, --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 15:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
::I believe the standard is that more than once per link per section is deemed excessive. [[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]][[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]] 18:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Some people just don't know otherwise. It might be an idea to check the history in such cases and inform the editor responsible of the layout conventions. [[User:Richard001|Richard001]] ([[User talk:Richard001|talk]]) 06:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Some people also don't know how to spell - please learn the difference between "to" and "too" for your future comments! Thanks! —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/128.40.2.112|128.40.2.112]] ([[User talk:128.40.2.112|talk]]) 13:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC) 

== Intelligent design and Teach the Controversy ==

Should be mentioned that the Discovery Institutes biggest and most intelligent front men, chicken out of the dover trial, as they knew it would be shown ID is just creationism. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Abcdefghiabc|Abcdefghiabc]] ([[User talk:Abcdefghiabc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Abcdefghiabc|contribs]]) 15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 

That seems like an unfair assessment to me. Having not read much about the trial, however, I am in little place to judge. Please avoid treating ID like it was a 'Freemason conspiracy.' It deserves an open debate just like every other scientific theory. -Master Imrahil 05:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Master Imrahil|Master Imrahil]] ([[User talk:Master Imrahil|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Master Imrahil|contribs]])  

:No, actually ID doesn't deserve open debate just like every other scientific theory precisely because ID is NOT scientific. A scientific theory, by definition, has within itself the ability to be disproved. ID does NOT have such disprovability, for the "theory" is based on belief that all life has ultimately been "created" by a superintelligence in the Universe, a claim that has absolutely not a single shred of proof to it. ID is NOT science. It is purely a matter of faith and either one believes it or they don't, and the proponents of ID instruction in school are not people who want to "educate" students to possibly accept the validity of ID, but instead people who want to "indoctrinate" students to "believe" in ID.[[Special:Contributions/99.150.202.12|99.150.202.12]] ([[User talk:99.150.202.12|talk]]) 16:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

:The majority of DI expert witnesses ''did'' withdraw from [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]] under circumstances that indicate that either their reasons were spurious, or that they had a substantial hidden agenda that conflicted with their putative role as assisting the defence. ID is ''not'' a "scientific theory". The only legitimate forum for "open debate" of science is peer-reviewed scientific journals -- which ID advocates have avoided like the plague. Their assorted, equivocating and often contradictory claims have been thoroughly documented and debunked by the scientific community however, and their arguments have been found (without any exception that I know of to date) to be simple retreads of pre-existing Creationist canards. [[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]][[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]] 06:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

:: I was at the trial and did my bit to assist the plaintiffs' attorneys. An interview with Bruce Chapman shows that there was top-down direction in 3/5ths of the DI participation jumping the TMLC ship in KvD:

::: Chapman said he asked Discovery fellows not to testify in the Dover case. But Scott Minnich, a microbiologist, and Michael Behe, a biochemistry professor, did and were asked in court who they thought the designer was. "The designer is in fact God," Behe testified.

:: [http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002953668_id26m.html Source]

:: As for the "open question" thing, get back to me when a substantive and convincing reply is made to "Why Intelligent Design Fails" and "Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism". --[[User:Wesley R. Elsberry|Wesley R. Elsberry]] ([[User talk:Wesley R. Elsberry|talk]]) 02:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

:::I've included the Seattle Times Bruce Chapman admission in the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]. [[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]][[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]] 06:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

::"Teach the Controversy" is right. I can't tell you how many times I've run into the followers of this organization. This article describes them fairly well but doesn't really show how pervasive this organization has become. What's sad is there are now some respected scientists backing them. But this is creationism, or at lease pointing at it strongly ;( [[User:Atheistman666|Atheistman666]] ([[User talk:Atheistman666|talk]]) 04:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

:"Atheistman666"? Wow. You guys don't even hide your bias --[[User:Tembew|Tembew]] ([[User talk:Tembew|talk]]) 22:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

== Credible challenge ==

Is there actually a credible challenge that the Discovery Institute is a conservative thinktank? Or is somebody trying to make a [[WP:POINT]]? [[User:Silly rabbit|siℓℓy rabbit]] ([[User talk:Silly rabbit|talk]]) 01:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

:It's funding comes from conservative (and in such cases arch-conservative) sources, it's founder's conversion to conservatism is [http://www.crosscut.com/seattle/13794/ well documented] and (AFAIK) not in dispute, and its highest-profile project, ID, is most certainly conservative. Barring ''substantial'' contrary evidence, I think the label is safe. [[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]][[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]] 02:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Its not a "Think Tank" its a religious organisation, as the article states its manifesto says so! The only thinking they do is trying to get religion taught in schools, breaching the constitution and thinking of ways to enforce their religious beliefs onto others.--[[Special:Contributions/27.33.109.57|27.33.109.57]] ([[User talk:27.33.109.57|talk]]) 11:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

== 'Controversy' section ==

I've made an attempt to provide subsection headings to the (very long) 'Controversy' section, in an attempt to give it some structure. Although I think it's an improvement, I'm still not entirely satisfied with the results. For one thing, the remaining un-subsectioned paragraph, on Chapman's transformation sounds like it more belongs as part of a larger section (perhaps on the DI's anti-intellectualism/anti-science theme) than as a general introduction. On the other hand, it does to a certain extent give a lead-in to the religious aspect of their agenda. I'll leave it for the time being, until either I see a smoother way of fitting this together, or until somebody else comes along to improve the fit. ''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]][[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]'' 07:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

== Partisanship ==

There seems to be some confusion about the meaning of the term "non-partisan." Describing DI as non-partisan doesn't mean they're not ideological, nor does it imply they never lobby for legislation introduced by Republican Senators. What it means is that they aren't formally affiliated with, and don't support particular parties or candidates. Non-partisanship is a requirement for 501(c)3 status, so the fact that they've achieved 501(c)3 status means that the IRS, at least, regards them as non-partisan. The fact that you don't like their ideological views (and frankly, I don't either) doesn't make them non-partisan. [[User:Binarybits|Binarybits]] ([[User talk:Binarybits|talk]]) 18:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

: By The way, it might be helpful to consult the category "Nonpartisan organizations in the United States" (not sure how to link to it). Wikipedia classifies organizations ranging from the liberal (and Democratic-leaning) Center for American Progress to the conservative (and Republican-leaning) American Enterprise Institute as non-partisan. It also defines single-issue organizations like the NRA and the NAACP that way. I'm having trouble thinking of a definition of "non-partisan" that would include all of those groups but exclude this one. [[User:Binarybits|Binarybits]] ([[User talk:Binarybits|talk]]) 19:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

:: Hmm, there seems to be what amounts to a definitional issue here in that the category is being primarily used in the technical sense of the term rather than any colloquial sense (under whaich CAP, AEI, NAACP etc. would all be partisan). The link incidentally is [[:Category:Nonpartisan organizations in the United States]]. The correct syntax is <nowiki>[[:Category:Nonpartisan organizations in the United States]]</nowiki> (note the colon in front). Given that it might be appropriate to figure out if the category as currently composed makes sense. I doubt when most people think of nonpartisan they are thinking of the tax code's sense of the word. If the decision is made to continue to use the category in that fashion then it would make sense to include it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 19:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

::: How would you define "non-partisan," and which groups would you include under the category? (And thanks for the pointer on categories) [[User:Binarybits|Binarybits]] ([[User talk:Binarybits|talk]]) 20:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

::::Under the IRC, bb is correct. Just trust me on this. [[User:Jim62sch|Jim62sch]][[User talk:Jim62sch|dissera!]] 20:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

: Doesn't that mean that the cat is so broad that it's useless? Isn't ''every'' organisation not associated with a political party "nonpartisan"? In other words, shouldn't it be one of two subcats under [[:Category:Organizations based in the United States]], the other being "political parties in the United States"? [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] ([[User talk:Guettarda|talk]]) 21:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

:: No, there are a variety of organizations, such as PACs, College Republican clubs, campaign committees, etc that are partisan. Obviously, the categorization is irrelevant for organizations that aren't involved in politics, but for organizations that are involved in politics I think it can be an important attribute. [[User:Binarybits|Binarybits]] ([[User talk:Binarybits|talk]]) 23:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

:::You needn't split hairs quite so finely. It's still a trivial proportion of organisations in the US. As for "not involved in politics" - how do you propose to source a negative? Most organisations are at least ''somewhat'' involved in politics. Looks like a useless category that should be sent to CFD. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] ([[User talk:Guettarda|talk]]) 15:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Two points:
#Not only is the category overly-broad (in that it appears to define any organisation without an ''explicit'' affiliation to a political party as "non-partisan"), its existence is [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]].
#Per [[WP:BURDEN]] this label has been "challenged" and thus "must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" for reinclusion.
''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]][[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''') 04:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
::I've reverted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discovery_Institute&diff=285019751&oldid=284857954 this edit] as a newspaper evidently getting its info from [[John G. West]] is dubious as a source, and this is clearly a nuanced question which should be put in context, not just baldly asserted in the lead. If [[non-partisan]] is discussed, it must be made clear that this is a technical US definition which is at variance with the general meaning elsewhere in the world, and that's appropriate for the body of the article rather than the first sentence of the lead. Otherwise it gives undue weight to DI claims. . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 15:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

::: Um, it doesn't cite West as the source of the nonpartisan claim. And is your claim that any news article that quotes someone affiliated with DI is disreputable? I'm still waiting for an alternative definition of non-partisan. [[User:Binarybits|Binarybits]] ([[User talk:Binarybits|talk]]) 15:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

:::Further on this, the DI [http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-15869715_ITM routinely self-describes] as "a non-partisan public policy center" (a self-description the ''Oxford Press'', of the great metropolis of [[Oxford, Ohio]], presumably accepted without fact-checking) and [http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/closet-case/Content?oid=1393918 an article on one of its former board member] demonstrates how 'flexible' the 'non-partisan' self-description has become. ''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]][[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''') 15:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

::::What's more important is that the lead is supposed to summarise the article. If you think that a discussion of this issue is relevant to the article, please add sourced content to the body of the article (keeping [[WP:UNDUE]] in mind). Adding trivia to the lead simply to insert a dubiously-useful category isn't an acceptable manner of editing. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] ([[User talk:Guettarda|talk]]) 15:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

:::<s>Additionally, the "non-partisan" view is contradicted by the [[Smithsonian Institution]], in the ''[[New York Times]]'' [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/28/national/28smithsonian.html here].</s> ''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]][[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''') 15:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

:::: You might want to re-read that article. What it says is that the Smithsonian approved the movie despite having a policy against sponsoring religious or partisan activities, suggesting that the film was not. [[User:Binarybits|Binarybits]] ([[User talk:Binarybits|talk]]) 15:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

::::::Actually, they eventually returned the donation[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060201659.html] -- which is why I initially misread this passage. ''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]][[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''') 16:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

:::::Again, as I said, if you want to add a section about this in the article, please add a relevant discussion of the political affiliations of the DI, supported by reliable sources. And bear in mind that Wikipedia is supposed to be comprehensible to people who are neither American, nor political junkies. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] ([[User talk:Guettarda|talk]]) 15:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

::::::Agreed. It would be more appropriate to have a paragraph on the DI's political ties in the article body, rather than a single-word, potentially-misleading (based upon an idiosyncratic "non-partisan"='explicitly affiliated to a political party definition), label in the lead. ''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]][[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''') 16:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I would further note that the OED defines 'partisan' (in this context) as "An adherent or proponent of a party, cause, person, etc.; esp. a devoted or zealous supporter". I think we have ample evidence that the DI is a "zealous" "proponent" of the "cause" of ID, and that to call them "non-partisan" therefore violates [[WP:ASTONISH]]. ''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]][[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''') 16:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

: M-W defines it as "free from party affiliation, bias, or designation," which seems more to the point. [[User:Binarybits|Binarybits]] ([[User talk:Binarybits|talk]]) 16:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

::But Wikipedia is an ''international'' encyclopaedia, so should not [[WP:ASTONISH]] its [[British Commonwealth]] readers just because its American ones would interpret this word the way you'd expect. ''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]][[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''') 16:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that non-partisan is a fairly common way to describe organizations that work on political topics (as indicated by the "nonpartisan organizations" category), and that the IRS's designation of DI as 501c3 should be enough to verify DI's claim of non-partisanship. But I'm plainly outnumbered and I'm frankly not inclined to waste a lot of time sticking up for an organization I don't like very much.

If we're going to use non-partisan in this new, stricter fashion, then someone should trim or remove the "non-partisan organizations" category. Organizations like CAP and AEI are obviously not non-partisan as the term is being defined here.[[User:Binarybits|Binarybits]] ([[User talk:Binarybits|talk]]) 16:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

:Common? Perhaps. But hardly unambiguous. Last I checked, the IRS only had jurisdiction over a ''minority'' of [[English language]] speakers. ''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]][[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''') 16:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

:Incidentally, I would suspect that ''all'' US [[think tank]]s are "nonpartisan" in the IRS sense of the word, so "nonpartisan think tank" would (in this sense of the word) be redundant. ''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]][[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''') 16:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I would further like to note (though as it is a wikipedia article, do not cite as authoritative) [[Nonpartisan]] which states:
{{quotation|Some nonpartisan organizations are truly such; others are nominally nonpartisan but in fact are generally identifiable with a political party. For example, the National Rifle Association is technically a nonpartisan organization, but at the national level at least functions almost as an adjunct of the United States Republican Party. Conversely, although technically a nonpartisan organization, at the national level the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has for many years functioned as almost a subsidiary organization to the United States Democratic Party. The same can be said of most American right-to-life organizations with regard to the Republicans and of most U.S. labor unions with regard to the Democrats.}}
Is it appropriate to state, baldly, and in the lead, that an organisation is "nonpartisan" (even assuming the US/IRS definition), if it is only "nominally" so? ''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]][[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''') 16:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

: Fair enough. Again, if this is the standard we're applying, then we have a lot of work to do cleaning up articles like [[Los Angeles National Impeachment Center]], which baldly states in the lead that an organization dedicated to impeaching Dick Cheney is non-partisan. [[User:Binarybits|Binarybits]] ([[User talk:Binarybits|talk]]) 17:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

::Binarybits, you're using the most narrow possible definition for 'partisan' here: Devoted to or biased in support of a ''particular party''. But every dictionary says partisan also means devoted to or biased in support of a ''party'', '''group''', or '''cause''': [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/partisan] The Discovery Institute is clearly devoted to or biased in support of a particular cause, if not party. Meaning they are still partisan. Sorry, but the reasoning given they aren't, not supporting a particular party, doesn't hold water. [[User:Odd nature|Odd nature]] ([[User talk:Odd nature|talk]]) 17:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The category does seem overly broad. Maybe a CfD is in order? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 21:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

== Bias ==

The information presented in the introduction is highly slanted, and calls greatly for a re-evalutation. I would suggest citations from the Institute's website.—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:68.47.165.23|68.47.165.23]] ([[User talk:68.47.165.23|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/68.47.165.23|contribs]]) 02:45, 24 September 2009

:The "Institute's website" falls under [[WP:SELFPUB]], and generally fails it as "unduly self-serving". The article follows [[WP:DUE]] in giving weight to prominent viewpoints that overwhelmingly condemn the DI & its members for rank dishonesty. ''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]][[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''') 04:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that the information in the introduction is very biased and defamatory as The Discovery Institute does not teach ''Creationism''. Intellegent Design properly understood does not start with any real understanding of the Bible, Koran, ect. It starts by looking at life as possibly being designed based upon certain evidences found within observed data. Creationism properly understood believes that the Yahweh, the God of the Old and New Testaments created the earth Ex Nihilo (Latin 'Out of nothing'). Within the Creationism camp there are Old Earth, Young Earth, and Gap theorists, ect. The Discovery Institute can't be a 'Creationist Propaganda Mill' because of the fact that there are so many different theological or atheological groups working with them. Ranging from Jew, to Christian, to Muslim, to Agnostic. [[User:Sushi08241982|Sushi]] ([[User talk:Sushi08241982|talk]]) 05:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[[WP:Complete bollocks]]:
#"The Discovery Institute does … teach" a variety of creationism, namely [[Neo-creationism]].
#"Intellegent Design properly understood…" is simply a 'sciency' wrapper for a bunch of old, tired, long-debunked creationist arguments.
#"Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." -- [[William Dembski]] So yes, it ''does'' start with the Bible.
#"Creationism properly understood" includes [[progressive creationism]], which goes well beyond "that the Yahweh, the God of the Old and New Testaments created the earth Ex Nihilo"
#(i) The majority of the DI are in fact conservative Christians. (ii) There are both Jewish and Islamic creationists. (iii) AFAIK, the sole agnostic in the mix is [[David Berlinski]] -- a self-proclaimed crank who purports to disbelieve in ID in any case (just believes in its anti-evolution arguments). The DI is ''chauvinistically'' theist in its outlock & theocratical in it funding. It therefore can be, and in fact is, "a 'Creationist Propaganda Mill'".
''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]][[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''') 06:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

 

I think that following the policy on [[WP:VERIFY|Verifiability]] will give us the best result:
:The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is '''verifiability, not truth'''—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a [[WP:SOURCES|reliable source]], not whether we think it is true.
It does not matter whether or not [[User:Sushi08241982|you]], [[User:Hrafn|you]], or [[User:Kevinkor2|I]] think that Intelligent Design is Creationism. The question is: What has been published in reliable sources?

The opening paragraph has the following sources:
* {{citation | url= http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf|format=PDF| title = Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy| first = Barbara| last = Forrest| author-link = Barbara Forrest | date = May,2007| publisher = Center for Inquiry, Inc.| place = Washington, D.C.|accessdate = 2007-08-06}}.
** I believe this is a self-published source, and therefore not reliable.
* [http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1297170&WNT=true Small Group Wields Major Influence in Intelligent Design Debate] ABC News, November 9, 2005
** This is from a reliable source. However, it does not say that Intelligent Design is Creationism.
* Chris Mooney. The American Prospect. December 2, 2002 [http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=survival_of_the_slickest Survival of the Slickest: How anti-evolutionists are mutating their message]. Retrieved on 2008-07-23
** [[The American Prospect]] could be a reliable source.
** This might be considered to be an editorial rather than a news article. Therefore, it might reliably state Chris Mooney's opinion rather than putting the magazine's own reputation on the line.
** The article does not state that Intelligent Design is Creationism. It says that Intelligent Design is anti-evolution and religious. It gives a book title, ''Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design'', but does not assert that the book title is accurate.
* [http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_teachingid0201.htm Teaching Intelligent Design: What Happened When?] by [[William A. Dembski]]
** Access Research News is a self-published website. As such, it might be supposed to reliably state what Access Research News or William A. Dembski believes, but cannot be used as a support of a bare fact.
*[http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/no_one_here_but.html No one here but us Critical Analysis-ists...] Nick Matzke. The Panda's Thumb, July 11, 2006
** This is a blog. Therefore, not a reliable source for anything but Nick Matzke's opinions.
* [[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 89 of 139|Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 89]]
** I suggest that a court judgement is a reliable source.
** The source does say that Intelligent Design is Creationism through the following statements:
**: ID posits that animals did not evolve naturally through evolutionary means but were created abruptly by a non-natural, or supernatural, designer.
**: The Discovery Institute, the think tank promoting ID whose CRSC developed the Wedge Document, acknowledges as “Governing Goals” to “defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies” and “replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.”
* [http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/21/2277 Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom] George J. Annas, [[New England Journal of Medicine]], Volume 354:2277-2281 May 25, 2006
** This is a reliable source.
** It reports as fact the following statement:
**: The judge concluded that "this compelling evidence strongly supports plaintiff's assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled."
* [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf AAAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution] [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]]. February 16, 2006
** This is a self-published source.
* [[wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion#Page 131 of 139|Ruling, page 131]] [[Kitzmiller v. Dover]].
** I suggest that a court judgement is a reliable source.
** The source does say that Intelligent Design is Creationism through the following statements:
**: ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.
* [http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf Wedge Strategy] Discovery Institute, 1999.
** This is a copy of a self-published paper, and cannot be used as a reliable source for anything except the opinions of the Discovery Institute.
** I found the following interesting section in this paper about the governing goals of the Discovery Institute:
*** To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
*** To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
*: From this, I conclude that whether or not Intelligent Design is Creationism, a goal of the Discovery Institute is to replace Evolution with Creationism.

--[[User:Kevinkor2|Kevinkor2]] ([[User talk:Kevinkor2|talk]]) 15:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

#[[Barbara Forrest]] is a recognised expert on the history of the [[intelligent design movement]], and as she is not the Center for Inquiry, Inc, the material is not self-published.
#''Small Group Wields Major Influence in Intelligent Design Debate'' supports the contention that the DI is seeking to introduce 'Teach the Controversy' into schools.
#[[William Dembski]] is a very prominent ID advocate, and thus arguably a spokesperson for the movement. The ARN is one of the IDM's main repositories of material.
#[[Panda's Thumb (blog)]] is generally considered to be a [[WP:RS]], given the level of scientific expertise of its contributors.
#[[American Association for the Advancement of Science]] is a RS on science.
#The DI is widely regarded as the hub of the IDM, so a RS on the movement's views. In any case, as this article is on the DI it is permissible per [[WP:SELFPUB]].
''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]][[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''') 16:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

== top section ([[WP:BRD|Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle]]) ==

A week ago, an editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discovery_Institute&diff=prev&oldid=331387141 reverted] a "[[WP:BOLD|bold]]" change that I made to the top section.

My change had two parts:

First, I referenced the following sources as saying that the Discovery Institute proposes creationist beliefs:
* '''wedge_and_response''': [http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf Wedge Strategy] Discovery Institute, 1999.
* '''kitzmillerP131''': [[wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion#Page 131 of 139|Ruling, page 131]] [[Kitzmiller v. Dover]].
* '''nejm''': [http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/21/2277 Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom] George J. Annas, [[New England Journal of Medicine]], Volume 354:2277-2281 May 25, 2006

Second, I changed the quotes in the references in the top section to use block quotes instead of inline quotes. For example, I changed:
:"ID's home base is the Center for Science and Culture at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute. Meyer directs the center; former Reagan adviser Bruce Chapman heads the larger institute, with input from the Christian supply-sider and former American Spectator owner George Gilder (also a Discovery senior fellow). From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution that closely inﬂuenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists "continue to investigate and critically analyze" aspects of Darwin's theory." Chris Mooney. The American Prospect. December 2, 2002 [http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=survival_of_the_slickest Survival of the Slickest: How anti-evolutionists are mutating their message]. Retrieved on 2008-07-23

to

:Chris Mooney. The American Prospect. December 2, 2002 [http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=survival_of_the_slickest Survival of the Slickest: How anti-evolutionists are mutating their message]. Retrieved on 2008-07-23
::<blockquote>ID's home base is the Center for Science and Culture at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute. Meyer directs the center; former Reagan adviser Bruce Chapman heads the larger institute, with input from the Christian supply-sider and former American Spectator owner George Gilder (also a Discovery senior fellow). From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution that closely inﬂuenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists "continue to investigate and critically analyze" aspects of Darwin's theory.</blockquote>

This second change affected the following references:
* '''wedge_and_response''': [http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf Wedge Strategy] Discovery Institute, 1999.
* '''kitzmiller_pg89''': [[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 89 of 139|Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 89]]
* '''kitzmillerP131''': [[wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion#Page 131 of 139|Ruling, page 131]] [[Kitzmiller v. Dover]].
* '''mooney''': Chris Mooney. The American Prospect. December 2, 2002 [http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=survival_of_the_slickest Survival of the Slickest: How anti-evolutionists are mutating their message]. Retrieved on 2008-07-23
* '''arn''': [http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_teachingid0201.htm Teaching Intelligent Design: What Happened When?] by [[William A. Dembski]]
* '''pandasthumb''': [http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/no_one_here_but.html No one here but us Critical Analysis-ists...] Nick Matzke. The Panda's Thumb, July 11, 2006
* '''aaas''': [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf AAAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution] [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]]. February 16, 2006

I suggest we discuss which (if any) of my changes should be applied to the top section.

--[[User:Kevinkor2|Kevinkor2]] ([[User talk:Kevinkor2|talk]]) 10:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

== Outrageous Bias ==

After 150 years of populating educational institutions with Darwinists, suddenly, when the Discovery Institute attempts to balance these institutions, it is called "stacking" school boards. Why was it never stacking when secular originations did it?

Normally, I feel that Wikipedia is fair and balanced and I have on several occasions defended it against critics, but this section is totally unhinged in its presentation. It sounds more like the Catholic Church's indictment of Galileo's views, which were also not considered REAL TRUE HONEST SCIENCE, because they did not fit with the accepted knowledge of the time and so challenged those in power.

Steve Novak, MBA & Mensan —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/198.200.132.41|198.200.132.41]] ([[User talk:198.200.132.41|talk]]) 14:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC) 

:Hi 198.200.132.41,
:I sympathize with your comments. (See the following sections on my user page, [[User:Kevinkor2#Am I a Dominionist?|Am I a Dominionist?]] and [[User:Kevinkor2#The Truth Project|The Truth Project]], where my own views are on display for fellow Wikipedians.)
:However, there are two problems with them:
:# You weren't logged on with a Wikipedia account when you made them. Therefore, we can only look at [[Special:Contributions/198.200.132.41]] to judge whether you are a constructive editor rather than disruptive.
:# You claim your real world name, but (because of the anonymous nature of Wikipedia) this cannot be verified. In fact, [[WP:OUTING|Wikipedia policy]] prohibits us from verifying it. So, we cannot evaluate your real world credentials.
:A core policy of Wikipedia is
::"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" --[[WP:VERIFY]]
:Because of this, I suggest you do the following:
:*Find a statement in a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] that matches your comments.
:*Add the statement into this article and add a reference to the source where you got it.
:--[[User:Kevinkor2|Kevinkor2]] ([[User talk:Kevinkor2|talk]]) 16:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

:::It was never called stacking when the secular organizations did it simply because they never did it. While the ID advocates go through legal procedings and try to force their ideas into classrooms, reshaping and renaming the same thing over and over when the courts invariably call what they want added unconstitutional because of it's intrinsic relationship to religion, the secular organizations used the proper method, which is research, testing, attempting to publish papers, going to meetings and gatherings of scientists, allowing people to criticize and pick apart your ideas, revising and improving it, etc. It took these "secular scientists" 150 years to get to the point they are at now through the proper avenues. The ID advocates have only been around for about 30 and have been driving down the wrong road the entire time. That's why they're stacking schoolboards and the secular scientists are not.

:::And fyi, you might want to update your understanding of the Catholic Church's issue with Galileo, because they actually liked his ideas, but wanted evidence before he promoted them as truth. He was only put under house arrest for breaking the law. (criticizing the pope - a silly law by today's standards, but a law none the less)[[User:Farsight001|Farsight001]] ([[User talk:Farsight001|talk]]) 08:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

::::[[User:Kevinkor2|Kevinkor2]] ([[User talk:Kevinkor2|talk]]) stripped a number of references, labeling reason for doing so as blogs. Blogs ''are'' allowed as long as they are professional or use the entity itself as a source. Simply rejecting a 'blog' as a reference is not sufficient. Also, in another case, a reference was rejected although it clearly, if belatedly, referred to the topic at hand.

::::Was there some other objection? I don't wish to engage in edit wars, so I'm willing to compromise on this. Thank you.

::::--[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] ([[User talk:UnicornTapestry|talk]]) 15:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::Hi UnicornTapestry,
:::::Thanks for raising this issue on the talk page.
:::::I recently made four edits:
:::::In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discovery_Institute&diff=348587453&oldid=348439524 the first edit], I replaced a ref to [http://journal.shouxi.net/qikan/article.php?id=221746 a Chinese language site] with a ref to an [http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/21/2277 equivalent English language site] already in use in the article.
:::::In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discovery_Institute&diff=348587669&oldid=348587453 the next edit], I removed a ref to [http://www.criminalbrief.com/?p=798 CriminalBrief.com], which is a blog. I suggest that CriminalBrief.com focuses on helping mystery writers create better mystery short stories. Therefore, it does not have a professional interest in the subject.
:::::In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discovery_Institute&diff=348588385&oldid=348587669 the third edit], I kept the ref to a Discovery Institute, but used a [[fragment identifier]] to focus the URL directly on the blog entry in question. According to the policy, [[WP:SELFPUB]], self published sources (such as blogs) are allowed when they are by the entity in question themselves. (A few other conditions apply, by I think they are met in this case.)
:::::In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discovery_Institute&diff=348588665&oldid=348588385 the final edit], I moved the [http://www.slate.com/id/2132807/fr/rss/ "slate"] and [http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/21/2277 "nejm"] references up one phrase, because they talk about "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions" rather than about the Wedge Document.
:::::Hopefully this answers your questions, UnicornTapestry.
:::::--[[User:Kevinkor2|Kevinkor2]] ([[User talk:Kevinkor2|talk]]) 20:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

::::::You have answered my questions and quite well, too. Now that I understand your overall reasoning, the points I might pick at are relatively minor and not that important. Thanks for a alleviating my concerns.

::::::--[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] ([[User talk:UnicornTapestry|talk]]) 01:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Almost this entire article clearly violates the Wikipedia NPOV guidelines. The discussion concerning the topic on this page alone is enough to substantiate a claim of bias. It needs a complete rewrite to develop a neutral point of view that is not based on personal assumptions and proclivities. The NPOV tag should remain until this is done, but it will take a lot of work to strip the editorializing. I would recommend that anyone who disagrees so vehemently with the stances of an organization like the Discovery Institute not attempt to write an unbiased Wikipedia article about them. Not to say that your perspective cannot help maintain a NPOV, but that you can pretty much assume that you will be incapable of faithfully presenting one yourself.

:::::::In response to some of the biased statements here, the idea that God cannot be proven or disproven, thus making ID not scientific is a fallacious argument. Just because God has not been proven or disproven does not mean that God cannot be proven or disproven, only that the appropriate scientific method of testing has not been employed to such ends, at least not in a manner sufficient for you personally. Science would have to be able to prove or disprove the theory of intelligent design, or science itself cannot be held up as the final answer to all things material. The very scientific idea that all things can be explained by the natural demands that all things must be natural, thus eliminating the potential for the supernatural. Therefore, God must be proven or disproven in the natural, not relegated to the scientifically non-existent supernatural without debate, research, or experimentation. I would venture to say that this article could use a good dose of the reality that many in the intelligent design camp believe God to be incredibly natural and scientific, even if they are somewhat mystified by some of his scientific methods. The science of God should be thought of as the study of a highly intelligent being whose very existence is so different from our own that our science has not come near far enough to even begin to understand him. Like gravity, we may not understand it, but we know it's there. We test it every day. Denying it only makes you look the fool. And there's my bias.
:::::::--[[User:Laynerogers|Laynerogers]] ([[User talk:Laynerogers|talk]]) 23:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
{{od}}Intelligent design also can't be proven or disproven. It's not a scientific theory. Yet the DI is trying to force it into schools - for religious reasons. The claims of this talk page are generally those of similarly religiously motivated editors who can't substantiate their points with reliable sources. This is not surprising given the consistent lack of scientific support for all their propositions - again, because this is a religious issue, not a scientific one. The extensive use of sources also clearly illustrates the fact that the page is not based on opinion - particularly the fact that the most reliable sources are the most vehement. This page isn't about proving or disproving God, it's about the DI - a religious organization with a religious agenda attempting to force that agenda into secular institutions in violation of the US constitution. The DI is trying to use science to prove God, which even theologians agree is pointless and stupid. If the DI ever presented any actual data or experiments on their concepts, it could be said that they were trying to be scientific, but all that's presented is rehashed creationist arguments discredited centuries ago. Science has even tested the few propositions presented by ID (mostly Behe's work) and found that Behe either deliberately ignored, blatantly misrepresented, or didn't even bother looking in the scientific literature as there were multiple sources contradicting his assertions even before he presented them.

Anyway, your sourceless assertion isn't sufficient to modify the page. If you perhaps had a concrete suggestion it could be examined, but quite literally the entire basis of intelligent design is without merit. It's been examined by the scientific community and essentially laughed out of the room. If you don't realize it, then you've probably been reading solely the Discovery Institute's propaganda pieces - look into the other side, even a bit. Intelligent design is bad science, and in many people's opinion, bad theology. [[User:WLU|WLU]] [[User talk:WLU|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/WLU|(c)]] Wikipedia's rules:[[WP:SIMPLE|simple]]/[[WP:POL|complex]] 00:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

== NPOV dispute? ==

Hi everyone,

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discovery_Institute&diff=377200468&oldid=373403302 An edit] by an anonymous user added the {{tl|POV}} tag to the top of the page.

The following essay section is relevant:
:[[Wikipedia:NPOV dispute#How to initiate an NPOV debate]]
:If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|NPOV]] policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly ''explain'' which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article.

If no such section materializes within a week, I'll remove the {{tl|POV}} tag.

--[[User:Kevinkor2|Kevinkor2]] ([[User talk:Kevinkor2|talk]]) 05:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
:I just removed. Lots of people don't like the fact that the DI is called on its nonsense, but that's not a reason to put up with drive-by tagging. [[User:WLU|WLU]] [[User talk:WLU|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/WLU|(c)]] Wikipedia's rules:[[WP:SIMPLE|simple]]/[[WP:POL|complex]] 06:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

:: First let me apologize for the anonymity of my POV tag, I was not logged in at the time, and it was my very first edit, so please forgive my not adding the NPOV dispute section on the talk page, as I was still figuring out how to even use the talk page. ;-) As to which part of the article doesn't contain a neutral point of view, I believe that much of it does not, but I will cite several specific examples for the sake of argument. The very fact that almost the entire introductory paragraph centers around the controversies concerning one aspect of the Institute, and not a simple factual presentation of the organization's basic purpose and function is highly biased. Phrases like "the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis", through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community" are deeply ingrained with bias, and while pertinent to the controversy surrounding the Institute, are not functionally sound as neutral descriptions of the Institute - certainly not from the standpoint of the introductory paragraph. The anti-intelligent design perspective is not the defining characteristic of the Institute, and as such should not feature prominently in the basic introduction to the article. The NAACP is also a controversial organization, yet their introduction simply states the organization's goals and function. Any controversy is reserved for areas of the article where they are strictly pointed out as controversial, and not used to redefine the organization according to the bias of the editor.

:: I understand the previous editor's comment that "lots of people don't like the fact that the DI is called on its nonsense", but correct me if I'm wrong, Wikipedia is not the forum for calling anyone on their nonsense, at least not in the articles. I have no troubles with dissenting opinions concerning ideas being presented, but when ideas are presented as fact with little concern (or worse, disdain) for opposing ideas then we have stepped out of the realm of neutrality that we are to be striving for in the creation of a collaborative encyclopedia. While the scientific community may hold little love for the intelligent design debate, the general public is statistically (by a 9 to 1 margin) more in line with the Institute's perspective, thus making the pejorative statements to the contrary even more representative of a non-neutral and undue pov.

:: Another example of the lack of NPOV is the controversy section. It reads like an editorial bent on convincing the reader of the truth of it's claims, with very little representation of the Institute's stances or responses to the criticisms. Phrases like "The proof that intelligent design was creationism re-labeled played a significant part in the Kitzmiller trial," with no countering statements to the contrary betray an assumption (or assertion) that the ideas are uncontested, when that is clearly not the case (in this single case, simply replacing "proof" with "argument" would - I believe - satisfy POV concerns). Most of the section is made up of anti-Discovery Institute quotes (understandably) with nothing to balance the perspective at all. I'm sure this is just due to the majority of editors on this article coming from an anti-ID perspective and there not being a good representation of editors who can accurately posit the balancing arguments, but that does not diminish the fact that there is a problem with the gross under-representation of the Institute's actual perspective from a non-hostile and non-pejorative approach.

:: I do not deny that there is plenty of controversy surrounding the organization and the issues it champions, and as such, articles concerning them will be difficult to edit to say the least. What I do not understand is why there is so much hostility towards having the POV tag when there is clearly a measure of dissent against the neutrality of the article. The tag only informs the casual reader that what they are reading may not fully represent all sides of the debate neutrally. Unless there is some agenda to present as fact what there is still actually little consensus on, then I think the tag should stand until sufficient editing can be done to remedy the situation. I intend to do some more work to this end, and to invite others to do so as well, but in the mean time, the POV tag is informative and represents the best intentions of Wikipedia to maintain neutrality of perspective when dealing with sensitive subjects. I am going to replace the tag, because I still believe firmly that it is warranted. I do not wish to engage in edit wars or debates over the two sides of the issues at hand, but rather it is my hope that we can make Wikipedia better by having articles that accurately and neutrally represent the full spectrum of ideas concerning the topics we are dealing with.
::--[[User:Laynerogers|Laynerogers]] ([[User talk:Laynerogers|talk]]) 17:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
:::[[WP:NPOV]] states that we represent what can be found in reliable sources, proportionate to their prominence. All scientific organizations are universal in confirming a) intelligent design is creationism, and b) the DI is not a scientific organization - it's religious, pretending to be scientific. You may not like that Dover v. Kitzmiller came down negative, but it did so for a reason - intelligent design is creationism, not science. Your assertions, lack of understanding of Wikipedia's definition of neutrality, lack of familiarity with the critical (reliable) sources, and failure to provide any sources to substantiate your point means you don't have a point to make here. Get some reliable sources, then we'll talk. Intelligent design is not science - it is creationism. {{tl|POV}} is not a badge of shame. I'm removing it again. You may believe firmly that it is warranted, but bluntly your opinion is worthless. Get some sources. In this case, there are no sides - the DI is wrong, lying, and does not have a coherent set of ideas to express.
:::We're hostile because creationists want to "tell both sides". [[Teach the Controversy]] has its own article. We're sick of having to defend science from religious zealots who don't understand why science rejects their arguments but somehow think they can "preach the truth" and change the page. You can't.
:::[[WP:TLDR|Please shorten your posts]] and include [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. [[User:WLU|WLU]] [[User talk:WLU|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/WLU|(c)]] Wikipedia's rules:[[WP:SIMPLE|simple]]/[[WP:POL|complex]] 19:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

==Focus on Intelligent Design==
This article appears to include information predominently about this organization's advocacy for the Intelligent Design (ID) idea. In fact, it makes the organization look like that is it's major mission. Is this really true? Is ID the major platform of this organization, or is it but one of many ideas the organization promotes? [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 01:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
:I take it by the non-response that no one has bothered trying to find out. I'll take a look myself. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 07:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
::They have another arm arguing for certain local projects in Seattle. The article mentions this. Most of the institute's money is directed toward the [[Center for Science and Culture]]. [[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 08:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Thank you. The current lede doesn't summarize the article very well, instead concentrating on criticism. I'll try to get it rewritten over the next couple of days. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 13:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
::::By the way, I looked at the Institute's website, and although they do appear to be promoting Intelligent Design, the idea does not have a predominent presence on their website. Any article about an idealogical or political advocacy organization like this one should first describe the mission of the organization ''as they see themselves'' and then any reliably sourced outside views including praise, neutral comments, or criticism should be included, but not with more weight than any other section. Obviously, that is not currently the case with this article. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 14:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
{{od}}I tend to agree that the lead and part of the article is a bit unbalanced though may be accurate. More about how the DI markets themselves is needed. Their "About Us" is particularly interesting:
{{cquote|Mission Statement

Discovery Institute's mission is to make a positive vision of the future practical. The Institute discovers and promotes ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty. Our mission is promoted through books, reports, legislative testimony, articles, public conferences and debates, plus media coverage and the Institute's own publications and Internet website ( http://www.discovery.org ).

Current projects explore the fields of technology, science and culture, reform of the law, national defense, the environment and the economy, the future of democratic institutions, transportation, religion and public life, government entitlement spending, foreign affairs and cooperation within the bi-national region of "Cascadia." The efforts of Discovery fellows and staff, headquartered in Seattle, are crucially abetted by the Institute's members, board and sponsors.}}
The fact that "intelligent design" doesn't appear in their mission statement is telling. Yet, it is unescapable that this is what the institute is best known for in the media and it is also what the vast majority of their publications, events, and promotions are about. I'd love to see you take a crack at it.
[[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 21:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
:I take it from your statement that you aren't willing to help me out with it. OK. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 00:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
::I'm certainly willing to help you out. I'm not sure why my statement gave you any other impression. [[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 00:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Well, "I'd love to see '''you''' [emphasis mine] take a crack at it." You may be right, however, I'll check some news databases today if I have time to see if this organization does anything else besides promoting ID. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 00:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
::::Whoa, the emphasis was not supposed to be on '''you'''! I'm just not sure I'm going to be able to fix it myself. But help I will. [[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 05:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

== hatnote ==

Would it not be a good idea to replace hatnote with link to disambiguation page? [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 19:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
:Done. ''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]][[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''') 05:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
::Good idea, Bus stop! Thanks for doing it, Hrafn! --[[User:Kevinkor2|Kevinkor2]] ([[User talk:Kevinkor2|talk]]) 18:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

== Add to Category: Cults? ==

Hi, I think it's safe to say there is probably a consensus to start adding organizations like these to Category: Cults. Wikipedia's definition of a cult is, "The word cult in current popular usage usually refers to a new religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre." I think we can all agree that this organization and others like it fall under that definition.

Talk:Young Earth creationism

2011-12-10T12:23:16Z

98.231.231.231:

{{skip to toc}}
{{talk header}}
{{Pseudoscience sanctions}}
{{calm talk}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPReligion|class=B|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Pseudoscience}}
{{WikiProject Creationism |class= B |importance= High |Young Earth creationism=yes |Young Earth creationism-importance= Top }}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchive}}
|maxarchivesize = 70K
|counter = 11
|minthreadsleft = 7
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Archive box|search=yes|
* [[Talk:Young Earth creationism/Creationist perspectives on dinosaurs archive|Creationist perspectives on dinosaurs]] (merged article)
* [[Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (Nov 2003–April 2005)
* [[Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 2|Archive 2]] (April 2005–Sept 2006)
* [[Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 3|Archive 3]] (Oct 2005–Oct 2007)
* [[Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 4|Archive 4]] (Sept–December 2007)
* [[Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 5|Archive 5]] (Sept 2007–July 2008)
* [[Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 6|Archive 6]] (May 2008–December 2009)
* [[Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 7|Archive 7]] (December 2009–January 2010)
* [[Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 8|Archive 8]] (January 2010–)
}}
__TOC__
{{Clear}}

== Islam and Young Earth Creationism ==

It is stated that "Young Earth creationism (YEC) is a form of creationism that asserts the Heavens, Earth, and all life on Earth was created by direct acts of the Abrahamic God during a relatively short period, sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago.[1] Its adherents are Christians, Jews[2] and Muslims[3] who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative as a basis for their beliefs.[4][5]"

But in citation [3] (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15857761/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/muslim-creationism-makes-inroads-turkey/) does not mention anything related with Young Earth Creationism. It only mentions that some muslims in Turkey support Creationism but not explicitly stated as Young Earth Creationism.

I suggest that either the citation is changed with another citation that explicitly state muslim support for YEC or any statement of muslim support for YEC should be removed. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ridwan Nurhayat|Ridwan Nurhayat]] ([[User talk:Ridwan Nurhayat|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ridwan Nurhayat|contribs]]) 04:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC) 

:My understanding was that creationist Muslims, basing their beliefs on the Koran, rather than the [[Book of Genesis]] do not specifically subscribe to a young Earth -- see [[Islamic views on evolution#Theology]] for details. I'm therefore removing the passage. ''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]][[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''') 05:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

::Good call. It's easy, but now I see demonstrably wrong with this example, to tie together an unchanging creation with Young Earth Creation. With a bit of research, [http://quran.com/32/1-7 32:4 and 32:5 of the Koran] explain why the "six days" is not interpreted literally in Islam. I might see if I can add this to the islamic theology article somehow. [[User:GDallimore|GDallimore]] ([[User talk:GDallimore|Talk]]) 14:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Wouldn't it be better to say "mainly Christians and Jews", instead of excluding the [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html#Edis1994 minorities]? [[User:Wekn reven i susej eht|'''Wekn ''''''reven i susej eht''']] [[User talk:Wekn reven i susej eht|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Wekn reven i susej eht|Follow]] 16:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

::::Again, that's creationism in general, not necessarily YEC. [[User:GDallimore|GDallimore]] ([[User talk:GDallimore|Talk]]) 21:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, let me point the sentence out: "Most Islamic Young Earth Creationism is imported directly from the USA." Thank you. [[User:Wekn reven i susej eht|'''Wekn ''''''reven i susej eht''']] [[User talk:Wekn reven i susej eht|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Wekn reven i susej eht|Follow]] 07:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

:Not in the original article: http://www2.truman.edu/~edis/writings/articles/islamic.html [[User:GDallimore|GDallimore]] ([[User talk:GDallimore|Talk]]) 10:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
::Oh, you're right. My apologies. [[User:Wekn reven i susej eht|'''Wekn ''''''reven i susej eht''']] [[User talk:Wekn reven i susej eht|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Wekn reven i susej eht|Follow]] 14:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
:::How about [http://books.google.com/books?id=w1NUHmio_jEC&pg=PA344&lpg=PA344&dq=adnan+oktar+yec&source=bl&ots=OL-mpSbGGj&sig=ZNHNp5wyiq9wR-d9S9QDExYPDv0&hl=en&ei=D3KITsnoM8Wk8QPpl7Ey&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=adnan%20oktar%20yec&f=false this] one? The sentence on the right column. [[User:Wekn reven i susej eht|'''Wekn ''''''reven i susej eht''']] [[User talk:Wekn reven i susej eht|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Wekn reven i susej eht|Follow]] 14:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

::::This appears to be disputed: see [[Adnan Oktar]] and http://books.google.com/books?id=0mSCHC0QMUgC&pg=PA141&dq=%22Adnan+Oktar%22+-inpublisher:icon&cd=6&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22Adnan%20Oktar%22%20-inpublisher%3Aicon&f=false. Again, I think it's too easy to confuse an anti-evolutionary stance and intelligent design with YEC. Although they do often go hand in hand they are not necessarily equivalent.
::::Maybe a better discussion could be started at the [[Islamic_views_on_evolution]] article. Editors there might know more. [[User:GDallimore|GDallimore]] ([[User talk:GDallimore|Talk]]) 15:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::You're right. I'll check it out. Thanks for pointing me there. All it takes to add the "most" in there is one Islamic YEC, so I highly doubt there isn't one, although I have to actually ''find'' one to add the word. [[User:Wekn reven i susej eht|'''Wekn ''''''reven i susej eht''']] [[User talk:Wekn reven i susej eht|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Wekn reven i susej eht|Follow]] 14:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::I couldn't access [http://www.sciencemag.org/content/322/5908/1637 this] source, sadly (the article's citation for Creationism being totally absent from the Muslim world) because it is located on a members-only website. That's a dilemma. [[User:Wekn reven i susej eht|'''Wekn ''''''reven i susej eht''']] [[User talk:Wekn reven i susej eht|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Wekn reven i susej eht|Follow]] 14:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::It seems like it does [http://www.happypuppysunshineblog.com/2011/09/25/i-do-it-to-myself-continued/ exist], but I've yet to come across a reliable source. [[User:Wekn reven i susej eht|'''Wekn ''''''reven i susej eht''']] [[User talk:Wekn reven i susej eht|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Wekn reven i susej eht|Follow]] 14:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
{{od}}Members-only sources at reliable sites aren't a problem. See [[WP:PAYWALL]]. --[[User talk:Kingoomieiii|King Öomie]] 19:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
:I'm well aware of that, I just couldn't access it. [[User:Wekn reven i susej eht|'''Wekn ''''''reven i susej eht''']] [[User talk:Wekn reven i susej eht|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Wekn reven i susej eht|Follow]] 14:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

== Accusation of bias ==

In the creation series of articles in Wikipedia it is obvious that the author(s) are completely biased against anything creation related. With a desire to learn more about the subject and stance of proponents of these ideas I read through a barrage of reasons why evolutionists say it is wrong rather than an article explaining the subject matter. I simple sentence saying evolutionary theories disagree with these tenets would suffice with a link to an applicable article. This is an op-ed rather than an encyclopedia article about the subject heading.

Yes, there are headings which state the stance of various religions, but in every case there is substantial bias against the subject matter with an effort to discredit anything which varies from evolution. When we so judiciously implicate and attack a subject with an article which should rather be encyclopedaic in nature, it only serves to demonstrate a lack of true belief in our own stance and emotional maturity. Let each side explain its doctrines and beliefs so the public can choose. Although I may choose to believe in evolution, I would like to hear what the other side has to say. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Willemta|Willemta]] ([[User talk:Willemta|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Willemta|contribs]]) 12:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC) 
:Wikipedia isn't a debate moderator that presents "both sides" for the public to decide. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and for the same reasons that a biology textbook couldn't treat creationism as science, Wikipedia can't either. There are several policies involved with this, including [[WP:FRINGE]], [[WP:UNDUE]] and of course [[WP:NPOV]]. It would be doing our readers a disservice if we presented the material as if it had merit and without rebuttal. [[User:Noformation|Noformation]] [[User talk:Noformation|Talk]] 00:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

:(EDIT CONFLICT) I'll begin this reply by saying you have a point. The article shouldn't have to be as it is. As an example, I wish the lead didn't have to have the much-argued over line about the IAP's view on the scientific consensus.
:But it is not anti-creation bias which has put it in it's current sorry state. The problem is modern day YECs who have chosen to wage an insistent and continuing war against science and science education. Without that attack, this article could simply state, as you suggest, that "YEC is a religious belief that the earth was created in the fashion described under a literal reading of Genesis".
:Unfortunately, by choosing to attack science rather than merely stick to religious belief, and by further insisting that science education should promote a religious belief, there is no choice but to include the response of the scientific community to that attack. Furthermore, it is not a sign of pro-scientific bias that the response shows just how unfounded and ridiculous the current attack on science is. You can't blame the scientific community for being able to poke so many holes in the YEC's attack. You also can't blame the scientific community for the fact that every time they knock down one argument, the YEC's change their argument and try again, leading to a plethora of dubious statements and their rebuttals.
:Hopefully, this whole modern argument will go the way of the Galileo debacle over the [[Geocentric model]] and the misguided activities of the current YEC movement can be shortened to an historical footnote similar to that article's brief discussion.
:The only way I can see you and I getting what we would like would be to turn to [[WP:NOTNEWSPAPER]] and to cut out most of the modern YEC arguments out as simply not being notable in the long term. However, it is difficult from the vantage point of the middle of the event to see which arguments will prove noteworthy and which not, so keeping all but the most ridiculous attacks on science seems the best option for now. [[User:GDallimore|GDallimore]] ([[User talk:GDallimore|Talk]]) 00:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

== Systemic Bias ==

Why is it so hard to keep information here about the Oriental Orthodox Churches' adherence to YEC? Because it doesn't fit in with the official mythos of YEC being just an American hillbilly phenomenon? The Oriental Churches are the predominant denomination in areas of Africa and Asia that were never under Roman domination, and they have always held firmly to YEC since literally year 1. [[User:Til Eulenspiegel|Til Eulenspiegel]] ([[User talk:Til Eulenspiegel|talk]]) 23:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
:There should be no problem at all maintaining information in the article if it's backed up with reliable sources. [[User:GDallimore|GDallimore]] ([[User talk:GDallimore|Talk]]) 00:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
::True, and what does 'literally year 1' mean? [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 05:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:::Maybe that Adam and Eve were Oriental Orthodox Christians? LOL -- '''[[User:Obsidian Soul|Obsidi♠n]] [[User talk:Obsidian Soul|Soul]]''' 07:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
::::Is this discussion of any help to the article? [[User:Wekn reven i susej eht|'''Wekn ''''''reven i susej eht''']] [[User talk:Wekn reven i susej eht|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Wekn reven i susej eht|Follow]] 12:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::Yes because it seems whoever is controlling this article are promoting the myth that YEC is mostly confined to the rural US, when in fact it is practically universal among Middle East Christians as well, but the article doesn't mention that, and if added it is always removed. this needs to be addressed as a case of [[WP:BIAS]] and a more global and informative article needs to result, not a propaganda piece. And yes although Adam and Eve were of course Oriental Orthodox Christians (tongue in cheek, lol yuk yuk) I was thinking more since roughly year 1 AD, ie since the foundation attributed by the OOC to itself, by the first Apostles who visited Asia and Africa outside the Roman Empire. At any rate, what I really mean is, there has never been a time when the OOC was not YEC. This is deliberate propaganda by omission. [[User:Til Eulenspiegel|Til Eulenspiegel]] ([[User talk:Til Eulenspiegel|talk]]) 12:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::Is it bias? Wikipedia has not decided to declare itself as holding a naturalistic science point of view. Though some of its policies lean that direction. Young Earth creationism is considered FRINGE by many editors. Politicians, such as those in the European Union, often consider YEC to be a threat to science. These politicians see it as their duty to protect society from "unscientific" assertions. Often schools become the battle ground. Wikipedia reflects this bias toward naturalistic science. [[Special:Contributions/69.158.91.88|69.158.91.88]] ([[User talk:69.158.91.88|talk]]) 12:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::If the anon would read [[WP:BIAS]], s/he might learn that I am complaining of a classical case of "systemic bias" here, not so much a POV bias. [[User:Til Eulenspiegel|Til Eulenspiegel]] ([[User talk:Til Eulenspiegel|talk]]) 13:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::@Til Eulenspiegel: Which is all fine and dandy, as long as you can provide reliable third-party sources to back that up. Also, there's a bit more to creationism than just believing in the scriptures. Some element of rejecting modern scientific conclusions is required, as well. [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 12:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::The Oriental Orthodox Churches as a body explicitly and officially state that they doctrinally adhere to YEC as their teaching. What more do you want? The sources can be dug up again if you like, but as of now we still have a one sided and skewed misleading article. [[User:Til Eulenspiegel|Til Eulenspiegel]] ([[User talk:Til Eulenspiegel|talk]]) 12:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:I have not seen any sourced discussion of this removed from the article for the months that I have been watching it. So you are either in the wrong on that point, or are posting your complaint VERY late in the day. Also, if you look up this page a bit, you might see that I started trying to piece together some surveys of worldwide belief in YEC. I hit a dead end trying to get more information from the survey-makers, so hadn't got around to introducing it into the article. Perhaps you might like to take a try based on the sources I've found and any others that you're aware of, possibly by expanding the end of the [[Young_Earth_creationism#Revival]] section.
:By the way, if you look at the survey data above, you'll see that belief in an unchanging creation (which I suggest is a superset of YEC) is not even close to being "universal" in any country (eg 50% of egyptians belive in God-guided evolution). Sadly, the summary doesn't break the info down by religion within each country. [[User:GDallimore|GDallimore]] ([[User talk:GDallimore|Talk]]) 13:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The Oriental Orthodox most definitely do not adhere to YEC, according to their own Pope Shenouda III in his book "So many years with The Problems of People":
:"[Q] How can the saying of the Bible that God created the world in six days coincide with the opinion of the geologists that the age of the earth is thousands even millions of years?
:Answer: The days of creation are not Solar days as our days now. The day of creation is a period of time, not known how long, which could haven been a second or thousands or millions of years. This period was determined by the saying "so the evening and the morning were..."
and
:"Let the geologists say then whatever they want about the age of the earth; for the Bible did not mention any age for the earth that may contradict the views of the geologists. The way the Lord looks to the measurement of time is explained by the apostle as follows: "With the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet. 3:8)."[[http://books.google.com/books?id=FVnxJjTJ-QwC&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=%22Let+the+geologists+say+then+whatever+they+want+about+the+age+of+the+earth;+for+the+Bible+did+not+mention+any+age+for+the+earth+that+may+contradict+the+views+of+the+geologists.%22&source=bl&ots=5K9LfMbjiH&sig=tpWY0OSXWVqmMnajFtlbrti70_c&hl=en&ei=hZSZTqz4M9GLhQeuzsSEBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Let%20the%20geologists%20say%20then%20whatever%20they%20want%20about%20the%20age%20of%20the%20earth%3B%20for%20the%20Bible%20did%20not%20mention%20any%20age%20for%20the%20earth%20that%20may%20contradict%20the%20views%20of%20the%20geologists.%22&f=false]].

Til Eulenspiegel is talking nonsense. [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 14:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:*Dominus, our goal here is to understand Til Eulenspiegel's concern. To proclaim his talk "nonsense" doesn't seem very helpful. You have quoted from Pope Shenouda III. Let's identify the source for Pope Shenouda's statement and who in particular consider his statements authoritative. I understand that there are six different faith groups which associate as Oriental Orthodoxy. [[User:DonaldRichardSands|DonaldRichardSands]] ([[User talk:DonaldRichardSands|talk]]) 15:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:*@Til Eulenspiegel, is Pope Shenouda III a spokesperson for the Oriental Orthodox group as a whole, or just the Coptic Orthodox group? [[User:DonaldRichardSands|DonaldRichardSands]] ([[User talk:DonaldRichardSands|talk]]) 15:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:*Re the term "Creationist". Clear lines can be drawn between a YEC worldview and other worldviews. The YEC worldview does not allow for earth's biological life to be millions of years old. The quotes from Pope Shenouda seem to indicate that he is willing to consider the possibility of an old earth-old life view. This is often called OEC, or Old Earth Creationist view. Til Eulenspiegel is it your contention that Oriental Orthodoxy holds exclusively to a YEC worldview? [[User:DonaldRichardSands|DonaldRichardSands]] ([[User talk:DonaldRichardSands|talk]]) 15:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

== Non-western Christian views of Young Earth Creation ==

Can we document the non-western viewpoint of the orthodox church in the middle east and the orient? The understanding of Creationism as a worldview developed in the West. Probably Ron Numbers has been most influential in promoting the historical study of creationism. I have not noticed any history presented of orthodox or oriental Christian thought. Can any editor show studies done? [[User:DonaldRichardSands|DonaldRichardSands]] ([[User talk:DonaldRichardSands|talk]]) 12:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:*Hi, Til Eulenspiegel: You said: "The Oriental Orthodox Churches as a body explicitly and officially state that they doctrinally adhere to YEC as their teaching." Can you provide the online source for this? Thanks. [[User:DonaldRichardSands|DonaldRichardSands]] ([[User talk:DonaldRichardSands|talk]]) 13:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
::Yes, I believe I can, but I'll have to look for it after tonight when I get home. If anyone else wants to beat me to it and look it up, go right ahead. [[User:Til Eulenspiegel|Til Eulenspiegel]] ([[User talk:Til Eulenspiegel|talk]]) 13:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:Hi, Donald! One of the problems you're going to have to deal with that doctrine in Eastern churches is much more minimalistic in what it says their adherents must believe. Wide latitude for individual thought is allowed as long as it conforms to the basic dogmas. These churches haven't gone as far as Roman Catholicism in spelling out in microscopic detail what is to believed or not. And statements by the hierarchy are more advisory than compulsory except on core dogma. It's really a completely different can of worms than Western Christianity. [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 13:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
::That is quite incorrect and can only be spoken in ignorance. A hole in your knowledge about this area doesn't mean nothing is there. [[User:Til Eulenspiegel|Til Eulenspiegel]] ([[User talk:Til Eulenspiegel|talk]]) 13:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:::Feel free to enlighten us. With reliable sources, of course. [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 13:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:Donald: There is no "official" support for YEC in the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox churches. Some bishops may have made statements supporting YEC, but those statements are neither dogmatically or doctrinally binding. There is some support for creationism among the laity, but that really doesn't mean anything, either. The Oriental Orthodox Pope Shenouda III clearly rejects YEC (see my answer in the previous section) [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 14:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but please don't accuse me of talking nonsense. The OO Churches firmly insist that mankind's appearance on earth was within the last few thousand years, while perhaps some allow for much more time to have elapsed between the creation of earth and mankind. Thinking about it though I can see this might be more technically Young Mankind Creationism, but Young Earth Creationism is also widespread enough in the Middle East to warrant at least some mention. [[User:Til Eulenspiegel|Til Eulenspiegel]] ([[User talk:Til Eulenspiegel|talk]]) 15:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:*Let's document what OO Church thought leaders have written on the topic. This can include books as well as periodicals. It is of benefit to our Wikipedia readership to understand the facts on this. [[User:DonaldRichardSands|DonaldRichardSands]] ([[User talk:DonaldRichardSands|talk]]) 15:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
::Document what? There's nothing to document so far... [[User:GDallimore|GDallimore]] ([[User talk:GDallimore|Talk]]) 16:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
::It's not worth the effort. It would be only a footnote at best. I've taken care of the problem by adding a single word to the article. That's more than enough. [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 16:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:::GDallimore and Dominus Vobisdu, I appreciate your opinion and view your statements as such. The discussion may continue... [[User:DonaldRichardSands|DonaldRichardSands]] ([[User talk:DonaldRichardSands|talk]]) 16:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

:::@GDallimore, perhaps we will conclude that. But, Til Eulenspiegel is reporting that all throughout the Middle East the Oriental Orthodox Church members believe in a Young Earth Creationism. Perhaps all we will be able to show is that the Oriental Orthodox Churches teach a six day creation. Notice this:

::::The Shorter Catechism of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch and Malankar Orthodox Syrican Church, Catechism: Section One. Chapter Three: On Creation

:::::2. In how many days God create the world?

:::::In six days. [[http://www.stmaryscathedral.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62&Itemid=71]]

::::This does not state a Young Earth view, but it does state a six day creation view. Is the distinction important? [[User:DonaldRichardSands|DonaldRichardSands]] ([[User talk:DonaldRichardSands|talk]]) 16:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::Yes, it's vitally important. And irrelevant. See the Pope's comments in the previous section. Really, Richard. Their just ain't no story here. And blind Googling without a basic knowledge of creationism and Orthodox Christianity is not going to produce anything of value. [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 16:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

:This adds nothing. If this were relevant then each and every Christian, Jew and Muslim would be a YEC since the Bible and the Koran both say the earth/universe was created in six days. The key is how this is interpreted: literally or allegorically. [[User:GDallimore|GDallimore]] ([[User talk:GDallimore|Talk]]) 16:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
::By the way, let me make absolutely clear that I know nothing at all about eastern orthodoxy. Zero, zilch, nada. I am not arguing this point because I believe strongly in the contrary view. I am arguing this point for two reasons:
:::1. Til made an agressive attack on the regular editors of this article, accusing people of ownership, biased editing and removing material to support a POV. That is out of line and I will not condone such behaviour by staying silent.
:::2. Not one single source has been presented (so far) to support Til's view, so it's clearly not suitable for adding to the article. If Til or someone else brings a relevant source to the table then this discussion can continue. Until then, I'm not sure there's any point continuing this conversation. [[User:GDallimore|GDallimore]] ([[User talk:GDallimore|Talk]]) 16:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:*The commanding, domineering style of commenting can be interpreted as a sense of ownership. No one is asking you to condone someone you disagree with. It would be helpful if we address the issues and not try to dominate other editors. [[User:DonaldRichardSands|DonaldRichardSands]] ([[User talk:DonaldRichardSands|talk]]) 17:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
::*Dominus, thanks for your advice, and yes I certainly need to study more. I have noted that there are different forms of Orthodox Christianity. Weeks and months of reseach will be done, I hope. In the mean time, I have noted that the Syrian catechism reads different than the Russion one.

:::Syrian
:::http://www.stmaryscathedral.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62&Itemid=71

:::Russion (see page 19)
:::http://www.stseraphimmichigan.org/big/catechism.pdf

*Part of my goal here is to help Til document what he asserts, if he can. As we examine what the various faith groups say, the issues clarify. Everyone even Dominus and GDallimore want clarificaton, right? [[User:DonaldRichardSands|DonaldRichardSands]] ([[User talk:DonaldRichardSands|talk]]) 17:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

::There is systemic bias present in the minds of some wikipedians, evident in opinions expressed that the Oriental orthodox Chuches are so insignificant as to merit only a footnote, and not even that. Let me tell you, in countries where the majority population are oriental orthodox adherents, they have a significant voice. Systemic bias is blindness or unwillingness to look at what people in other places think. The way to fix the systemic bias is to expand coverage of areas outside the United States. Also I see some people are trying the tired old tactic of making this an ad hominem against me for raising it up. Finally I think the edit to the article needs to specify "EASTERN" orthodox since there is no support for "theistic evolution" with ORIENTAL Orthodox. [[User:Til Eulenspiegel|Til Eulenspiegel]] ([[User talk:Til Eulenspiegel|talk]]) 17:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
::::All I've ever done is ask for a source. Supply one. You're the one going on about people "controlling" this article. You're the one making ad hominem attacks. I'm not going to waste any more of my time on a disruptive editor like yourself until you find a source for your opinion. [[User:GDallimore|GDallimore]] ([[User talk:GDallimore|Talk]]) 17:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::*Some strong-talking editors seem like they are trying to control. GDallimore, we have not discussed much of anything. However, Dominus often speaks like he is a commander, or so it seems to me. We are in this together. Our goal is to have this article be the best that it can be. Til perhaps is noticing what one author has observed: "The Eastern traditions of Christianity nowadays have large congregations (numbering well over 200 million), but they have attracted little scholarly attention to date from Anglophone anthropologists." It has been suggested that only a footnote will do. Til challenges this. However, we still need documentation. [[User:DonaldRichardSands|DonaldRichardSands]] ([[User talk:DonaldRichardSands|talk]]) 17:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:::*@Til we have the Syrian Catechism part of Oriental Orthodoxy, are there others? Has Creationism been debated within the Oriental Orthodox community. What about the Coptic Popes statement cited by Dominus above? He is Oriental Orthodox, isn't he? The quote above reads very much like the Russian Catechism (p. 19 )above. More sourcing would help. [[User:DonaldRichardSands|DonaldRichardSands]] ([[User talk:DonaldRichardSands|talk]]) 17:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I have not ad hominemed any editor here. I am not being disruptive either. That is what's called an "unjustified reproach". The sheer level of animosity of some against expanding this article to cover more than the United States should be apparent. That's what we call "systemic bias". The solution may be to bring this case up on the Systemic Bias noticeboard. As for my sources, I said I would dig them up after I get home tonight. Please be patient a few hours good sir. [[User:Til Eulenspiegel|Til Eulenspiegel]] ([[User talk:Til Eulenspiegel|talk]]) 18:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

== Young Earth Creationism, "In Six Days" Creationism, and Theistic Evolution ==

This line in the article needs verification:

"Some churches such as the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches accept the possibility of theistic evolution but despite this, some individual church members support young Earth creationism"

The associated link seems to be dead.

I seem to recall that the Roman Catholic Church via Pope Benedict has made its peace with common origin evolution. I have not seen the verification for the orthodox view of the same. In fact, evidence has been submitted in the last section that the Oriental Orthodox Church (syrian church) does not accept theistic evolution but a six day creation belief instead. [[User:DonaldRichardSands|DonaldRichardSands]] ([[User talk:DonaldRichardSands|talk]]) 16:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:You're still not getting the point. Orthodox Christianity has no definitive dogma on creationism, nor any doctrine that mandates biblical literalism. Please do your research before making further suggestions. And by that, I mean weeks or months of research, not just silly quick Google searches. Orthodox Christianity is a whole different world than the Christianity you are used to, and it will take you some time and work to figure out how it works. You're making a grave mistake by trying to understand it in terms of Western Christianity. [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 16:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
::*My research is ongoing, of course, weeks and months research. :) I don't do silly quick Google searches. Quick, but never silly. I appreciate the need to view Orthodox Christianity in its own terms. I suggest that we seek to understand Til on his own terms as well. I am always intrigued with WP editors who speak as though they are the commanders of others. We are equals not in knowledge, but in task. Shall we view each other that way? [[User:DonaldRichardSands|DonaldRichardSands]] ([[User talk:DonaldRichardSands|talk]]) 17:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:*'''Terms:'''
:::'''Young Earth creationism''' is the belief that the earth was literally created recently, within the last 6-10 thousand years ago. A modification of this is the belief that life on earth was literally created recently, with the same time frame. This modification allows for the creation of non-life components of the earth in long time before this. [[User:DonaldRichardSands|DonaldRichardSands]] ([[User talk:DonaldRichardSands|talk]]) 15:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

:::'''"Six days" creation''' is the belief that the earth was created in "six days" according to the assertions of sacred texts. Young Earth creationists usually believe that those six days were literal 24 hour days. Others who cite "six days" allow for those days to be figurative or of longer duration than days are literally. [[User:DonaldRichardSands|DonaldRichardSands]] ([[User talk:DonaldRichardSands|talk]]) 15:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
::::see also [[Day-age creationism]] [[User:Jojalozzo|Joja]][[User talk:Jojalozzo|lozzo]] 16:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

:::'''Theistic Evolution''' is the belief that God created life and then caused or influenced its development through the process of evolution. This view is compatible with naturalism. Contemporary science concerns itself with naturalistic explanations and usually does not enter into discussions about the existence of God. [[User:DonaldRichardSands|DonaldRichardSands]] ([[User talk:DonaldRichardSands|talk]]) 15:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

== Adhering Church Bodies ==

This section is intended for an examination of official church statements on the age of the earth. It is important to distinguish between the belief in common descent and in the age of the earth. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention seems to adhere to the special creation of Adam and Eve as the first humans even though it makes no statement on the age of the earth. [[User:DonaldRichardSands|DonaldRichardSands]] ([[User talk:DonaldRichardSands|talk]]) 15:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

'''The Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church states:'''
:13.) We affirm that the Scriptures teach that the heavens and the earth were created in six literal and contiguous twenty-four hour days, and that the Scriptures teach a recent origin for the entire creation. 24

'''Compare this to the Seventh-day Adventist statement:'''
:6. Creation: God is Creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic account of His creative activity. In six days the Lord made "the heaven and the earth" and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work. The first man and woman were made in the image of God as the crowning work of Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it. When the world was finished it was ``very good,'' declaring the glory of God.

'''The Southern Baptist Convention has a statement about man:'''
:Man is the special creation of God, made in His own image. He created them male and female as the crowning work of His creation. The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God's creation. In the beginning man was innocent of sin and was endowed by his Creator with freedom of choice. By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God. The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man; therefore, every person of every race possesses full dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love.

'''Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church'''
:We affirm that Adam and Eve were real historical human beings, the first two people in the world, and that their fall was a historical occurrence which brought sin into the world so that “since the fall of Adam all men who are propagated according to nature are born in sin”...

'''Comments'''

Of the faith communities quoted only one makes specific mention of a young earth, i.e. The Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church. Some in the Seventh-day Adventist Church are advocating a change in wording to be more like the wording of the ERPC. Can we say that the SDA church is a Young Earth creationist denomination? Yes and No. Confusing? How about the Southern Baptist Convention. Baptists are congregationalists it seems. Are all, most, or few Baptists of the YEC persuasion? It seems that most SBC members do not believe in common descent evolution. Does this make them YEC? Not necessarily. The key to this ambiguity is that the Scriptures do not clearly advocate an age of the earth. [[User:DonaldRichardSands|DonaldRichardSands]] ([[User talk:DonaldRichardSands|talk]]) 16:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

'''More Faith Communities'''

'''The Roman Catholic Church''' John Paul II, if I remember correctly, clarified the RCC's stand re: common descent evolution and that it did not necessarily conflict with the church's doctrine.

'''The Eastern Orthodox Church''' The Russian Orthodox Church, quoted in a section above, considers the days of creation to be different than the literal days of the week.

'''The Oriental Orthodox Church''' The Syrian Catechism, also quoted above, seems to be teaching a literal understanding of the creation week. Dominus provided a quote from the Coptic Church's pope providing evidence that at least the Coptic church of the Oriental Orthodox Church view the days like the Eastern Orthodox Church does. Til Eulenspiegel reports that the Middle East churches of the Oriental Orthodox adhere to a Young Earth view. He plans to provide documentation for this.

'''More Comments''' Obviously, these views are not easy to determine if the faith community does not state a position. Belated signature [[User:DonaldRichardSands|DonaldRichardSands]] ([[User talk:DonaldRichardSands|talk]]) 14:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

== Views on Prehistoric Life ==

The article states that creationists do not deny the existence of prehistoric life-forms such as dinosaurs, but I find that an equally common view among creationists is that dinosaurs never actually existed, but their bones were put here by God to test our faith. I, of course, think this is pure bullshit, as are most creationist views, but since this article is meant to give information on the views of creationists, it is somewhat incorrect to say none of them deny the existence of the animals. Just to once again be clear, I do not support these views whatsoever and I'm actually quite the dinosaur enthusiast. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.36.148.242|24.36.148.242]] ([[User talk:24.36.148.242|talk]]) 10:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC) 
:*Can we document the sources which say that God put the bones here to test our faith? [[User:DonaldRichardSands|DonaldRichardSands]] ([[User talk:DonaldRichardSands|talk]]) 15:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
:::Of course, for YECs "prehistoric" never existed, as the world was created in historic times. The only mention of the word in the article is in the section on the [[Omphalos hypothesis]] which I think covers the view being discussed, though not its application to dinosaurs. As Donald says, source needed. . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 18:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
:*Prehistoric refers to the time prior to recorded history. Many conservative Biblical scholars hold to the idea that Moses wrote Genesis. This places Abraham in prehistory since he lived prior to Moses' written account. Even Biblical adherents can recognize an age prior to recorded history. The difference, of course, is that some believe that Moses' (or whoever's) account is reliable. If we mean by prehistoric, prehuman, Young earth creationists don't accept that any age of history was prehuman. I have heard the idea of God testing humanity but have not seen the documentation for it. [[User:DonaldRichardSands|DonaldRichardSands]] ([[User talk:DonaldRichardSands|talk]]) 16:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
:::Good points. A minor quibble, some [[Pre-Adamite]]s appear to have been YEC in the broad sense, but not in the post-1960 version. . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 18:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

== Some sources relevant to dinosaurs, age of the earth, fossils, etc. ==

I have been searching for sources which advocate the idea that fossils have been placed there by God as a test. So far, I have found no sources advocating such a view. I have found quite a few sources that say some creationists advocate it. A few of these say that it was a view held in the middle ages. Others attribute the view as more recent. The search continues for a source which advocates this "God is testing us" view. [[User:DonaldRichardSands|DonaldRichardSands]] ([[User talk:DonaldRichardSands|talk]]) 18:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

--------------------------

[http://books.google.ca/books?id=7BioEkbPKGUC&pg=PA67&dq=%22test+of+faith%22,+fossils&hl=en&ei=oDqsTp3MA4bY0QH68fyqDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22test%20of%20faith%22%2C%20fossils&f=false Questions about God: a guide for students by Patrick J. Clarke, Nelson Thornes, 2001 - Religion - 197 pages]

"Creationists have responded to these claims with the reply that God, by miraculous means, has altered the fossil record as a test of faith. Tis has led to the distinction between the actual age of the earth, and the apparent age of the earth. In this view, the earth was created according to Genesis about 10 000 years ago, but has an apparent age of millioins of years." p. 67

Resource for students studying courses involving understanding the philosophy of religion. Four main areas of importance for student understanding: The Existence and Nature of God, God and Science, God and Experience and God and Language.

"This view has been expressed by A. J. Monty White in How Old is the Earth? (1985): 'We can see clearly that the Bible teaches that created a mature creation that had superficial appearance of age.' He dismisses the theory of evolution as a prejudice that forces a reading rocks and fossils as millions, not thousands, of years old! The refusal of creationists to yield to scientific advances that conflict with the Bible is a reflection of their concern to preserve the religious and moral implications of the Bible's message. But many would argue that this is too high a price to pay for something that can be preserved and upheld in harmony with evolution.

Views of the world

Scientific
The world is a natural product of a scientific event that took place 20 billion years ago. It was probably a random, or chance, event.

Religious
The world was ultimately intended to exist by God and is sutained by his power. It is the testing ground for man to work out his salvation. "

page 68

----------------------

[http://books.google.ca/books?id=cnNKtEhHJ9kC&pg=PA159&dq=dinosaurs+test+faith&hl=en&ei=viesTtHFOcbe0QG1hYyiCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=dinosaurs%20test%20faith&f=false The challenge of creation: Judaism's encounter with science, cosmology, and evolution, Nosson Slifkin, Natan Slifkin, Zoo Torah, 2006 - Religion - 357 pages]

p. 159

"Some claim that God might have implanted such a false history in order to test our faith in the truth of the Torah. There are, however, considerable theological difficulties with such a theory...

“This work demonstrates that grappling with issues such as evolution, the age of the universe, the literalism of our sacred texts, miracles, divine providence, and the scientific worldview in general can result in a new appreciation of the breadth and depth of our Torah... Seekers, whether new to the Jewish observance or born into the Orthodox fold, will find in this work a model of honest confrontation with serious challenges. The Challenge of Creation spells out these challenges articulately, analyzes them keenly, and refers to impeccable and authoritative traditional sources to address them... Rabbi Slifkin is to be commended for his contribution to our abiding faith as well as for his courageous intellectual honesty.” Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb Executive Vice President, The Orthodox Union "In this revised edition of The Science of Torah, Rabbi Slifkin addresses creation and evolution with courage and integrity. Eschewing apologetics, Rabbi Slifkin sets down a highly sophisticated and deeply religious account of how an informed contemporary Jew is to think about the biblical story of creation. Clear, cogent, and philosophically convincing, Rabbi Slifkin's The Challenge of Creation is an intellectual kiddush Hashem (sanctification of God's Name)." Professor Yehuda Gellman Department of Philosophy, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Author, Experience of God and the Rationality of Theistic Belief "The Challenge of Creation is a wonderful and important book. Rabbi Slifkin demonstrates that cosmology and evolution are not a threat to religion and that Orthodox Judaism should not be hostile to modern science. On the contrary, educated Jews should embrace scientific progress as giving us a better understanding of and appreciation for the glory of God. Rabbi Slifkin writes with clarity and logic and with a firm grasp of the scientific issues. He provides extensive references to a wide range of Torah giants whose interpretations show that cosmology and evolution are not alien from our tradition. It is an invaluable resource for those of us in communities where the scientific ideas described in this book are known to be firmly established and where students, friends and colleagues constantly question us about traditional Judaism's views on modern science." Professor Carl Rosenzweig Department of Physics and Astronomy, Syracuse University "No one could read this book without being aware of the author's deeply spiritual nature and his absolute devotion to the faith of his fathers. At the same time, one meets a man for whom the world is God's creation and it is for us, made in God's image, to go forward bravely exploring and trying to understand this creation. Rabbi Slifkin shows us that modern science is in the end a wonderful hymn to what God has wrought, and its appreciation enriches our lives and makes possible an even greater respect for, and love of, the Author of all things." Professor Michael Ruse Department of Philosophy, Florida State University Author, The Darwinian Revolution and Darwin and Design

-----------------------

[http://books.google.ca/books?id=vH9-RjVH_JIC&pg=PA133&dq=dinosaurs+test+faith&hl=en&ei=viesTtHFOcbe0QG1hYyiCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=dinosaurs%20test%20faith&f=false The good life: options in ethics, Burton Frederick Porter, Rowman & Littlefield, 2009 - Philosophy - 265 pages]

"In defense of the religious view, theologians sometimes used implausible arguments such as 'God planted fossils on earth to test our faith,' or 'He made the world complete with dinosaur remains.', p. 133

A primer in ethics focusing on ultimate aims in living as proposed throughout philosophic history. Preliminary chapters cover the relation between ethics and science, religion, and psychology, as well as the challenge of relativism and determinism. The central section explores the ethical theories of hedonism, from the Greeks to the Utilitarians; self-realization, both of the individual and of our humanness, naturalism, including the Stoics and Transcendentalists; evolutionism as presented by both Darwin and Spencer; the ethic of duty of Immanuel Kant; religious systems including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism; virtue ethics in traditional and feminist forms; and existentialism from Nietzsche to Sartre. At various points, key concepts are introduced such as egoism and altruism, hard and soft determinism, deontology vs. teleology, and act and rule approaches to ethics. In addition, the 'standard of reasonableness' is discussed as a means of evaluating the ethical options.

-----------------

[http://books.google.ca/books?id=NAD1iWZEVYIC&dq=%22Building+Blocks+in+Science%22,+Gary+Parker&source=gbs_navlinks_s Building Blocks in Science, Gary Parker, New Leaf Publishing Group, 2007 - Religion - 160 pages]

An evolution-free look at the life sciences for junior high students.

"Dinosaurs seemed to provide such powerful support for evolution that a few Christians began to believe (incorrectly) that dinosaurs were all fakes, or maybe bones put in the ground by Satan to test the Christian's faith!", p. 45

-------------------------

[http://books.google.com/books?id=TIR_AiQ-npUC&q=middle#v=snippet&q=middle&f=false The last dinosaur book: the life and times of a cultural icon, W. J. Thomas Mitchell, University of Chicago Press, 1998 - 321 pages]

"In the Middle Ages, fossil bones were thought to be a hoax played by God to test the faith of Christians..." , p. 16

For animals that have been dead millions of years, dinosaurs are extraordinarily pervasive in our everyday lives. Appearing in ads, books, movies, museums, television, toy stores, and novels, they continually fascinate both adults and children. How did they move from natural extinction to pop culture resurrection? What is the source of their powerful appeal? Until now, no one has addressed this question in a comprehensive way. In this lively and engrossing exploration of the animal's place in our lives, W.J.T. Mitchell shows why we are so attached to the myth and the reality of the "terrible lizards." Mitchell aims to trace the cultural family tree of the dinosaur, and what he discovers is a creature of striking flexibility, linked to dragons and mammoths, skyscrapers and steam engines, cowboys and Indians. In the vast territory between the cunning predators of Jurassic Park and the mawkishly sweet Barney, from political leviathans to corporate icons, from paleontology to Barnum and Bailey, Mitchell finds a cultural symbol whose plurality of meaning and often contradictory nature is emblematic of modern society itself. As a scientific entity, the dinosaur endured a near-eclipse for over a century, but as an image it is enjoying its widest circulation. And it endures, according to Mitchell, because it is uniquely malleable, a figure of both innovation and obsolescence, massive power and pathetic failure--the totem animal of modernity. Drawing unforeseen and unusual connections at every turn between dinosaurs real and imagined, The Last Dinosaur Book is the first to delve so deeply, so insightfully, and so enjoyably into our modern dino-obsession.

===On fossils===
Thanks for finding these. Historically, [[fossil]] meant anything that had been dug up from the ground. In the early 17th century, some collectors regarded what we'd call fossils as simply curiously shaped stones, or possibly stones shaped by a "plastick virtue" to mimic living things. Protestantism introduced a literal rather than symbolic interpretation of the Bible, and also may have encouraged the development of science taking a realistic view of findings, though there was a context that science had to be reconciled with biblical history.

[[Nicolas Steno]] found fossils which he recognised as shark's teeth, and in 1669 published this with a geological sequence of strata which he attributed to two episodes of deposition: the creation, and the deluge. [[Robert Hooke]] found fossils of wood, and in 1668 read a paper to the [[Royal Society]], his "Discourse on Earthquakes" which described fossils as the remains of animals and plants buried in sediment. He proposed that the seabed had been raised by violent earth movements such as the sinking of Atlantis within the time of human history. He also found fossils without living equivalents, and proposed that "Animal Beings may have been destroyed" in the earth's convulsions, an early concept of extinction.

Extinction posed theological problems with its implication that modern populations differed from those at the creation. The founder of [[natural theology]] and influential proponent of the [[design argument]] [[John Ray]] could not accept that a caring God would create species then let them die out in a natural catastrophe. In 1692 he argued that the unknown species must be alive in unexplored areas of the world, but in 1713 he took up [[Edward Lhuyd]]'s proposal that they came from seeds that somehow grew in rocks to mimic living forms.

In 1695 the antiquarian [[John Woodward (naturalist)|John Woodward]] attributed the fossils he had collected to Noah's flood, with denser organisms sinking to greater depths to explain strata. Around then most naturalists thought his explanation unlikely, but the explanation is nowadays commonly used by YECs. In 1681 [[Thomas Burnet]] proposed the earth's formation from dead stars as a perfect sphere with waters inside, and the deluge caused by the spherical crust collapsing to form mountains and force up the water. He responded to the problem that this made God's punishment a natural, and hence inevitable, occurrence, by arguing that an omniscient God would have foreseen the need for punishment and pre-arranged the catastrophe accordingly. In 1691 [[Gottfried Leibniz]] published the view that this implied gradual cooling, and that fossils showed that many rocks had been formed by natural processes in the course of Earth's history. [[Benoît de Maillet]] proposed that the Earth was billions of years old in his ''Telliamed'' written around 1700 but only published posthumously in 1748. Source: *{{citation
| last = Bowler
| first = Peter J.
| year = 2003
| title = Evolution: The History of an Idea
| edition = 3rd
| publisher=University of California Press
| url = http://books.google.ca/books?id=gJXmS49Q7r0C&pg=PA34&dq=Bowler,+%22Evolution:+The+History+of+an+Idea%22,+%22there+was+also+a+growing%22&hl=en&ei=a9GtTuzNG7K40QHSj9SVDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
| isbn = 0-520-23693-9 }} pp. 32–38.

So, quite an old discussion. Of course dinosaurs weren't discovered until the early 19th century, by which time geologists accepted ancient earth going back millions or billions of years. . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 16:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
:*The Bowler source helps. He doesn't seem to mention anyone who considered fossils to be fakes planted by God to test faith. The idea is certainly asserted by critics but it has not been established that contemporary YECs assert it. [[User:DonaldRichardSands|DonaldRichardSands]] ([[User talk:DonaldRichardSands|talk]]) 22:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
::True. [[User:Wekn reven i susej eht|'''Wekn ''''''reven i susej eht''']] [[User talk:Wekn reven i susej eht|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Wekn reven i susej eht|Follow]] 10:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::OTOH, Price described the fossil-based sequence of the geologic time scale as "the devil's counterfeit of the six days of Creation as recorded in the first chapter of Genesis." Cite: Numbers, have edited accordingly...... [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 10:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

::::*This Price quote by Numbers is interesting. Price seems concerned about the sequence of fossils. How did Price view dinosaurs? [http://books.google.ca/books?id=aDmZ5_iUixgC&pg=PA81&dq=%22the+devil's+counterfeit+of+the+six+days+of+Creation+%22&hl=en&ei=45mwTtXdNobZ0QGfnOjZAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22the%20devil's%20counterfeit%20of%20the%20six%20days%20of%20Creation%20%22&f=false Numbers, Ronald L. The creationists. University of California Press, 1993 - 458 pages, page 81]
:::::Seems to me like a fringe view within a fringe view. [[User:Wekn reven i susej eht|'''Wekn ''''''reven i susej eht''']] [[User talk:Wekn reven i susej eht|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Wekn reven i susej eht|Follow]] 18:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

== Proposal to add this group and others like it to Categories: Cults ==

I think it's safe to say from the discussions on Wikipedia the past few years that we have enough consensus to start adding some of these organizations to Categories: Cults. Wikipedia's definition of a cult is "The word cult in current popular usage usually refers to a group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre", which I think some of these YEC and anti-evolution groups fall into.

Talk:Answers in Genesis

2011-11-27T15:41:15Z

98.231.231.231:

{{talk header}}
{{controversial}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{ChristianityWikiProject|class=C|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Kentucky}}
{{WikiProject Creationism |class= B |importance = High |Young Earth creationism=yes |Young Earth creationism-importance= Top }}
}}
{{tmbox
| small =
| type = delete
| text = The related '''[[:Category:Answers in Genesis fellows and advisors]]''' has been nominated for '''deletion, merging, or renaming[[Template:Cfdnotice|.]]''' You are encouraged to join the '''[[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion{{#if:2011 July 17‎|/Log/2011 July 17‎}}#{{#if:|{{{2}}}|Category:Answers in Genesis fellows and advisors}}|discussion]]''' on the [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion|Categories for discussion]] page. 
}}

== View on Science ==
There seems to be some disagreement about the content of the Views on Science section. Is this meant to be AiG's views on science? If so why are AiG not the primary source? What use is it to argue over what some other (hostile) party says that AiG's views are? Also the debated statements seem to be about the mainstream view of AiG's science. They are either in the wrong section, or belong towards the end of the section. After all, it makes sense to explain what AiG's views are before detailing their acceptance/rejection for whatever reason. Yes, yes I know some will cry FRINGE, but in an article/section ABOUT their views, there is no better source for what their views are then AiG themselves. (Actions are another matter).[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] ([[User talk:LowKey|talk]]) 00:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

:No one is interested in what AiG actually has to say. The purpose of this article, as can be clearly seen, is to ridicule AiG in as many ways as possible. The idea of NPOV is unknown to the editors of this article. Unless it agrees with their view, it cannot be put in the article. There is no such thing as a neutral 3rd-party article about AiG. The nature of the Evolution/Creation debate is that you are one or the other. And Evolutionists have the upper hand by sheer weight of numbers. How can so many be wrong? Ask the Jews in Auschwitz..... [[User:Christian Skeptic|Christian Skeptic]] ([[User talk:Christian Skeptic|talk]]) 04:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
::Epic FAIL! See [[WP:AGF]], [[WP:V]], [[WP:NOR]], [[WP:WEIGHT]], [[WP:NPOV/FAQ]] and [[Godwin's law]]. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 09:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
:::There is NO AGF in this article, it's plain-as-day purpose is to ridicule AiG. The ONLY sources that are allowed and considered verifiable are biased and bigoted NON-Creationary, evolutionary sources. ANY Creationary source is AUTOMATICALLY eliminated as undue-weight and/or fringe and/or OR. That is CENSORSHIP and propagandizing by twisting Policy. Quoting or paraphrasing from Creationary sources is automatically labeled POV, while quoting or paraphrasing from evolutionary sources is NPOV. More bigotry, more censorship. Since Nazism came naturally out of Evolutionism the comparison is apt. Wake up and smell the ordure. [[User:Christian Skeptic|Christian Skeptic]] ([[User talk:Christian Skeptic|talk]]) 15:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
::::Whew. You are never going to be happy here, it is very clear. If you are going to refuse the possibility of Good Faith in editors with whom you disagree, I don't think you are going to get very far. You clearly, by the way, don't understand what POV and NPOV mean. You're comments about Nazism are not only wrong, they are a bit concerning. Will you please make it clear that you are not calling editors Nazis?
:::::Nazism did come from survival-of-the-fittest Evolutionism, that is a fact. Are other editors Nazis. No. But, the use of sources is selected to give a negative impression, and the exclusion of sources to give a more neutral light, is typical censorship. [[User:Christian Skeptic|Christian Skeptic]] ([[User talk:Christian Skeptic|talk]]) 00:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::Christian Skeptic, your bizarre ideas of "facts" don't suggest that you're well placed to know [[WP:NPOV]] when you see it. Much as you would like to censor all critical views, that's not how WP works. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 09:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Hear Hear! WP only censors certain critical views. :) While using Auschwitz as an example above may have been ill-considered, I don't think it was actually comparing WP with Nazis, at least until after the invocation of Godwin's Law. Regardless, can we get back to useful discussion about the "Views on Science" section? Who's views is the section about, and therefore who is the most reliable source for those views? I would say AiG in both cases. The repetitious reminders that they're views are unpopular and the quoting hostile sources to explain AiG's views comes across as case-making and therefore POV. You could probably add "AiG are wrong" as the last sentence of every paragraph and without particularly changing the tone of the article.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] ([[User talk:LowKey|talk]]) 02:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
<ri> See [[WP:PSCI]] – How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention? 
The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science. Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, should explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute ''fairly'..... . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 09:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
:So the section is not about AiG's views on science but on the "majority view" of AiG's view? Is it an article about AiG or not? The description of the main views belongs in the articles about the main views. The description of AiG's views should be in this article but IS NOT. Fine; describe it as the minority view that it is, but at least '''describe''' the view as it is expressed by those '''holding and promoting''' the view. The description is not there, only the rebuttal of the view (or the view on the view, if you will). This exact discussion comes up over & over again, and I am frankly finding it harder and harder to AGF and easier and easier to see the censorship that CS complains about. Why is it so hard to see that the ONLY RS for what a party ('''any''' party) THINKS is that party when they tell you what they think? How can that possibly be unfair? You can't fairly describe the dispute about a view until you fairly describe the view that is in dispute.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] ([[User talk:LowKey|talk]]) 13:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
::Read the article. . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 14:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Looks to me as though there are over 50 inline citations to AIG's website. LowKey, how many would be enough for you if 50+ isn't enough? 18 of them are in the Views on science section. And you can't AGF and see censorship? [[User:Dougweller|dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 14:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
::::Yeah, it looks like I was getting a bit over the top there. Apologies. It was late, I was tired, and frustration was leaking through. The statement I am particularly focussed on is the last one in the lead of the section. It uses a third party source to say that AiG reject natural science (a term I have not come across before). The statement has been problematic from the start, being changed around and around, and also being moved about the article. Maybe it should be two statements, one to say what AiG say their view is, and the other to say what the mainstream thinks of this view. I am just getting tired of watching this statement go back and forth repeatedly.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] ([[User talk:LowKey|talk]]) 23:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Aig does not reject science, they instead seperate themselves from idea's such as [[eugenics]], [[macro-evelotion]], cloning, stem cell research, ect. Instead they follow '[[Creation Science]]'. Aig seeks to keep the [[bible]] alone (this is very important, since the basis of all they believe in contained therein) as their guide to science, and everything else for that matter. There are very many, credited and well-educated scientists working for Aig, I think a list should be made of them also AiG is most nearly a critic of [[macro-evolution]] and [[uniformatarian]] 'theories' as it is a promoter of 'Creation Science'. Any critiscims should be kept relevant to the article, and even scientific disputes in general. Thanks! ([[User:Estoniankaiju|Estoniankaiju]] ([[User talk:Estoniankaiju|talk]]) 14:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC))

:AiG rejects the [[scientific method]], the [[scientific consensus]], [[geology]] and [[palaeontology]] in their entirety, large chucks of [[astrophysics]] and [[biology]], and important foundations of [[nuclear physics]]. Given that the existence of macroevolution is a ''fact'' (observed both in the lab & in the field), their 'criticism' of it amounts to [[denialism]]. In rejected eugenics, they are in fact following in Charles Darwin's own footsteps. 'Creation Science' is a form of [[pseudoscience]], having only the form but not the substance of genuine science. If you don't think some of the criticisms are relevant to AiG and the positions they advocate, then point them out ''specifically''. ''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]][[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''') 17:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

==Munsters, Fantasia, Nemo, etc.==
Part of the article claims that AiG has specifically accused "The Munsters, Lilo & Stitch, Bugs Bunny cartoons, Fantasia, and Finding Nemo" of promoting evolutionary theory. The AiG article listed as a citation for that statement (52) doesn't mention those five titles. In fact, I couldn't find them anywhere on AiG's website. If there is a source for that statement, the citation should be changed, otherwise it will be removed. (note-I read this article and followed the citation out of sheer bored curiosity, I'm not an extremist on either side of the issue)[[User:Some kind of scientist|Some kind of scientist]] ([[User talk:Some kind of scientist|talk]]) 04:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

:It's contained in earlier versions (e.g. [http://web.archive.org/web/20051212053214/http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/wow/preview/part1.asp][http://web.archive.org/web/20070806020301/http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/wow/preview/part1.asp]) of the cited page. I'll wayback the ref to reflect this. ''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]][[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''') 05:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

::There's a difference between 'promoting' and 'assuming' which is what "Fantasia" does.--[[User:WickerGuy|WickerGuy]] ([[User talk:WickerGuy|talk]]) 02:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

== Issues with Bias ==

This page was obviously written by someone who is not a creationist, which is fine, but they set up AiG's arguments as a [[scarecrow]] , and is putting in arguments and fragments of 'evidence' , and are attacked Aig in a very sly way. Much of the content in this article is irrelevant to AiG , the qoute from Charles Dwkins should appear on his article since he is in no way affialiated with AiG. also the financial issues are very minute, even with the 'miscommunication'issues, they still donated more than most other companies their si Many other issues are blown out of control. The issue regarding starlight was legitimate to be in the article, but white hole cosmology addresses many of the problems, if not all. concerns over Earth-dating should be adding, AiG regards them as equally important to macro-evolution. I hope other users want to make this a halfway decent article, I will edit it myself when I have time. I tried to keep a cool head, but if bad users keep stabbing me in the back I will lose [[good faith]]. Hoping for teamwork. ([[User:Estoniankaiju|Estoniankaiju]] ([[User talk:Estoniankaiju|talk]]) 14:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC))

:The relevance of the ''Richard'' Dawkins quote is blindingly obvious. '[[Denialism|Concerns]]' over dating are not specific to AiG (and are in fact more closely associated with ICR & CRS), and have been covered in articles such as [[Creation geophysics]] and [[Objections to evolution]]. Your claim that "white hole cosmology addresses many of the problems" does not appear to be supported, by the scientific community, or even OECs. I would suggest fewer vague claims and more [[WP:RS|reliably sourced]] facts. ''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]][[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''') 17:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read this but I would like to make a few general comments
based on some things I've seen on this topic.
I've read the Blind Watchmaker ( or one of his books a long time ago ) and IIRC Dawkins at some point claims that a good designer wouldn't do such and such in designing an eye( I think it was put opaque structures over the photosensors thereby obscuring the light) that is in fact routinely done by human imager designers. There is a general tendency to
trivialize everything religious and not actually think about things from
scientific sources or use selection bias on both sides of the argument- who
was the nobel prize winner screaming about vitamin C as a cure for HIV
or cancer? Simply put, all sides are forced to rely on moralizing, speculation and plausibility arguments because history is just not testable.

I haven't read the article but I would defend any interest in describing the
out-of-favour views in a way which factually characterizes, without undue adjectives,
their own statements. If somehow this becomes a debate on merit- science plausibility
versus creationism- try to avoid citing something called "Denialism" since you
are the one in denial, I deny that I am in denial ( is this even possibly
constructive?).

Science is not sacred :)

[[User:Nerdseeksblonde|Nerdseeksblonde]] ([[User talk:Nerdseeksblonde|talk]]) 22:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

:History most certainly is testable. If I predict due to my theory that a type of creature with certain specific transitional features lived at a certain time period, then finding a fossil with features that closely match my prediction in the particular strata of that time period would be a positive test of history.

:Science is not sacred, but denialism exists. I refuse to consider the belief that the cosmos is under 10,000 years old just another opinion. [[User:Aunt Entropy|Aunt Entropy]] ([[User talk:Aunt Entropy|talk]]) 03:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
::Hear hear! The belief has been tested and proven time and time again by Christians and many critical researchers of the bible. It appears, in my angle, that evolution is based on opinion as there are many unknowns about the exact time a creature became another creature and so forth. In my oppinion, it is better to see simmilarity as evidence for a common DESIGN rather than a common ANCESTOR. (John) — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/58.106.24.85|58.106.24.85]] ([[User talk:58.106.24.85|talk]]) 10:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC) 

:::I think whoever just posted this clearly misunderstood what (s)he was replying to. [[User:Aunt Entropy|Aunt Entropy]]'s remark strikes me as pro-Darwin, not anti-Darwin.

== Scientific Community ==

There is some disagreement about whether or not the scientists at AiG are considered as part of the "scientific community." As one user put in his second revert, "Rvt: they have excluded themselves from the scientific community (to the extent that they were ever part of it), and are part of the Christian apologetics community." I disagree with this conclusion; the "exclusion" as far as I can tell is a matter of merely individual standards and judgment, and the inclusion of "to whatever extent they were ever a part of it" strikes me as rather prejudicial. Further, I do not believe that the two communities mentioned are mutually exclusive. It seems to me that if the scientists working with AiG are reputable and contribute research to peer-reviewed journals, they are part of said scientific community, whether their views on the subject of creation are in the minority of said community or not. As a result, my understanding is that AiG is a part of the scientific community, albeit a vast minority. Are there any further thoughts on this? [[User:Qinael|'''''- Qinael''''']] [[User_talk:Qinael|λαλεω]] | [[Special:Contributions/Qinael|δίδωμι]] 21:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

:*"It seems to me that '''''if''''' the scientists working with AiG are reputable and contribute research to peer-reviewed journals…" Do you have any evidence that this is the case? Further, even if it can be demonstrated that some (or even all) of AiG's meagre list of PhDs has done some legitimate scientific research does not mean that ''AiG itself'' is part of the scientific community (any more than a single member of it being a pigeon fancier makes it a member of the pigeon fancying community). AiG is a [[Christian apologetics]] ministry, devoted to the promotion of [[pseudoscience]]s such as [[Creation science]] and [[Flood geology]]. This clearly places the ''organisation'' outside, and ''in opposition to'', the scientific community. ''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]][[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''') 21:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
::*Sorry, no. AIG is a strictly religious organization, and certainly not part of the scientific community. Some of the member ''may'' be, but do any of the members even publish in reputable peer-reviewed scientific venues? And if they do, do they support AIG positions in those papers or do they segregate science and religion? --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 21:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

:::* Please excuse the rant, but AIG are simply not part of the scientific community. The only journals they contribute YEC material to are their own journals, which are quite simply an echo-chamber for fellow-travellers. AIG members may well be jobbing scientists (I believe that some YECs are) but their publications in the peer-reviewed scientific literature will fit within conventional, evidence-based science. There is certainly no representation of YEC views in scientific journals, even if a small minority of scientists are actually YECs. The resolution to your problem is to simply get the AIG/YEC community to list their publications in boring, mainstream journals. But don't hold your breath. Cheers, --[[User:Plumbago|PLUMBAGO]] 21:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

::::[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/question.asp This] page does seem to list scientists who submit articles to peer reviewed journals, and thus are part of "the scientific community;" similarly [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp this] page giving a listing of various names. The problem here is arising over a single word: Whether "the pronouncements of AiG are considered psuedoscience among the scientific community" or "among the majority of the scientific community." It's strikingly clear that there '''are''', like it or not, scientists who agree with AiG's positions and who are members of the scientific community. A minority? Certainly. Non-existent? That, to me, seems misleading at best given that it is in an article on the very subject at hand. [[User:Qinael|'''''- Qinael''''']] [[User_talk:Qinael|λαλεω]] | [[Special:Contributions/Qinael|δίδωμι]] 15:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::''Neither'' of the ''only two'' 'scientists' listed work for AiG, nor does this article, or a related one linked to it, list any ''recent'' scientific publications by them, nor would having a couple of employees on the fringe of the scientific community have made ''AiG itself'' part of the scientific community (as I pointed out above), even if they were AiG employees with recent scientific publications. ''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]][[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''') 22:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

::::::Forgive the anachronistic interjection. As [[User:WickerGuy|WickerGuy]] points out below, the salient point is not that there are YEC scientists (there are a number of these), nor that they publish in scientific journals (which some, I'm sure, do or have done), but that they do not publish their YEC "science" in scientific journals. In fact, flipping it around, that YEC scientists active in publishing research ''do not'' publish YEC ideas is a damning indictment of YEC. That is, if trained professionals experienced in both demonstrating their ideas and getting them through peer-review have a separate set of YEC ideas that they do not do the same with, then that tells you a lot about the validity of said YEC ideas. --[[User:Plumbago|PLUMBAGO]] 14:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
{{hat|Off-topic, unsubstantiated by [[WP:RS]]s & [[WP:Complete bollocks]] to boot. Given that CS seems to do little these days except [[WP:SOAP]]boxing against the iniquities of the [[scientific community]], I would suggest that we [[WP:Deny recognition]].}}
:::::::You are correct that YEC scientists have published in scientific journals, however, they cannot promote YEC ideas in typical scientific journals. Any such paper is automatically censored by all editors. "'''Expelled'''" exposed just the tip of the iceberg. '''NO ONE''' is ever allowed to question the '''''fact''''' of evolution in any 'scientific' journal. There are plenty of disagreements over HOW evolution happened, but '''NO ONE''' ever questions it. Any paper they even hints that it may not be a fact never sees the light of day. That's why Creationism is not publish in "scientific" journals. Creationists publish their own journals peer reviewed by other creationists. Peer review does not mean Creationary papers are or even should be reviewed by evolutionary scientist (who would never seriously review the papers anyway) but reviewed by creationary scientists. The two paradigms are mutually exclusive and to expect creationary papers in standard evolutionary journals is irrational and laughable. [[User:Christian Skeptic|Christian Skeptic]] ([[User talk:Christian Skeptic|talk]]) 15:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

::::::::Yawn. The censorship card is played. How tedious. [[User:Christian Skeptic|Christian Skeptic]] — if you really believe that this is the case, then you should be editing over at [[scientific literature]] where you can expose this with [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. To state that YEC isn't published because of censorship is simply ridiculous. Scientists, and the journals that publish them, ''love'' to topple establishment apple carts, and ideas don't get much more establishment than evolution. If there were any sense to YEC "ideas", scientists and journals would falling over themselves to publish them and claim the fame for themselves. That they don't is supremely telling. But hey, who am I to rock your conspiracy theory? --[[User:Plumbago|PLUMBAGO]] 15:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Conspiracy and censorship aside (why would a Geology journal not publish a solid scientific paper showing that dating methods don't work? Evolution does not even come into this...), if the two paradigms are "mutually exclusive", then the adherents can't both be part of the scientific community. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 15:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::::[[User:Christian Skeptic|Christian Skeptic]]'s conspiracy theory was well-rebutted in detail in an issue of the National Science Education's journal (the journal title escapes me at the moment) devoted in its entirety to the film "Expelled". They showed that many of the creationist objections to evolutionary science have indeed been aired in academia and been rebutted quite effectively. As Eugenie Scott put it quite effectively (after several pages of documentation), the creationists were not in fact "expelled", they "flunked out".--[[User:WickerGuy|WickerGuy]] ([[User talk:WickerGuy|talk]]) 15:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
{{hab}}
Incidentally, it's even difficult to find from their website that even ''purported'' "scientists" work there. They have a [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/ list of 'creation scientists'] -- but it is of 'creation scientists' working ''everywhere'' (and none of the first few list an AiG affiliation). ''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]][[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''') 22:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

:It seems legitimate to claim that the ''mainstream'' scientific community (''mainstream'' being a stronger term than ''majority'') overwhelmingly rejects the viewpoint of AiG on grounds of basic issues of ''methodology''!! Science works by consensus-building in peer-reviewed journals, a test of which AiG has not even made a slight scratch in the scientific world. 
:Often there are two competing points of view when the evidence is ambiguous, but this is not one of those cases. There are for example disagreements among scientists about the scope and nature of 'dark matter', or which model of quantum physics makes the most sense. Controversies exist around the nature of 'black hole' stars, etc.etc. 
:But while there are still controversies about the exact mechanism that motivates evolution (not all biologists buy Richard Dawkins' ''Selfish Gene'' theory for example), there really is no controversy in science over ''whether'' evolution occurs- this being different different from debates over ''how'' it occurs!!! There is not a single article in a peer-reviewed journal that has made a case credible to peer-review disputing evolution. The fact that an accomplished medical surgeon may dispute evolution (I have met one myself personally) is irrelevant. What matters is not a head-count, but an article in a peer-reviewed journal. 
:--[[User:WickerGuy|WickerGuy]] ([[User talk:WickerGuy|talk]]) 19:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

==Age of Earth according to AiG==
The article claims that AiG thinks that the earth was formed "within the last 10,000+ years". First, it would be 10,000- since only very few if any YEC folks beleive in a world created more than 10,000 years ago. Second, I think that AiG promotes the view that the earth is only 6000 years old plus or minus one or two thousand years. They do mention that there are "some" YECs that promote an older earth of around 10,000 years, but none of the "calculations" given on AiG come up with anything other than around 6,000 years. I am going to delete the 10,000 year bit.[[User:Desoto10|Desoto10]] ([[User talk:Desoto10|talk]]) 05:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

==Evolution and Origin of Life==
There was a citation needed tag on the first sentence in this section since August. The sentence claims that AiG agrees with the scientific consensus that origin of life and evolution are different topics. Going through the website I do not find this to be the case. If someone has a reference for this speak up, please.[[User:Desoto10|Desoto10]] ([[User talk:Desoto10|talk]]) 05:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
:Good move. There is no definite consensus anyway. PZ Myers has admitted that they are not really different topics. [[User:rossnixon|''ross'']][[User talk:rossnixon|''nixon'']] 01:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
::I doubt that. Do you have a RS? Of course the two are often conflated in the US public discussion, but they are quite distinct. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 08:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
:::Possibly the 3rd paragraph on this page of Myer's blog: is.gd/4GyE8 [[User:rossnixon|''ross'']][[User talk:rossnixon|''nixon'']] 01:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
::::Are you referring to [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/15_misconceptions_about_evolut.php this page]? Your cryptic key does not appear, but it matches the edit summary. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 02:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I took a shot at what AiG thinks about abiogenesis and evolution. From the cite, it is not entirely clear what they mean so I put in quotes. PZ definitely says that it is disingenious to separate evolution from abiogenesis, but I don't know why he says this. As for scientific consensus on the topic, I always thought that most scientists felt that they were entirely separate topics but I don't have a ref.[[User:Desoto10|Desoto10]] ([[User talk:Desoto10|talk]]) 03:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
:Like rather much of this page, undue weight and equal validity was being given to uncontested creationist claims. I've cited a reliable source that abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis from evolutionary theory, which takes it as axiomatic that self-replicating life existed in the distant past, whatever its origin. PZ makes the point that evolutionary theories point the way to possible explanations of abiogenesis, but Darwinists would note that evolution works regardless of how life was first breathed into one or a few organisms ;) The last paragraph went over the same issue, so I've added sourced info and moved it up next to the abio bit. . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 10:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
::You misspelled "into a few forms or into one" [[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin]] ;-) --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 10:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Much better.[[User:Desoto10|Desoto10]] ([[User talk:Desoto10|talk]]) 19:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

==Death Penalty==
I added a short sentence that AiG supports the death penalty. If you look at the given reference to the AiG webpage it appears as though they even support it if the person repents, saying that the state still has the right to kill the offender even if it does not now have the duty.[[User:Desoto10|Desoto10]] ([[User talk:Desoto10|talk]]) 05:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

== MOS and "however" ==

Please clarify how "however" violates the MOS. I just reread the MOS and don't find anything about not using 'however'. In fact, 'however' is used at least a dozen times in the MOS article itself. [[User:GCgeologist|GCgeologist]] ([[User talk:GCgeologist|talk]]) 04:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

:The MOS, as a guide, also violates the wikirule [[WP:NOTHOWTO]], so whether the MOS guide for article pages follows itself is immaterial. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WTA#However.2C_although.2C_whereas.2C_despite Here's the relevant link] on the [[WP:WTA|words to avoid]] page. [[User:Aunt Entropy|Auntie E.]] ([[User talk:Aunt Entropy|talk]]) 18:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

::So MOS wasn't the relevant guide. This "however" thing is really splitting hairs. It actually doesn't favor anything, just contrasts them, but I suppose there are some who read all kinds of stuff into things that aren't really there. go figure.... [[User:GCgeologist|GCgeologist]] ([[User talk:GCgeologist|talk]]) 19:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

== Scientific theories of cosmology ==

Within the article under "Cosmological Views and the Distant Starlight Problem" it states that the following: "They reject the scientific theories of cosmology." I would put forward that this line needs to be changed to read "They reject some of the mainstream scientific hypothesis that support dominant theories of cosmology." This would clear up the confusion that makes this line at "war" with the paragraphs that follow. The paragraphs that follow include new theories, many of which rely on widely accepted hypothesis. However, some of the hypothesis are rejected and others are used in its place to make a new theory. In the end, this line is confusing with the rest of the text. [[User:Scitea|Scitea]] ([[User talk:Scitea|talk]]) 17:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

:The plural is hypothesEs, not hypothesis. The only mainstream hypothesis mentioned is "redshift quantization" which itself is accepted by very few physicists, and even fewer of them would use it as grounds for stating the Milky Way is in any sense the center of the universe. The paragraph simply does not mention or appeal to any "''widely'' accepted hypothesEs" as you say.--[[User:WickerGuy|WickerGuy]] ([[User talk:WickerGuy|talk]]) 23:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

== Proposal to add this group and others like it to Categories: Cults ==

I think it's safe to say from the discussions on Wikipedia the past few years that we have enough consensus to start adding some of these organizations to Categories: Cults. Wikipedia's definition of a cult is "The word cult in current popular usage usually refers to a group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre", which I think some of these YEC and anti-evolution groups fall into.

User talk:Lifebaka

2011-03-03T22:31:00Z

98.231.231.231:

{{User:Lifebaka/Talk header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{User:Lifebaka/Talk header/Archive}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 6
|algo = old(21d)
|archive = User talk:Lifebaka/Archive %(counter)d
}}

== [[Peeter Süda]] ==

Does Wikipedia have a tag for A7, rather than just deleting? A tag would have led to content being added such as [http://www.emic.ee/helilooja/peetersyda?lang=eng quote "In 1924, the Peeter Süda Memorial Foundation, the predecessor of the Estonian Theatre and Music Museum was set up. The collection of Peeter Süda (Estonian word 'süda' means 'heart' in English) is the “heart” of today’s Estonian Theatre and Music Museum." unquote] Cheers.
::Hi, sorry you may have missed this? Is there such a tag? Cheers [[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]] ([[User talk:In ictu oculi|talk]]) 04:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
:::See {{tl|db-a7}}. It was tagged. Cheers. [[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']][[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 14:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
::Okay, well I was away for a day. :) I'll redo the page [[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]] ([[User talk:In ictu oculi|talk]]) 12:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

== Uranos (software) deletion ==

Hi,
I dont understand why you delete this page.... Can you explain that?

Thnak you (or not) — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Gzuki|Gzuki]] ([[User talk:Gzuki|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gzuki|contribs]]) 12:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC) 
:Because it fits [[WP:CSD#A7]]. In less opaque terms, it does not tell the reader why they should care about its existence. Cheers. [[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']][[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 13:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
This is open source software, the same idea like open knowledge like in wikipedia, dont care about that??? But maybe I dont understand you... If you can explain me how to do it correctly, maybe I understand it...?! — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Gzuki|Gzuki]] ([[User talk:Gzuki|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gzuki|contribs]]) 13:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC) 
:Being open source is ''not'' an assertion of importance, I'm afraid.
:As to how to do it properly, you should start by finding instances where [[WP:RS|reliable, third-party sources]] have written about Uranos, in order to prove its [[WP:N|notability]], then use these sources to [[WP:V|verify]] the content. Without doing this, the article is likely to continue to be deleted. Cheers. [[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']][[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 13:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah... ok. So "Free" Enceyclopedia means "Restricted" to the known universe.... Nothing new - if no one other is writing about it. Damn... Stop distributing knowledge? What about pages like: [http://freshmeat.net/projects/unattendedgui freshmeat] or [http://www.ohloh.net/p/uranos ohloh]? Ar this reliable, third-party sources? — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Gzuki|Gzuki]] ([[User talk:Gzuki|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gzuki|contribs]]) 14:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC) 
:Directory listings, while potentially reliable and third-party, don't do much to establish notability, I'm afraid. Notability requires non-trivial mentions, such as newspaper articles or scholarly journal articles which are entirely about the subject.
:Additionally, you'll generally find that asserting that Wikipedia is anything other than what it claims to be, a freely edited encyclopedia, is not going to endear you to those you are speaking to here. At best, someone like me will let you know about this fact; at worst, you will anger people and find yourself ignored. Cheers. [[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']][[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 15:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you. Have a nice weekend! 06:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Gzuki|Gzuki]] ([[User talk:Gzuki|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gzuki|contribs]])  

== AfD of Azad Dam ==

Hi, Lifebaka. You closed the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azad Dam]] as 'no consensus'. However, if you look the discussion, you could see that consensus was built during the process and was supported by all except the creator of these stubs. I would really like to know what was the argument for 'no consensus' as consensus does not mean unanimity. [[User:Beagel|Beagel]] ([[User talk:Beagel|talk]]) 23:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
:The consensus, if anything, was leaning towards redirecting the articles to some common list. However, I was not willing to close as ''redirect'' or ''merge'' without a more focused discussion on what the best target would be. Cheers. [[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']][[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 17:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

== Frenetic_(programming_language) was created to make a point. ==

Hi there,

Can't we just delete the [[Frenetic_(programming_language)]] article? It was created specifically to make a [[WP:POINT|POINT]] because of a [http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/fkt7t/nemerle_factor_alice_ml_and_other_programming/c1gpia5 reddit discussion], not because of any inherent notability. --[[User:Slashme|Slashme]] ([[User talk:Slashme|talk]]) 17:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
:I assumed. However, I don't see any compelling reason that we can't use PROD/AfD to delete it. It won't hurt anything to let it sit around for a week or two. Cheers. [[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']][[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 17:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, no problem! --[[User:Slashme|Slashme]] ([[User talk:Slashme|talk]]) 18:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

== Spice Times ==

I want to know why you deleted the Spice Times page. I always see the publication in my local restaurant and it is distributed across the UK and thought it deserved a page on Wikipedia. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:AlliedF|AlliedF]] ([[User talk:AlliedF|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AlliedF|contribs]]) 15:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 
:Please see [[Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?]] and the entry in the deletion log for an explanation. Cheers. [[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']][[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 15:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. Is there anyway to get the text back or is it gone forever? — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:AlliedF|AlliedF]] ([[User talk:AlliedF|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AlliedF|contribs]]) 13:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC) 

== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kob-dhehaad District]] ==

I've nominated [[Kob-dhehaad District]] for deletion. Since you proposed deletion via the PROD or Speedy Deletion processes, or declined the same, I'm giving you this notice as a courtesy, if you're interested in discussing the matter either way. The debate may be found at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kob-dhehaad District]]. Thanks, [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]] ~ [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] 19:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

== Valery Nikolayevsky ==

Mr. Lifebaka,
would you please restore the Wikipedia-Page [[Valery Nikolayevsky]]? Don't put shame on your name. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/62.178.169.11|62.178.169.11]] ([[User talk:62.178.169.11|talk]]) 11:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC) 

== Perhaps G=0 ==

I feel you are being cheeky! Re [[Template:Location map Australia Victoria Shire of Macedon]], which I called G6 and you called G7. :) —[[User:Cassowary|Felix the Cassowary]] 18:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

== Iyo Nada ==

{{quote|If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. In such a case, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself.}} --[[User:Kikos|Kikos]] ([[User talk:Kikos|talk]]) 14:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
-> [[WP:RFD]]. Cheers. [[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']][[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 15:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

== Template:R to template ==

Hello. You are the second administrator who has deleted [[Template:R to template]] after it was nominated for speedy deletion as a recreation of a page deleted after a discussion. This page is not a recreation – it is a different template created under the same name as a deleted template. Please check before deleting. '''[[User:Mclay1|McLerristarr]] | [[User talk:Mclay1|Mclay1]]''' 09:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
:What the template is, in fact, doing was also considered at the TfD, and was one of the major reasons why the original template was deleted. I suggest you talk to people ''before'' continuing to recreate it, to avoid seeming unnecessarily [[WP:DISRUPT|disruptive]]. Cheers. [[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']][[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 15:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
::No, cross-namespace redirects had nothing to do with the TFD. '''[[User:Mclay1|McLerristarr]] | [[User talk:Mclay1|Mclay1]]''' 05:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Been mulling over this for a while, which is why I haven't responded.
:::I'm not convinced that what you're doing is strictly necessary, but you are correct that this wasn't covered exactly at the TfD. I apologize for deleting the template twice. I am willing to undelete it for you, but I think that you'd just be best off recreating it yourself, which doesn't require that I be online.
:::However, to avoid further confusion as to the purpose of the template, and to make its use more obvious in its title, I suggest that you recreate it at a different title. Something like [[Template:Cross-namespace R to template]] (or similar). This should help you not run afoul of others making the same mistake I have.
:::Cheers. [[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']][[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 22:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
::::Thank you. I won't recreate it till the matter is resolved with the user who continually nominated it for deletion. '''[[User:Mclay1|McLerristarr]] | [[User talk:Mclay1|Mclay1]]''' 05:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

== re: [[Goran Zorić]] ==

You have my apologies. I completely forgot that I had previously tagged that article. [[User:Sir Sputnik|Sir Sputnik]] ([[User talk:Sir Sputnik|talk]]) 14:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

== Closed AFDs ==

Try this script...

importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/hideClosedAFD.js');

Makes it easy to not only hide closed AFDs on a log but also makes it easy find AFDs that were not properly closed and fix them. (When closed AFDs are "hidden", only the article header will appear on the log if the close was not formatted right). I find this quite handy when playing "mathbot". --[[User:Ron Ritzman|Ron Ritzman]] ([[User talk:Ron Ritzman|talk]]) 19:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
:Oh my. That is quite useful. Thanks. [[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']][[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 20:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

== CloudSafe Tag ==

Well, so there its is now: "no consesus" on [[User:Roberto_valerio/CloudSafe]] after your deletion. Could you please re-open at [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review]] as stated in [[Wikipedia:No_consensus]] ? Or what would you suggest now? Best, [[User:Roberto valerio|Roberto valerio]] ([[User talk:Roberto valerio|talk]]) 18:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
:Well, you might want to start by improving your draft. The DRV was fairly clear in rejecting your draft in particular. Cheers. [[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']][[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 18:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
:Please have a quick look: Admins [[User:Hobit|Hobit]], [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] and [[User:DGG| DGG]] were in favour ''undelete/allow recreation'' at the end. I talked to them all. So I really want to know, what "improvements" you need to join them. Best, [[User:Roberto valerio|Roberto valerio]] ([[User talk:Roberto valerio|talk]]) 10:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
::I suggest you reread what DGG and Stifle wrote. They wanted improvements, and rejected your draft. Hobit didn't mention your draft in particular, either, so it's somewhat disingenuous to say that he accepted it.
::You'll want to cite [[WP:RS|sources]] using inline citations to show clearly where information is [[WP:V|verified]], and make sure that they cover CloudSafe substantially enough to demonstrate its [[WP:GNG|notability]]. You'll also want to avoid using [[WP:WEASEL|weasel words]] and other flowery language, as these make users think that purpose of the page is to advertise. And you'll want to take a look at some other articles to try to emulate their formatting, but this won't prevent recreation by itself. Cheers. [[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']][[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 13:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

== Εγκληματολογική Πληροφορική ==

Hi there

I was starting a page on Εγκληματολογική Πληροφορική and you deleted it. May I ask why please?

Regards

Vassilios Manoussos — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Vmanoussos|Vmanoussos]] ([[User talk:Vmanoussos|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Vmanoussos|contribs]]) 21:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC) 
:Because it had no content not already present at [[Computer forensics]], and redirecting it there would have resulting in [[WP:CSD#R3|a nigh-impossible redirect]]. This is the English language Wikipedia. Articles here must be written in English, and we usually do not keep foreign language titles around as redirects. Cheers. [[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']][[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 21:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

== snow closure at DRV ==

Why the haste?  The issue is not settled.  There is opinion, but there is no refutation using the force of reason.  It is true that without anyone else giving a "second" to continue discussion, I am hesitant to respond.  But the page at WP:DELREV has not been working correctly all day today, who knows what responses will yet arrive.  There is a basic problem in that none of the responses reference guidelines.  More, no one has espoused that the closing statement was done properly.

I can only guess that some responses have referenced [[WP:Deletion process]].  If so, this position needs to be presented properly, including the misunderstanding based in the ambiguity created [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_process&action=historysubmit&diff=397139239&oldid=397115436 here].  [[User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]] ([[User talk:Unscintillating|talk]]) 00:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
:You're lawyering. This is obvious. If you want to fix some ambiguity, fix it, but not at DRV. Cheers. [[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']][[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 02:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
== spacing error ==

please help, i dont know how to fix spacing error on this page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition_of_Bir_Maona --[[User:Misconceptions2|Misconceptions2]] ([[User talk:Misconceptions2|talk]]) 16:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

== FYI ==

FYI [[the death knight]] a page you deleted was just re-created. I tagged it for CSD. [[User:Bped1985|Bped1985]] ([[User talk:Bped1985|talk]]) 00:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
:Salted it for a week to prevent recreation of the copyvio. Thanks for the heads up. Cheers. [[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']][[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 00:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

::Well thats good to hear. I thought I was going to keep see that page pop up. Makes things at [[WP:RCP|RCP]] a little easier. Thanks! [[User:Bped1985|Bped1985]] ([[User talk:Bped1985|talk]]) 00:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

== [[Rail Gun]] ==

Hi. Kindly reconsider deleting '''[[Rail Gun]]'''. We already have '''[[Rail gun]]''' with 47 links and '''[[Railgun]]''' with 230 links. [[Rail Gun]] has 5 links, user and talk pages.

[[Rail Gun]] (upper case G) seems superfluous since [[Rail gun]] (lower case g) already exists. A user would have to deliberately type the upper case G to select that redirect.

Thank you. --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] ([[User talk:UnicornTapestry|talk]]) 01:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
:Take it to RfD. The page has been around since 2004 and is an entirely possible search term, both of which make it ineligible for R3. Cheers. [[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']][[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 01:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

::Thanks! --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] ([[User talk:UnicornTapestry|talk]]) 01:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

== [[Template:User Jimmy2Shoes]] ==

The user [[Special:Contributions/Wikipedian_explorer|Wikipedian explorer]], who is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:User_Jimmy2Shoes&action=history the creator] of the above template, as seen from [http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Wikipedian+explorer his sulutil], is a sock of [[Special:Contributions/JimmyTwoShoes_fan|JimmyTwoShoes fan]], who was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AJimmyTwoShoes+fan blocked] in December of 2010. [[User:TeleComNasSprVen|:| TelCo]][[User talk:TCNSV|NaSp]][[Special:Contributions/TeleComNasSprVen|Ve :|]] 07:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
:Then I suggest an SPI case. Convincing me, in particular, won't do much besides seeing the template gone. Cheers. [[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']][[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 14:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

== Old Man Murray ==

Hi, would you please expand more on how the sources related to the Old Man Murray deletion were trivial? Sources included [[Edge]], [[Kotaku]], [[Serious Sam]], [[Quake 3]], and [[PC Gamer]]. Try to not use the term meatpuppet if you can, thanks! [[User:Worm4Real|Worm4Real]] ([[User talk:Worm4Real|talk]]) 19:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
:Because none of them dealt with Old Man Murray itself, but instead only mentioned it in passing or used a metric from it. These sorts of references are not substantial enough to meet [[WP:GNG|the general notability guideline]]. What would be required is someone writing ''about'' Old Man Murray in at least some length. I saw no indication that any such source exists. Cheers. [[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']][[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 19:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
::I'm sorry I would think due to the specific nature of an article about a website [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Popular_culture_and_fiction| Popular Culture]] rules would apply. Since these are the best references any website of this kind would get, mainly references that show a undeniable impact on gaming. How more notable could a gaming website hope to get?

::Not trying to say [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]], however I think a lot of the wikipedia users in this discussion may have given you the false idea that these sources would ever exist for most websites. If notability is a measure of how many times a writer for Wired decided he loved the site then that's a pretty poor metric.

::EDIT: As well I don't see specifically what in the notability article you're referring to. How are [[http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2007/10/31/rps-interview-valves-erik-wolpaw/ | these] [[http://www.armchairempire.com/Interviews/old_man_murray.htm | two]] articles not directly writen about Old Man Murray? They were featured multiple times in the discussion page as well.[[User:Worm4Real|Worm4Real]] ([[User talk:Worm4Real|talk]]) 22:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

:::Also commenting that I think that was the wrong decision here. Too many RSes, that, while not solely or featuring OMM, with more being found during AFD, should have edged it to "keep" and at worst, it should have been redirected to Chet's article. This deletion is already being commented on on other VG websites, and I myself was unaware of it until I saw these articles. --[[User:Masem|MASEM]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 23:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
::::I'll re-evaluate it later this evening (EST). I am not currently on a network that lets me view most of the sources, unfortunately. Expect four to five hours delay before my next response. [[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']][[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 23:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

:[http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/02/old-man-murray-deleted-from-wikipedia/ Rock, Paper, Shotgun is not happy about this either] [[User:Entropy Stew|Entropy Stew]] ([[User talk:Entropy Stew|talk]]) 23:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
:: Their site's title bar has even changed to make fun of wikipedia's notability policy [[User:Entropy Stew|Entropy Stew]] ([[User talk:Entropy Stew|talk]]) 23:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Oh golly, a site I've never heard of before today has their collective panties in a bunch, so I guess we'd better rethink the whole thing. Cripes... [[User:HalfShadow|'''Half''']][[User talk:HalfShadow|'''Shadow''']] 00:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
:::: This, THIS RIGHT HERE, is the sort of snotty bratspeak from the editors that all of us "meatpuppets" had to wade through in the RFD. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock,_Paper,_Shotgun Read your own article about the site, then.] This guy is the second editor with a huge CoI lending support for deletion in that RFD, btw. He was active at the Portal of Evil forums and was run off after a time, just like SchuminWeb. [[User:Entropy Stew|Entropy Stew]] ([[User talk:Entropy Stew|talk]]) 01:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::Actually, it's my dick that's huge, not my CoI. Thanks, though. [[User:HalfShadow|'''Half''']][[User talk:HalfShadow|'''Shadow''']] 01:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
::While obviously it couldn't have been taken into account in the AfD, I think the RPS blog post that Entropy Stew linked is a good enough source for the article. It's about OMM, rather than mentioning it 'tangentially' (although I have to say I agree with Worm4Real that it's unrealistic to demand dedicated coverage on this sort of topic, games journalism is pretty niche) and RPS is specifically listed at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources]] as a reliable source for gaming-related topics. —[[User:Joey Roe|Joseph Roe]][[User talk:Joey Roe|Tk]]•[[Special:Contributions/Joey Roe|Cb]], 00:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
:::I find it funny that if an article is deleted, and a reliable source comments on its deletion, it can be brought back. '''[[User:Blake|Blake]]''' ([[User talk:Blake#top|Talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Blake|Edits]]) 00:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
::::It's not just that they commented about it. It's that the commented, linked to notable references, did their own research, showed cases of Conflict of Interest, the whole gambit. The fact that a reputable source took notice is a good indication that this decision needed more review. [[User:Lego6245|Lego6245]] ([[User talk:Lego6245|talk]]) 00:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
::::It is pretty ironic, but it's the fact that they, a reliable source, make unambiguous statements like "The influence [OMM] had on games writing has influenced just about everything else anyone’s enjoyed since", rather than that they're commenting on the deletion. —[[User:Joey Roe|Joseph Roe]][[User talk:Joey Roe|Tk]]•[[Special:Contributions/Joey Roe|Cb]], 00:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

::Thank you for shedding light on how Wikipedia works. If you view shuminweb's actions you can see he has removed all mention of Chet and Erik from Marc Laidlaw's Page, yahtzee's page and others. Even though these people have cited the two as influences, it matters not. All that matters is the dream is alive, one person can change history. Thank you for showing how mature and objective wikipedia really is. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.170.4.144|67.170.4.144]] ([[User talk:67.170.4.144|talk]]) 00:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC) 
::: What can be done about SchuminWeb? [http://www.poe-news.com/forums/sp.php?pi=1002483300 Chet Falsizek himself] has pointed out that Schumin, flush with victory, is going on an abusive edit spree. [[User:Entropy Stew|Entropy Stew]] ([[User talk:Entropy Stew|talk]]) 00:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

:Well, I've looked at it again, as requested, and come to the same conclusion. There simply do not exist sufficient non-trivial, reliable, and third-party sources about Old Man Murray at this time. There are sources out there that can be cherrypicked (which I use in a non-negative way) from to get a decent chuck of verifiable information, but nothing substantial to meet the GNG with. I realize this is going to piss a lot of people off, so let me explain some things.
:When we use the words "notability" and "notable" on Wikipedia, we are not using it as defined by the English language. Wikipedia has some silly internally-used jargon, such as "notability," which we use because we know what it means. Anyone reading this can find our definition at [[WP:GNG|the general notability guideline]]. We have a general notability guideline because, ideally, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias don't cover everything. So we need some sort of relatively objective metric that tells us we can have an article about, say, [[Magic: The Gathering]] (or most other things that articles exist for), but not my [[Aunt Super-awesome Baka]]. We use the general notability guideline for it, but it's not perfect. So we also have [[WP:WEB|subject]] [[WP:BIO|guidelines]] to cover some of the gaps. Still, there are things that aren't even vaguely important but have articles, and things that are incredibly important but don't. Old Man Murray is probably closer to this latter category, along with some other video game review websites.
:The issue appears to be that people don't write real reviews or articles about sites like Old Man Murray, even if they are well known, considered important, and often-referenced. A similar situation exists with indie music labels. No one writes about them, and there isn't anything in the subject guidelines that covers them. The best solution to this issue would be to write up a subject notability guideline which covers video game review websites, and I would welcome an attempt at writing one. I'm not sure it would gain consensus among the wider Wikipedia community, but I can guarantee that it's Old Man Murray's best shot. I also note that I don't see an extremely compelling reason to ignore the general notability guideline in this case, and an extremely compelling reason is about what it should take to ignore it.
:Cheers, everyone. [[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']][[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 02:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
::As a separate note, I will not tolerate the casting of aspersions on other editors on my talk page. You can insult me all you like and I won't block you for it (though I can't guarantee that others won't), but insults directed at others are bad mojo. [[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']][[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 02:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
:::While I understand your point, I still think this was the wrong conclusion (there were other actions that could have been done besides delete) and have opened a DR for this ([[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 3#Old Man Murray]]) --[[User:Masem|MASEM]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 02:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"Save Old Man Murray" → If that doesn't describe Wikipedia's absolute monopoly over the rest of the Internet, nothing does. Wikipedia literally rules the world. –[[User talk:MuZemike|MuZemike]] 07:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
:Since we have RPS down as a reliable source, wouldn't their "Save OMM" piece count towards WP:N? That wasn't hard, was it. Shame they had to be whiny about it. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 16:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"Within Gaming, this kind of practice is somewhat commonplace: bloggers such as "[[Lum the Mad]]" and "[[Old Man Murray]]" are among the most respected commentators and journalists"
Squire, K (2008) "Critical Education in an Interactive Age" in ''Mirror Images: Popular Culture and Education'' Peter Lang:New York
[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vc7iAjw9qSAC&lpg=PA115&dq=%22old%20man%20murray%22%20gam&pg=PA115#v=onepage&q=murray&f=false]--'''''[[User:Cooper-42|Cooper]]'''''42 17:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Somebody should create an article on "Deletion of Old Man Murray." The event has warranted a lengthy article on rockpapershotgun, which made the slashdot frontpage, and one Blue's News, all of which are valid sources for gaming topics according to wikipedia's own list.
As the event is notable and therefore deletion proof we could then make a section on Old Man Murray where we could gather all that unworthy stuff from Wired, PC Gamer and Gabe Whatshisname (what has he ever done for gaming?), as well as one on how the original article was nominated for deletion, twice, despite a clear COI. [[Special:Contributions/188.174.70.221|188.174.70.221]] ([[User talk:188.174.70.221|talk]]) 19:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
:That article should and probably will end up merged to Old Man Murray after the DRV, [[WP:SNOW|which is a forgone conclusion at this point]]. Cheers. [[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']][[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 22:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I was shocked to hear that the Old Man Murray Article was deleted... Absolutely ridiculous. There are certainly many Wikipedia articles that deserve deletion, I've even pointed out a few of them in the past, but Old Man Murray was one of the most influential technology writers during the coming of age of the Internet.

Talk:Rio Omerê Indigenous Territory

2011-02-03T00:52:27Z

98.231.231.231: /* Candidate for deletion? */ new section

{{WPBrazil|class=|importance=}}

== Candidate for deletion? ==

This is a clear candidate for deletion. I don't think five people counts as a tribe, more like a family living in isolation. I'm sure there are thousands of families that live in isolation from modern society around the world and none of them have their own article.

Talk:Gunfight at the O.K. Corral

2011-02-01T04:05:57Z

98.231.231.231:

{{WikiProject Arizona|class=B|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject American Old West|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2004-10-26|oldid1=9366341|date2=2005-10-26|oldid2=26511816|date3=2006-10-26|oldid3=83672060|date4=2007-10-26|oldid4=167192217|date5=2008-10-26|oldid5=247759241}}

Here's where to have a discussion on changes made to the O.K. Corral Fight page. If you find errors in previous changes, here's where to talk about them. I'll begin by noting that I changed the name-order in the picture of the 3 dead "cowboys." That's Tom on the left, with the face swollen from the day before. That's his brother Frank in the middle, looking much like Tom. And Billy Clanton is on the right. [[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 23:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

==Bill Claiborne==
The link listed for the gunfight does not even mention the fifth cowboy who took part (briefly) in the fight, Billy Claiborne.

COMMENT:
There's a reason for that: Claiborne said in testimony he wasn't armed and didn't fight, and nobody else thought he did, either. His role is one of bystander caught in the middle, who managed to get out of the way in time to avoid getting shot. I don't think Claiborne is important enough to be listed as a "fighter." [[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 04:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT:
I agree there's no evidence Billie Claiborne took part in the fight, so why is there mention in the main body that he "may" have fired a shot in ambush? No reliable source I can find even reports this as rumor. What is the genesis of this statement? There is no footnote attached to it. I seriously question it's inclusion in the main body of this page.(Buckeyes1, 7/1/08)

==Moved Material from Wyatt Earp Page==
I've finally moved a lot of O.K. Material from the Earp article to here. The Wyatt Earp page really was getting rather long (near the suggested length limit for Wiki articles), and the O.K. Corral material is the obvious stuff to move. This finally addresses some of the issues brought up on the Wyatt Earp discussion page. I still intend to flesh out the O.K. article some more, but this is a start.[[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 04:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC

Re: Tom was armed when confronted by Wyatt Earp.

I have a couple of difficulties with an assertion that Tom was armed at this time. 1. Tom was not involved in any of the proceedings of the night before in the Alhambra where Ike Clanton had been confronted and threatened by Doc Holliday and Morgan Earp. 2. If Wyatt Earp truly believed, and/or saw Tom with a pistol in his waistband, then why was Tom not arrested, disarmed and taken to court as was Ike Clanton just an hour or so earlier? It is more likely that Tom was not armed because Wyatt knew he had no cause to arrest Tom. However, Wyatt did see the necessity to beat Tom over the head with his pistol and then walk away saying "I could kill the s.o.b. (meaning Tom McLaury)"

I really believe the evidence points to Tom not being armed at the time of the confrontation with Wyatt.

Ellis Badon

:You could be right, but I think the weight of evidence is that Tom was armed when Wyatt beat him. We know he was armed that day in contravention to town law, and in the way that Wyatt thought-- with a pistol hidden in waistband under shirt. We know this because he deposited the pistol (just the weapon, not holster) in the Capitol Saloon the day after his arrival, about the time Wyatt beat him. From which saloon it was recovered and exhibited at the Spicer trial. Mehan thought he deposited the pistol between 1 and 2 pm. Bauer, who saw him beaten, says he saw him AFTERWARD at the Capitol, again between 1 and 2 pm. Strong evidence that this is when he got rid of the pistol. Whether Tom was armed at the OK Corral gunfight (and I dont' think he was, being easily able to have gotten his own pistol from the Capitol less than a block away), I think it' pretty clear that at the fight the Earps and Holliday THOUGHT he was-- were sure enough to waste two barrels of a shotgun on him, which is something nobody in their right mind does in a firefight on a man standing next to men who are manifestly armed and shooting back at you, and who make obviously more immediate targets than a man who is unarmed (as exhibited by the fact that nobody shot Ike, though I'm sure Earps and Holliday wanted badly to). Think what you like about Doc's meanness-- this goes far beyond that into ''stupidity'' in the circumstances unless Doc really believed Tom armed. And if he did, there are only a couple of ways he could have: he saw the weapon, or he believed Wyatt. Why didn't Wyatt arrest Tom? For the same reason he didn't try to arrest Frank, who was going about on 4th with a cartridge belt. Wyatt that day blustered about his being an officer to the court, but before the gunfight he didn't act like one. He wasn't wearng a badge or drawing pay and it really wasn't his business to be enforcing city law (he told Morgan the night before to take care of Ike). Certainly it was not his business to be taking men to jail. When specially deputized by Virgil an hour or two later before the walkdown to the OK Corral, he was FROM THEN ON acting as a deputy, which always was to him the same as the marshall. Before that, he split the difference, by considering himself enough a deputy to carry a weapon, but not enough of one to be arresting people on minor offenses. I'll add that this is not too different from a situation in which a cop is off duty-- most states still require him to carry an arm, but the laws he's going to enforce change. Felonies, yes. Misdemenors, no. Wyatt, who had filled in for Virgil as town marshal days before when Virgil was out of town for the Stilwell trial, considered himself a deputy off-duty. And behaved the part right up till Virgil demanded backup in confronting a group of armed and threatening men. This is neither hypcritical or irrational. It's not too far off SOP today. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 09:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
This is just my opinion but I think SBHarris makes a rather week argument. I think Mr. Badon is correct. If Tom was armed, he would have been arrested. He could have had his brother arrest him, or placed him under citizens arrest. The fact that Wyatt didn’t arrest him to me proves that Tom didn’t commit a crime. Wyatt did commit a crime (assault) so he walked away. We do not know that Tom was armed the night before. He could have checked his gun in the night before and then checked it out the next morning expecting to leave town. Then when he realized that he wasn’t leaving right away, he checked the gun back in.
Also, there is no evidence that I am aware of that Wyatt had any confrontation between Wyatt and Tom had taken place the night before, so I don’t understand your statement that Wyatt thought he was armed based on Tom’s actions the night before.
Finally I don’t believe that Bauer knew exactly when Tom checked in his gun. That evidence is circumstantial at best.
Damian

Comment:
I disagree entirely; I think Sbharris makes a good argument. If Tom had done all the machinations of dropping off his gun the night before, retrieving it the next morning and then dropping it off again why was none of this testified to at the Spicer hearing? Why should anyone create such an elaborate "back-story" with no supportable evidence other than their own pet theories?(Buckeyes1, 7/1/08) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Buckeyes1|Buckeyes1]] ([[User talk:Buckeyes1|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Buckeyes1|contribs]]) 19:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC) 

== Frank's pistol ==
---Frank's pistol, with two unfired rounds remaining in it---

What is the source for this?

::Answer: The Inquest Hearing and the Spicer Hearing, like everything else. Keefe says he agreed with Claibourne (after a re-examination where the cylinder was revolved to reveal the fired round that had been under the hammer) that Frank's pistol had "3 empty chambers." Obviously it didn't literally mean empty chambers. Probably it meant 3 actual empty brass, meaning 3 empty cases (Nobody would carry a Colt SAA (Frontier Six-Shooter, 44.-40) with a live round under the hammer, but sometimes people kept hammer down on a completely empty chamber to keep things simple, others used a fired brass case). But either way, 3 empty would leave a maximum of 3 live, and possibly 2 if the witnesses, by "3 empty" meant empty brass not empty chambers. I don't have Turner's book to hand here, but somebody else (perhaps at the Inquest) mentions Frank's pistol as the one with "two loads" remaining. Certainly it wasn't Billy's, and nobody ever found one for Tom. So I think it had 2 live rounds, 3 expended brass, and a truly empty chamber for carrying. I'll try to find you the other reference. [[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 00:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

== "You're a daisy if you do!" ==
I believe Doc Holliday's colorful "daisy" quote should be cut from paragraph 2 of the "Lead-up" section.

It's usually attributed to Doc during the gunfight itself, not during his confrontation with Ike Clanton on the previous day, and was reportedly addressed to Frank McLaury rather than to Clanton.

Also, "daisy" was not a threatening reference to cemetery flowers. It was a popular 1880's slang phrase meaning "someone or something very good." [[User:Cteght|Cteght]] 00:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

:You're right. I'll take it out and perhaps re-insert it. As I remember, it's attributed to Doc during the fight by an Inquest witness (the miner) who seems to have been omniscient (I think he claimed to have seen the bullet travel over and hit Doc on the holster, too). His account is also the newspaper account, since he said he talked to the paper, and the accounts match. I'll look into the reference meaning. B.B. Bell, of course, agrees with you. [[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 02:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It's my understanding that Doc said, "You're a good one if you do." The "daisy" quote is from the movies. While "Tombstone" was a great film, it was fiction; for example, it is extremely unlikely that Doc killed Johnny Ringo, since his whereabouts on that day are known and he was nowhere near the site of Ringo's death. -cneron

:The "daisy" quote is NOT from the movies. I'm sure it's contemporary, perhaps from a newspaper account, but I can't locate it the moment.[[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 22:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

cneron: I've seen Doc's utterance rendered as "You're a daisy if you do," "You're a good one if you do," and "You're a good one if you have." Since "daisy" meant "good one" in 1880's slang, even Doc himself probably couldn't have sworn to what he actually said in the heat of battle by the time a day had passed. Kevin Jarre astutely used the more colorful "daisy" version in his screenplay, but it's no more or less likely than the alternatives. Footnote: a little online noodling reveals that some slang etymologists believe that the modern term "doozy" evolved from the old-time slang usage of "daisy." [[User:Cteght|Cteght]] 22:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

==Cowboys==
The use of the term "cowboys" on this page is a little unclear. Although not as formalized an organization as portrayed in the movie ''Tombstone'', the "Cowboys" were a loose gang of sorts. The page appears to be using "cowboys" as a generic description of these guys, rather than as all being members of the same gang. [[User:Chuckstar|Chuck]] 07:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
:Well, the problem is the whole thing is unclear, and was even to the people of the time, who were there. There wasn't an organized gang like the mafia or the Crips. And they didn't wear signature clothing or colors or sashes as you see in the last movie Tombstone (that's a modern addition which is cute but misleading). These were a loose collaboration of semi-anarchistic stockthieves, which included, as a subgroup, a few people who would go so far as to rob a stage. They liked the country, and they knew each other and covered for each other, but there was no "capo" and nobody gave orders. One person who knew Curley Bill well noted that he came as close as anybody to being the head of the operation, but even he was a loner (his last "partner" shot him through the throat in mid 1881). All this complicated by the fact that some people in the group only robbed Mexicans. Others never crossed the border, but occasionally poached from local ranchers. Some of these sometimes worked as legitimate stockmen for legitimate ranchers like Hooker, and moved back and forth between legal and illegal worlds (nothing like working as an honest ranch hand to teach you skills you need to rustle). So nobody had any idea how many actual full-time rustlers (if you can define a cowboy that way) there were. They DID know that it was practically impossible to raise stock honestly in the area due to losses, that there was a huge illegal beef trade (supported by town butchers and thus by townspeople who ate beef--- this was the drug trade of its day). And that there was a certain class or number of men who had no jobs, no visible means of support, but always had lots of money to eat and drink and gamble with. They didn't work in the mines or saloons and they didn't work for honest ranches. Prime examples being the McLauries with their $3000 in cash from cattle sales but no registered brand (which you had to have to raise cattle). And so on. As lillies of the field; they toiled not, neither did they spin. But their pockets bulged, and it wasn't always with a pistol.

:This class of people pissed the Earps off, no end, especially as Virgil had been embarrassed with everybody else over the Patterson/McLaury mule theft, and Wyatt by having the Clantons steal his own horse. The Earps themselves were into a Nevada-type lifestyle of gaming and bartending and maybe sometimes (in the past) even pimping. They also worked now and again for private and goverment security. They looked down on rustlers. They thought that a man who will steal a cow from a Mexican may later steal a horse from an American. And a horsethief may go on to rob a stage and maybe shoot somebody doing it. There are lines you don't cross, and working for Wells, Fargo or the City or the Feds, I think helped the Earps never lose track of where that line was. Holliday too, for that matter. [[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 17:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
::That's all well and good, except that the article keeps referring to "cowboys" as though they were just some guys who happened to be, well, cowboys. It even wikilinks to the [[cowboys]] article, which is completely misleading as to what is meant by "cowboys" when discussing the goings-ons in Tombstone. There's even a whole section titled "More Cowboys enter town", as though it was just some random ranch hands that happened to come to town. You can prattle on all you want about how the Cowboys weren't the Crips (I never said they were), but that doesn't mean the article is not misleading on this issue. For example, there's a sentence "Wyatt Earp thought that all the cowboys, including Ike, were arming themselves in the store..." Huh? All the ranch hands in Tombstone were arming themselves? Why? Well, because that's not what happened. Only the '''C'''owboys were arming themselves. (Even then, the modifier "all" probably shouldn't apply.)

::I tried to fix it by changing as little as possible. Let me know what you think. [[User:Chuckstar|Chuck]] 22:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

== Picture of Doc Holliday ==
On [[Doc Holliday|the doc's]] page there is some confusion about whether the photo shown on this page is actually of the man himself. Perhaps it should be changed to the verified graduation photo?

:The one used in the Holliday article of course is the verified grad photo. We're trying also to get a usable version of the 1879 standing photo. After a lot of looking, I suspect the guy in the 3 "Tombstone" photos in dark suit and dyed hair (including the bowler hat one), is probably Holliday. Comparison with a good version of the 1879 photo will help. I've used a dark haired "Tombstone" photo in the Gunfight article until I resolve this. At least it's probably close to what Holliday WOULD have looked like at 30, whereas the grad student photo of 1872 at age 20, is still rather boyish, and I thought putting it in the Gunfight article would jar. [[User:Sbharris|Steve]] 14:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

== Unsolved History ==
I'm marking the "A legacy of questions" section NPOV, since whoever wrote has quite obviously formed the opinion that Unsolved History is simply wrong. It's also original research unless a source for the criticism can be cited. -[[User:Anþony|Anþony]] 07:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
:Now has been rewriten to remove the conclusion. It is a fact that this episode attempted to recreate the shotgun blast without using any period shotgun equipment. That's a boneheaded thing to do, but I will simply state the fact, and leave the reader to draw conclusions. This is a section about a controversial topic. So far as I can tell, one does not deal with controversy on WP simply by deleting all reference to it. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 17:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

== introduction ==
Hello. Ive just arrived at this page and, never having heard of this event before ofund it unclear as to the actual occuranc of the event from the opening paragraph. I suggest a little restructering to make it easier to undertand. --[[User:Chickenfeed9|Chickenfeed9]] 13:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

At the beginning of the whole thing, there are the words "Lead-up to the event", or something of that nature. Anyway, that is not what I am talking about. Right below that, are the words "Relevent Law in Tombstone". The word "relevent" is spelled wrong. It is really spelled like this: Relevant. I guess it is a typo or something.....~~DustieE~~

== Lord and Williams? ==
The newspaper article mentions the names Lord and Williams. Would they have been deputies of Behan? [[User:Scott Sanchez|knoodelhed]] 06:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

== Discovery Channel Episode ==
I saw the program "Unsolved History" referenced by dismissal in "A Legacy of Questions." My observations relate to (1) whether Tom McLaury had a concealed pistol (2) would Holliday waste a shot on an unarmed man. In the recreation, Tom was behind a horse on the off side from the rifle scabbard. If he had a hidden pistol, this was a safe place to fire from cover. However, he reached over the saddle to pull the rifle from its scabbard. An awkward move to perform from the off side when a horse is skittish and wheeling as you push against it. When he finally began to withdraw the rifle, his arm would have been raised in the motion. Less lucky, he had wheeled around and become exposed to Doc Holliday. Tom, no longer unarmed, presented a self-defense target to Holliday who fired the coroner's reported twelve OO buck into Tom's side and exposed armpit. Dropping the rifle, it fell back into position and the horse ended up out on the street. Virgil's statement Tom reached for a rifle is upheld; and Holliday is not the fool for firing at an unarmed man.
I recall from the program. further, that test firings with vintage arms and ammunition were made on sides of beef to show the effect. A request to Discovery Channel (now the Science Channel) might yield a copy of the program and answer other questions.
Finally, regarding the number of cartridges in one of the revolvers. Truly no experienced owner would carry with six loaded chambers. By the same token, no experienced hand would prepare for a fight and leave the sixth one empty!
[[User:JimBeam|JimBeam]] 08:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
::We'll have to take a look at that Discovery Channel episode again, as my recollection is that they used NO period arms or ammo, which makes it all completely bogus. But I'm perfectly willing to change my mind on the issue. You could of course be right that Tom was shot while reaching for a rifle, and that would explain his side wound under the arm. However, there's a simpler explanation, as this is exactly ''also'' the kind of wound you expect from a man in defensive posture who sees he's about to get blasted by a shotgun-- turned to the side and with arm raised to protect HEAD and FACE. It's a flinch. I've actually seen a man with shotgun pellets though the eyes in an LA gang-shooting, and it's not pretty. There are worse things than being shot in the body and the (correct in this case) instinct is to protect the head. But Tom was so close to the shooter that nothing helped. Yes, Tom reaching for the Winchester upholds Virgil's version (which isn't given very convincingly you'll notice-- even Virgil isn't too sure about it, and same is true for Wyatt's testimony on his point), but the major problem is there's no way to uphold the rest, which is that Tom had a pistol and fired it over the horse. Tom doesn't have time to do that. By Ham Light's account Tom is hit in the first salvo before the gap in shots that everyone heard, and that also fits with the unusually large blast of smoke that somebody else saw on the first salvo. No time for Tom to do anything with a pistol at all. The other problem is that we know somebody took a horse into the street and fired a pistol near it, using it for cover (two witnesses saw that, AFAIK), but this was almost certainly Frank, using his own horse, which makes sense (in emergencies you use your own gear). Tom didn't have a horse on site. Frank is going to be using his own for cover, etc. So are we going to have Tom reaching for BILLY'S Winchester-- an unfamiliar weapon on an unfamiliar horse? I just don't buy it. That's for James Bond films-- in emergencies with no time to think, real people use weapons and animals (and cars) they're used to, or else run like hell. We know that Tom DID run like hell, but alas for him he was already fatally wounded. I'm sorry to ruin the Old West romantic version of this tale where everybody does everything possible in a firefight, but I think the truth is more prosaic. All the fighting on the Cowboy side was done by the two men ready to do it. Men who'd just arrived in town, fresh, sober, angry, and armed and with mounts. The other two guys who'd been up all night and were sleep-deprived, beaten up, bandaged, disarmed, horseless, gearless, and in one case still drunk, both did just what you'd expect in a firefight: they ran. In one case, not before being shot fatally. Gunshot people almost always don't just fall down, in real life; they turn and run. Coroners and medical examiners everywhere know the syndrome where the body has ''one'' wound from front to back, and several others from back to front. Side wounds under arms from defensive fliches in close quarters are not uncommon, either :) On the issue of how many rounds in pistols. Seems reasonable that the Earps and Holliday, going down to what they thought might be a fight, would put that 6th round in in the cylinder. I don't quite think Frank and Billy really believed in their heart of hearts they were about to be involved in a shootout, or else they'd certainly have had rifles in hand, just as Ike had a couple of hours earlier. Anyway, the confusion on how many rounds remained in Frank's revolver suggests to me that there was an empty chamber in it. Can't prove it. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 19:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment:
Although Tom McLaury being armed seemed to mean little to Judge Spicer when handing down his decision, it remains one of the most interesting puzzlements of the street fight. It is not at all clear that Tom tried to retrieve the rifle on Billy Clanton's horse during the gunfight. Virgil Earp testified that as the Earp party entered the lot, Tom had his hand on the rifle in question. Later Virgil said Tom failed to retrieve that rife. This could mean Tom tried to get the rifle and failed, but it doesn't necessarily imply that. It could also mean that after he took his hands off the rifle, Tom didn't grab for the rifle again. Later when Tom was being shot by Doc Holliday, it appears he was reaching out towards Billy Clanton's mount. It could be supposed that he was indeed reaching for the rifle on that animal. However, it could also be that Tom was simply trying to regain the animal as a protective shield. The only one who could tell us Tom's McLaury's , intent at that specific moment was Tom, himself. And, of course, Tom died without his ever explaining his movements.

The most curious part of the testimony relative to the possibility that Tom was armed comes from R.F. Coleman. He claimed that as he reached The Union Market, two bullets hit a wagon situated in front of that location. The puzzle then becomes - who was shooting in an easterly direction down Fremont St? Michael Hickey claimed two bullets from Doc Holliday's pistol bounced off of Fly's wood frame building and careened back out to hit that particular wagon. There are two problems to this scenario. 1.) No witness described Holliday as shooting at Ike Clanton as that cowboy fled. The first time this allegation appears in print is in Burn's TOMBSTONE book. 2.) Slugs fired at Fly's building would most probably have lodged into the wood structure rather than bounce off. Remember, the cowboys were situated west of the Earps. So, it doesn't make much sense for any of the Earp party to be firing in an easterly direction. Thus, it would appear that one of the cowboy party fired the shots which hit the wagon in question. Since Ike was fleeing and Frank Mclaury was out in the middle of Freemont St., it would have been either Billy Clanton or Tom McLaury that hit the wagon. I don't know if Tom was responsible but the two shots Coleman referred to keeps the question of Tom's being armed alive because it is not at all clear that Billy was in a position to have hit that wagon. Tom, on the other hand, was standing on the street directly in line to where the two shoots ended up.

Actually, in his testimony, Wyatt didn't claim to have seen Tom fire. He said he was under the impression that Tom fired. It was Virgil who said he saw Tom shoot over the horse. This seems to be what Wyatt told Bat Masterson. Some of this confusion comes from a certain reading of Mrs. J.C. Collier's newspaper interview wherein she says she saw a cowboy shoot under his horse's neck. While some researchers have viewed this as confirmation that Tom McLaury did actually fire during the street fight. It could also be argued that Mrs. Collier was really describing Frank McLaury shooting back toward the Earps as he exited the lot while pulling his horse behind him. However, if you believe it was Frank she was referring to (and by her own account she was a block or so away from the fight) then your left answering the question of how and why a man with a fresh gut wound was still clutching his horse as he stumbled out into the street while attempting to return fire? (Buckeyes1, 7/1/08) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Buckeyes1|Buckeyes1]] ([[User talk:Buckeyes1|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Buckeyes1|contribs]]) 19:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC) 
::The question is even worse for a guy with 12 buckshot through this chest from right to left through the thorax. :) You can shoot while gut-shot, but try it while not being able to breathe. But as noted below, C. H. Light saw Tom fall long before Frank, who was messing with this horse in the middle of the street, lost it and then went down. So that's the end of it. That guy shooting over the horse with pistol, was Frank. Not as interesting as the various descriptors have it, but interesting enough. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 21:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment:
I don’t think it’s quite as black & white a question as your reply makes it seem. Tom was indeed shot as you say however, I beleive that those people who believe he was armed and did fire over (or under) his horse beleive he did so 'before" Doc leveled the fatal blast. As I mentioned in a previous comment, a second ‘forgotten’ witness was Mrs. J.C. Colyer of Kansas City, who was visiting with her sister in Tombstone that day. When the shooting erupted, Mrs. Colyer was sitting in a buggy in front of the post office on the southeast corner of Fremont and Fourth streets, less than a block away from the vacant lot. She returned to Kansas City, and her belated account of the gunfight was published in the December 30, 1881, issue of the Tombstone Epitaph: ‘The cowboys opened fire on them. And you never saw such shooting. One of the cowboys, after he had been shot three times, raised himself on his elbow and shot one of the officers and fell back dead….[A]nother used his horse as a barricade and shot under his neck.’ And since other testimony confirms that neither Billy Clanton nor Frank McLaury ever got behind a horse to use it as a barricade, then it could only have been Tom McLaury that Mrs. Colyer saw shooting under the horse’s neck.
The biggest key to the question of whether Tom McLaury had a gun is the testimony of another impartial witness, laundryman Peter H. Fellehy. According to the wording of the Hayhurst transcript of the coroner’s inquest, Fellehy testified:
After the shooting commenced…,[t]he younger one of the Earps was firing at a man behind the horse. Holliday was also firing at the same man behind the horse, and firing at a man who had run by him to the opposite side of the street. Then I see the man who had the horse let go the reins of the bridle and kept staggering all the time, until he fell on his back near a horse. He still held his pistol in his hand, but [I] did not see it go off after he had fell.
I then went to the young man who was lying on the sidewalk and offered to pick him up….I picked up a revolver that was lying five feet from him and laid it at his side. This was the man that lay on the north side of Fremont Street.
Fellehy’s words make it clear that the ‘man behind the horse’ that Doc and Morgan were shooting at was a different man than the one that Doc shot at who ran ‘to the opposite side of the street’ and collapsed on the sidewalk on the north side of Fremont Street. Based on other testimony in the Spicer hearing, we know that this second man, who led his horse out of the vacant lot but was never behind the horse, and who then fell on the north side of Fremont Street, was Frank McLaury. So Fellehy’s ‘man behind the horse’ has to be either Billy Clanton or Tom McLaury. And we also know from other testimony that Billy Clanton never got near his horse. Therefore, Fellehy’s ‘man behind the horse’ who ‘fell on his back near a horse ‘ and’still held his pistol in his hand’ could only have been Tom McLaury.
But this basic Fellehy evidence doesn’t stop there. I emphasized the word ‘horse’ in Fellehy’s testimony, because the wording in the versions of his testimony that appeared in the Nugget and the Epitaph contains two startling exceptions to the wording in the Hayhurst transcript: The Nugget states that the ‘man with the horse…was staggering all the time until he fell; he had his pistol still when he fell.’ And the Epitaph version quotes Fellehy as saying, ‘Then I saw the man who held the horse let go the bridle and keep staggering until he fell, his back within a few feet of a house; had a pistol in his hand, but I did not see it go off.’
And so, we see that the Hayhurst transcript version of Fellehy’s testimony states that the ‘man behind the horse’ with a pistol fell on his back near a ‘horse,’ while the Epitaph version states that he fell with his back within a few feet of a ‘house.’ That difference in one letter in one word of Fellehy’s testimony brings us to the witness you mentioned above, ‘mining man’ Charles Hamilton ‘Ham’ Light, who was in his room at the Aztec House on the corner of Third and Fremont streets when he heard two shots and ‘jumped’ to his side window on Third Street looking up Fremont Street. According to the October 29 Nugget, Light testified, ‘I saw a man reel and fall on the corner of Fremont and Third streets on the south side, right directly on the corner of the house….I saw another man standing, leaning, against a building joining the vacant lot….The man never stirred after he fell at the corner of the street….I did not see that man fire any shot.’
Because Light didn’t see the beginning of the gunfight, he also couldn’t have seen the man who fell on the corner fire any shots. But Light’s testimony clearly identifies two different men being shot on the south side of Fremont street — Billy Clanton leaning against the Harwood house in the vacant lot, and Tom McLaury falling on the southeast corner of Fremont and Third. Therefore, Light’s man beside the ‘house’ confirms that Fellehy’s man with a ‘pistol’ beside the ‘house’ — not Hayhurst’s ‘horse’ — could only have been the same man, Tom McLaury. (Buckeyes1, 7/2/08) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Buckeyes1|Buckeyes1]] ([[User talk:Buckeyes1|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Buckeyes1|contribs]]) 01:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 
:: I have noticed that, in the section of the main article titled [[Gunfight_at_the_O.K._Corral#A_legacy_of_questions|A legacy of questions]], a {{fact}} warning is appended to the unidentified "episode of [[Discovery Channel]]'s ''[[Unsolved History]]''". All I was able to find out is that ''Shoot-Out at the O.K. Corral'' figures as Episode no.10 in the [[List of episodes in Unsolved History]], with no indication of date.

::Some details about a DVD titled ''Shoot Out at the O.K. Corral'' (and presumably containing the videorecording of the aired episode), can be found at the website of the [http://ipac3.vpl.ca/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=12169052O7IE7.13607&profile=pac&uri=link=3100009~!4027875~!3100001~!3100002&aspect=subtab13&menu=search&ri=1&source=~!horizon&term=979.1+U59w&index=CALLDD Vancouver Public Library, '''Call #:''' 979.1 U59w] and also at [http://www.amazon.com/Discovery-Channel-Unsolved-History-Corral/dp/B000MWFTZC Amazon.com, '''ASIN:''' B000MWFTZC]. [[User:Miguel de Servet|Miguel de Servet]] ([[User talk:Miguel de Servet|talk]]) 13:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

::: I have removed the {{fact}} warning appended to the unidentified "episode of [[Discovery Channel]]'s ''[[Unsolved History]]''", and replaced it with a footnote essentially detailing the above info.[[User:Miguel de Servet|Miguel de Servet]] ([[User talk:Miguel de Servet|talk]]) 14:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

== Guadalupe Canyon ==

There exists an article (which is in sad need of attension) on the [[Guadalupe Canyon Massacre]] of August, 1881. It cites a "theory" that Earps and Holliday somehow slipped away from Tombstone down to the AZ/NM/Sonora Mexico "three corners" area [http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/us_mexico_border/txu_oclc_13545307_063.jpg]. The problem with the "theory" is that there's basically no evidence for it. 5 men were killed in the ambush but 2 survived, and both of *them* said they saw Mexicans doing the shooting. Perhaps the Earps and Holliday were up behind a grassy knoll, controlling the Mexicans. If so, history is silent. I personally think the Mexicans acted alone. I'm not willing to have conspiracy theorists ruin a perfectly good historical article like one on the O.K. Corral. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 01:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

== Billy's wound ==
[An interesting discussion which probably deserves to be preserved here]

Regarding your recent edit, I'm curious about the details of your edit summary. You edited the article text to say:
<blockquote>Billy Clanton was shot through the right arm, close to the wrist joint (Keefe testified the bullet passed through the arm from "inside to outside," entering the arm close to the base of the thumb, and exiting "on the back of the wrist diagonally" with the latter wound larger)</blockquote>
With this in the edit summary:
<blockquote>Difficult for bullet to go from thumb to outside of arm with arm in any "up" position. This becomes important to final Spicer verdict)</blockquote>
I'm not an expert on this particular gunfight or the Spicer verdict you mention, but if you mean to say that the injury would be difficult to sustain if Clanton were in the act of surrender with arms raised, I disagree.. It's difficult to explain using text but if Clanton had his right hand raised that injury seems entirely consistent... especially if the attacker was firing from Clanton's left. [[User:Robotsintrouble|Robotsintrouble]] 07:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

:Anything works from Clanton's left, agreed. But if the attackers are facing squarely off, which I can't imagine them not doing in the circumstances described, it just doesn't work. Also, Billy, if he uses his right arm first to fire with, is going to have right side toward attackers, if anything. Again, no way for a bullet to hit his inside-thumb part of wrist and exit at the back, behind the hand. Not with hand up in surrender.[[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 07:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
::Hi, pleased to meet you too... but I don't follow your logic. First, the fog of combat and time make this discussion academic without a better record of the original autopsy records. Then again, I'm something of an academic so I don't mind a little intellectual exercise.
::In an attempt to show the anatomical contradiction in your argument, let us assume for a moment that the fighters were indeed in a standoff, and that Clayton's pistol was pointed at his assailants. In this posture, the only angles of attack from which a bullet could enter his inner arm and exit through the wrist are at least slightly to the attacker's left (unless Doc Holliday called in aerial support). While this by itself is completely plausible given the close range of the gunfight (mostly 10 feet or less according to the article), the resulting injury track would likely travel towards his elbow before exiting.

::This matters because of one detail: I note that you've changed the wording of the original text slightly: according to the quote, the entry wound was at the inside (ventral/palmar surface) of his ''arm'', not his ''wrist'' as you just said. This is in contrast to the exit wound, which is specifically described as being from the back of his ''wrist''. If Clayton were pointing his pistol anywhere near his attackers, it should be the other way around-- entry wound closer to the hand (distal end of the arm), exit closer to the elbow (proximal end of the arm).
::In order for the wound to exit from the back of the wrist after entering the inner arm near the thumb, one of the following is true:
::*One or more of our many assumptions is wildly incorrect (most likely)
::*The attacker was almost directly to Clayton's left (or to the left of where his pistol was pointed)
::*Clayton had thrown up his hands, in which case this wound is completely plausible: '''he would have turned his hands, and thus the inside surface of his arms, towards his assailaints'''. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Robotsintrouble|Robotsintrouble]] ([[User talk:Robotsintrouble|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Robotsintrouble|contribs]]) 08:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

*Back in the bad old days there often were no autopsies-- certainly not full ones-- and there was none here. The doctor acting as temporary Coroner in the case, Dr. Harry M. Mathews, only describes the fatal wounds (and then only from superficial exam of the stripped bodies), and ignores the wrist altogether. The ONLY description we have of Billy's wrist is that of Thomas Keefe, a witness and carpenter, who felt the wounds on the dead Billy, and even poked a finger into one to the bone (rather in the matter of Thomas the Apostle, one supposes) to see for himself. He testifies in the Spicer hearing. Nobody else says anything about the matter until Judge Spicer declares in this judgement that "William Clanton was wounded on the wrist of the right hand on the first fire and thereafter used his pistol with the left. The wound is not such as could have been received with the hands thrown up, and the wound received by Thomas McLaury was such as could not be received with his hands on his coat lapels." Regard this, Spicer had seen during the trial a demo, and the only document we have of this reads exactly: <blockquote>In response to shot on wrist: "It went from the inside to the outside." Course of ball was diagnonal across the wrist [here witness illustrates upon the arm of Mr. Fitch, the direction in which the ball passed through the arm of Billy Clanton, by showing that the ball entered nearly in line with the base of the thumb, and emerged on the back of the wrist diagonally.] Says the orifice on the outside of the wrist was the largest. Did not see any powder burn on Billy Clanton's body or clothing." </blockquote> So far as I know, that's all the info history has for us. Except that we know the demo apparently convinced the judge. From our description we can put this in various ways-- obviously in anatomic position the base of thumb is lateral with arm down and there's no way to get a bullet into it except to rotate the forearm somewhat inward so the thumbside (what we usually call the lateral side of the forearm) is more forward, so it can receive a bullet. You can do that easily with the arm down and rotated 45 degrees inward, naturally. It's very hard to get into that position (thumb forward, ventral surface diagonally exactly behind, to allow a posterior exit on the ventral/back wrist) with the arm UP. Because you really have to crank that arm around to get the thumb in front, with the arm raised. That's what the judge apparently concluded. ''We'' have only verbal description. Finally, I might add that the bullet may well have hit Billy while he was in the act of drawing his pistol from a holster, which would for a moment have put him in exactly the right position to get a bullet above the thumb and out through the back of the wrist. Try it. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 19:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

::::Here is the one problem I have with Alford E. Turner's reconstruction [[The OK Corral Inquest]]. Turner says that the first shot to hit Billy was fired by Morgan Earp and hit him in the chest. The fact is that the chest wound was in the left breast, above the nipple. This was the killing shot. Morgan and Holliday opened the firing (Wyatt aparently lied on this point to protect his brother and his friend), with Doc Holliday drawing his pistol, shoving it into Frank McLaury's belly and then stepping back a couple of paces. He and Morgan fired almost simultaneously. Morgan's shot would have been the one that hit Billy in the wrist as he drew, forcing Billy to continue the fight by firing left handed. He showed his mettle, however, by hitting at least two of the Earp Party before going down himself.~~Doktorschley. 2 March 2008.
::::: A. Bauer (who knew none of the men) saw a man we presume to be Doc poke one of the cowboys in the stomach with a "large bronze pistol". Doc himself was mentioned to carry a nickel-plated pistol, so if this was Doc, he wasn't using his pistol to poke with. But the mystery is easily solved if we remember that Doc has a very short barrelled [[coach gun]] shotgun, which presumably would have been the right color and size. Bauer, a dressmaker, cannot have been expected to know this if Doc was holding the weapon one-handed. Light's testimony suggests Tom was hit early in the first two shots, and we know that was a shotgun blast from doc. That would put this early in the fight. The idea that Doc poked Frank has no basis that I know of. Doc would not have carried a loaded shotgun while using a pistol in a close up gunfight-- that's simply crazy. Wyatt said one of the first two shots was him shooting Frank, and this may be true. He also said the other was Billy shooting at him, and I think this is NOT true, and covers for Doc. Old timers do think Doc fired first. They are probably right, but it was surely with the shotgun. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 04:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the fascinating historical aside. In fact, I had the same thought myself - a bullet impact in the act of drawing a pistol - a few hours after leaving the comment. An interesting little snippet of history.. I've never actually seen [[Tombstone (movie)]], do you have any films you would recommend that re-enact the battle? I'm particularly interested in the story of [[Doc Holliday]]. [[User:Robotsintrouble|Robotsintrouble]] 05:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

::::The best I know of so far are Tombstone and the Costner Wyatt Earp. Both are much closer to history than anything before, though the O.K. sequence will necessarily be short and not complete. The Doc in both of them is pretty good. Kilmer and Quaid are both excellent. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 05:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment:
The best and most historically accurate re-enactment I've ever seen is from an old TV series from the early '70s titled David L. Wolper presents "Shootout at the O.K. Corral". Narrated by none other than Bonanza's Lorne Greene. Extremely difficult to find now-a-days but well worth the time if you can find a copy. Also, the old TV series "You are There" presented a rather accurate re-enactment also with the added bonus of going into the build up that lead to the shootout. That one is available at Amazon.com I believe. (Buckeyes1, 7/1/08)

== Wes Claiborne? ==

I see other sources on the net say that he wasn't even there. Do we have reliable sources to place him there? [[User:Arker|Arker]] 21:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

:There's a Wes Fuller and a Billy Claiborne. Who exactly are you talking about? [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 06:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

==Note left for last editor==
'''Would you stop deleting the fact tags in the [[Gunfight at the O.K. Corral]] article?'''
The fact tags asking for citations in how the fighters were armed, are there for a reason. I want to know why you think you know this information. We know how Frank and Billy were armed, from the serial numbers on their Colt Single Action Army .44-40 "Frontier Six Shooters" given at the Spicer hearing. These have been been traced by Alford Turner and are given in his book The O.K. Corral Inquest (1981) [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-3810(198304)14%3A2%3C227%3ATOKCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O]. Turner states we don't know for sure what anybody else had that day, and so far as I know, he's right. So if you know more, cite your sources. Otherwise this material is going to go as "guessed" from various places. I'm formally asking you to stop putting in history you have no source for. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 06:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

==Wes Fuller, participant in the gunfight?==

In the article's introduction, it groups Wes Fuller as a participant in the gunfight on the cowboys' side. I'm surprised to read this. Wikipedia, in fact, is the only place I've ever read such a claim, though it is not repeated in the article's main body. According to Paula Marks's ''And Die in the West'', and according to Fuller himself, he was "on his way to warn Billy [Clanton] to get out of town when he saw the confrontation develop from a position in the alley behind Fly's" (pg. 222). As far as I can tell historians have always viewed him as just a witness, no different than John Behan or Billy Allen. No one, that I can tell, claims he fired a shot, or was shot at. Why then has he been thrown into the middle of it here?

Also, this article claims Fuller was a member of the "Cowboy Gang," which I took to mean he was a cowboy like the victims. For what it's worth, Marks says he claimed his occupation was a gambler when he gave his testimony on the gunfight, so perhaps it would be best to just call him "a friend of the cowboys". [[User:71.129.81.136|71.129.81.136]] 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:You are completely right. Fuller wasn't part of the original article, and somebody keeps adding him as a participant. If you believe the testimony of Fuller himself, as you note, he wasn't. I've fixed it. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 05:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

== Biased ==

I have been doing a personal study of the O.K. Coral shootout for a history progect. After Reading most if not all of the trial testimonials i was convinced for the cowboy side, in a non-conventional way-Virgil was the real cause of the killing(in my opinion)to me he purposly took holliday with him not to hide a shotgun as your article says but to start the fight (why in his right mind would he bring a drunk man to hide a shotgun)if you would try to show a little more ''dead'' cowboy piont of view it would help the articles quality alot thank you
[[User:66.182.95.86|66.182.95.86]] 07:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:We have no evidence that Doc was drunk. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 05:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

But why would he bring Doc, who had already threatened Ike, to confront them. There were several other people that offered there help, but Virgil decided to bring someone that had already had a motive and had threatened to kill a member of the group. I think that was the users point.
Damian

::Can't tell you for sure what was going through Virgil's mind, but Virgil said later that Doc always showed up when there posse work to be done. He'd ridden with the Earps many times in the past in that role, and probably expected to be included. That day he had a long coat which could hide a shotgun, so he was extra-useful. If he looked sober, Virgil probably figured he was a fearless posseman. Virgil did have some reason to exclude him, but Ike had had hard words with Wyatt, and doubtless with Virgil and Morgan too, earlier, when they had brained him and taken his weapons. Who was Virgil going to bring that he trusted, and who Ike had NOT threatened?? Ike threatned all the Earps and Holliday that day. And Frank had basically done the same some days earlier, when Virgil had re-arrested Pete Spence, and thereby pissed off the entire Clanton/McLaury faction. This was a no-win situation. The Cowboys didn't recognize the authority of *anybody* in law enforcement. They wanted VIRGIL disarmed. They didn't hate Behen, but they totally ignored him, too. Virgil was in the position of either 1) Taking people the Cowboys didn't fear (who would no doubt be ignored like Behan), or else 2) Taking people the Cowboys DID fear, but who then would be accused of having a reason to do violence to the Cowboys. A lose-lose proposition. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 01:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This response is totally accurate, and even Judge Spicer notes the absurdity of the Cowboys' insistence that the law enforcement officers be disarmed. No one even disputes these claims, as members of the cowboy faction actually made them publicly. Reading the terstimony of the disinterested parties to fight, as Judge Spicer did, demonstrates that the Cowboys were lying in most of their particulars, and that the idiotic Ike Clanton even undercut his own testimony. Behan was complicitous with the Cowboys, and probably held his position out of their sufferance.~~Doktorschley. 2 March 2008. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Doktorschley|Doktorschley]] ([[User talk:Doktorschley|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Doktorschley|contribs]]) 01:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 

No single perspective can claim accuracy when arguing a point in history. It is known that multiple witnesses to the onslaught saw Billy's hands in the air as he was killed. It is known that Tom McLaury was not armed. All stories corroborated except Wyatt's until Ike Clanton's convoluted testimony corrupted the defense's case. Ike's inconsistencies were about an unrelated event, namely the stagecoach robbery. Let's remember, folks, in order to convict a Marshall and his brothers of murder in the far west in 1881 you would need a case that was 110% solid. Ike was an idiot and certainly didn't have the organizational abilities nor the aptitude to work within the status quo that Wyatt Earp did, as was shown during this trial. Without every element suffering the acid test and coming out unscathed Wyatt and his Gang would walk. And what happened? They walked. -Kieran McLaury Taylor [[Special:Contributions/99.141.56.160|99.141.56.160]] ([[User talk:99.141.56.160|talk]]) 03:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The claim that the Cowboys raised their hands into the air was cooked up by Behan, Ike Clanton, and others of that party to make the accusation of premeditated murder stick. Yet this claim does not jibe with the wound in Billy's right wrist, which had to be made while drawing his gun right-handed. It also is contradicted by the unaffiliated witnesses, such as Addie Bourland, who was more than willing to implicate the Earps, describing Doc Holliday as drawing a bronze pistol and shoving it into Frank McLaury's stomach and stepping back before the shooting started. If the Earps wanted to shoot unarmed surrendering men, they could easily have shot down Ike Clanton and Billy Claiborne. This fact came out in the Spicer hearing. The McLaury entry above that Wyatt and or Holliday had a hand in robbing the stage is totally abstruse: it has no basis in fact and appears to have been fabricated by Ike. His claims in this regard are again contradicted by the fact that Wyatt could easily have shot Ike down in the street when Ike was unarmed and did not. At least Wyatt thought it was a fight only between armed men, and his actions bear that out. To speak of "Wyatt and his Gang" is really interesting, since Virgil Earp was the leader of the Earp faction at this time. Only when Virgil was crippled and Morgan was dead did Wyatt form his famous posse and set out to eliminate those who remained of the Clanton-McLaury group. Interestingly enough, Wyatt, Holliday and the rest of this group did not immediately kill Ike Clanton and his father. I hope I am not stepping on family toes here.[[User:Doktorschley|Doktorschley]] ([[User talk:Doktorschley|talk]]) 01:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

== Dramatizations ==
I think it is worth mentioning that, although the shootout at the OK Corral has been depicted in more than a dozen movies, seldom has it been presented accurately. In a number of films, the shootout is at dawn, the corral is in the middle of nowhere and surrounded by nothing but cactus and tumbleweed. The relative position, equipment, and even number of participants - not to mention the number and identity of the casualties - are almost always contrary to fact. Someone with too much time on his hands could patch together clips from several movies to have a Youtube video showing how different various dramatizations have been. [[User:Sussmanbern|Sussmanbern]] ([[User talk:Sussmanbern|talk]]) 01:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

== Billy Clanton's "only" photograph ==

The caption under the photo of the deceased McLaury brothers and Billy Clanton says that it is "the only known photograph" of Clanton, however I just returned from a trip to Tombstone and there is a sign/map at the site of the shootout with a picture of all participants, including Billy Clanton. Just a heads-up.
:There are no known photos of Billy except the one of him in his coffin. A "picture" is not a photograph. If you saw anything which purported to be a photo, it was a fake one. Which wouldn't be unusual for Tombstone. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 05:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

== Sources? ==

I'm not saying that there is any false information, my knowledge of American history has never been that extensive beyond surface details. I was just curious why the article doesn't seem to cite any actual sources. It is at all possible that the person (or persons) who wrote the article are knowledgeable and wrote based on credible research and reference materials. I'm just wondering why none of the sources seem to be cited in the article itself. It just seemed to me that something as mythologized, fictionalized and retold from a number of complex and contradictory perspectives should be clearly and articulately based upon in depth factual research that is actually cited. Again, not saying that it is wrong, just that I don't see any footnotes on research material used in the article. Maybe I am wrong, and I am just missing what is being cited, but I just wanted to point this out in case there is a correction that should be made.

: Ideally, all Wikipedia articles will eventually have footnotes listing references. If there's any particular statement you're especially unsure about, add a {{Talkfact}} to it and hopefully someone with the material on hand will quickly add an appropriate reference. [[User:69.108.230.116|69.108.230.116]] 12:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:Well here's nice story on Billy, some of your answers should be answered:
: [http://www.bignosekate.com/bnkokcorral.htm True story, gunfight at the o.k. corral]
: Imdb info http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050468/ as article says
::The "nice story on Billy" is rife with inaccuracies. Love the Atari 2600 recreation of the gunfight though! [[User:Kkbay|Kkbay]] ([[User talk:Kkbay|talk]]) 22:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what the article is about, I don't see a problem with including links to information about related topics, such as the imdb link - that's the purpose of external links: Even if this article was perfect, it wouldn't have that information on the movie, however it is very closely related and contributes to the reader's understanding of the topic. --[[User:ST47|ST47]][[User talk:ST47|Talk]]·[[User:ST47/Desk|Desk]] 15:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
:This issue is directly addressed by [[Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided]] (item 13). The IMDB link does not directly relate to the topic of this article and thus should not be included here. It instead relates directly to [[Gunfight at the O.K. Corral (1957 film)]] where a link to the IMDB page already exists. There is also a link to the article about the film available in this article's ''Representation in film, TV and literature'' section. Thus the information you wish to see included is available at the cost of an extra click without causing confusion to anyone following the link from this page only to find that the IMDB page provides no information directly tied to this article's topic. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]'' [[User talk:Allen3|talk]] 18:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

In terms of sources, what is left out here is Alford E. Turner's [[OK Corral Inquest]]--the complete documents from the Spicer hearing. Reading Judge Spicer's treatment, it is clear that he disspelled the competing claims of the Earps and Holliday on one hand, and Behan and the Cowboys on the other. The deciding testimony was provided by seamstress Addie Bourland, across the street from the gunfight, and Cochise County Probate Judge J.H. Lucas, across the street and about 200 feet away in the Mining Exchange Building. The testimony of these two disinterested persons refuted claims by Behan, et al., that Billy Clanton had thrown up his hands at Virgil Earp's command, and that Tom McLaury had thrown open his vest to show that he was unarmed. Interestingly enough, editor Turner, one of the leading authorities on the Earps at the time, concluded that Doc Holliday and Morgan Earp had opened the firing almost simultaneously, hitting Frank McLaury (Holliday, with a pistol to the stomach) and Billy Clanton (Morgan Earp; probably to Billy Clanton's right wrist, which is why witnesses reported that he was firing left-handed). That Tom McLaury was unarmed is doubtful, and it is likely that Behan or some other Cowboy confederate removed his pistol surreptitiously. Certainly, the Earps could have shot down both Ike Clanton and Billy Claiborne, who ran through the middle of the fight, but did not do so. No one confuted Wyatt Earp's testimony that he screamed at Ike Clanton, "Commence to fighting or get away!" Given these facts, Tom McLaury probably was firing as Wyatt testified, but had his gun spirited away by a confederate after the shooting was done and the street was littered with the dead (3) and wounded (3). I'm of a mind to revised these parts of the account with copious notes. I am glad to see that someone had the sense to cite Marks' [[And Die in the West]], which points out the determination of Morgan Earp and Doc Holliday to open the fray, as related by Martha King, who was in the Butcher Shop on Fremont Street when the Earp's passed. Marks' work, nevertheless, is an apology for the Cowboy side. I prefer Alford E. Turner's more critical work, with its detailed reliance on the public testimony and his own copious notes on the course of events.~~Doktorschley 2 March 2008 —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Doktorschley|Doktorschley]] ([[User talk:Doktorschley|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Doktorschley|contribs]]) 01:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 
:: Agree that the transcript of Inquest and Trial (both partly available online, but completely available with additional valuable commentary in Alford Turner, are THE primary sources for all this. If you have something that disagrees with this stuff (which disagrees with itself, but is at least contemporary and taken under oath), you might want to question it. As to whether or not Tom was armed, my guess is not. Turner thinks so (see pg 202) but I think he's wrong. C. H. "Ham" Light, no friend of the Earps (in fact a mining business partner of Stilwell's!) saw most of the fight from the Aztec House, which still stands, just northwest of the site at 3rd and Fremont. Light testifies at the earlier Inquest (not the later trial, where he does not testify) that he heard the first two shots of the fight, and reached the window while all participants were still standing. Billy was at the house corner shooting, and others were shooting him. Somebody was out in the street with a horse (this would have to be Frank, with his own horse-- it wasn't Tom, for reasons which will be coming). And there was Doc, getting hit and turning around from a bullet struck to the hip, but not falling (so this was not Morgan). The most important thing Light saw was that immediately after the first couple of shots, and while everybody else was still firing, Tom was already running away from the battle, going West on Fremont, to fall at the corner of Fremont and 3rd-- a run and fall that Light saw. So he'd been hit before Light ever saw him, as also concluded by Light. Now, we know two relevant things: The shotgun was used by Holliday early, perhaps in one of the two first shots, because nobody who is burdened with a shotgun (and isn't used to it) starts off shooting a pistol one-handed while they dangle a loaded shotgun (even a short [[coach gun]] in the other!). Bourland's testimony also implicates a very large pistol, which was probably the [[coach gun]]. Tom was hit by NOTHING other than this shotgun blast, which was early, and nobody else HAD a shotgun. Thus, Tom was hit in first few seconds of the fight. And was already running like hell to get away, by the time Light looked in on the first part of the fight. Nobody gets a double load of 12 buckshot though the chest side-to-side, and then starts shooting off a pistol. Nor did Tom really have TIME to do this. Light says the guy lying at the corner (who is surely Tom) lay there nearly the whole time of the fight and must have been one of the first people shot. Clear enough? If Tom was armed, he didn't use his weapon-- he just didn't have time or means. The guy in the street with the horse, shooting after this, mistaken for Tom by many, was instead his brother Frank-- which is natural because it was Frank's horse, after all (also the two looked a lot like each other, if you see the caskets pic). And if all that's not enough, we know where Tom's weapon was-- half a block away, fully loaded, at the Capitol Saloon, as testified to by Andrew Mehan, bar-keep, where Tom had left it between 1 and 2 pm on the day of the fight. (Turner knows this, but refuses to believe it!) The idea that Tom picked up a second pistol on 4th Street (Spangenberg's) or on Allen (The Butcher shop) just before the fight, means he would have had to walk it right by where his own pistol was checked at 4th and Fremont, to get to the fight! Those people who think they saw Tom get a pistol at the butcher's really saw no pistol but infered it. They SAW him get something to bulge his pants pocket. We know what may not have been anything but a lot of money and receipts, which were found on his body. Was Tom armed all night? Of course, since he didn't drop off his pistol till the next day. Was he armed when Wyatt buffaloed him, at just about the same time he dropped his pistol off? Very probably. Bauer said he saw Tom at the Capitol Saloon AFTER Bauer himself saw Tom pistolwhipped by Wyatt. So either Tom visited that saloon twice that day (once just before being beaten and once after) or else (as seems more likely), he went there shortly after being beaten to drop off his pistol and get a drink. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 21:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

== Sources and <! tags ==

I removed all the thoughts within the <! tags; they were pointless and unsubstantiated to boot. I also put some citation needed tags in, since, as someone mentioned above, we don't have many resources proving what seem to be opinions. -[[User:CaptainJae|CaptainJae]] 12:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

== Harwood house ==

The "Harwood house" which is at the corner of 3rd and Fremont today, wasn't there in 1908 (see the photo in the article). I believe it was removed to another position and then returned to its present place. However, it was not the house against which the gunfight occurred and Billy Clanton died. The testimony at the hearing makes clear that in 1881 there were two houses "below" (West) of Fry's, and these on maps show as the McDonald House and the Harwood house, which was on the corner (in the same position as now). The gunfight lot was very narrow--scarely an alley (and may actually have been an alley, and an alternate entrance to the Corral lot, accounting for a lot of confused history, and for Wyatt's "bad" drawing of 1926). But the narrowness is also alluded to, in testimony. Both houses also show in an 1881 photo made by Fly from the hill to the West of town, which is reprinted in closeup in places like Bob Boze Bell's illustrated books on the fight. In 1881, two houses are (again) seen to the West of Fly's, before 3rd street. Presumably the closest to Fly's is the McDonald house, though nobody mentions it by name in the Inquest or Trial. However, the house on the corner was where the dead and dying were taken, possibly because Tom McLaury was closest to it. We don't know why, but if Tom (nearest to death when found) was taken to one house, the one nearest to him on the corner, then the other two men would have been taken there also, by default. I've changed some text. I think Turner himself may be wrong on this point. I'll have cites in a bit from the Inquest/Trial transcripts, which are the primary sources for everything. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 03:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for confusing the McDonald and Harwood houses...a careless mistake on my part.[[User:Jmtremg|Jmtremg]] ([[User talk:Jmtremg|talk]]) 03:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding C.S. Fly and mention of Jersey's Livery Stable, this info was found on the web site www-legendsofamerica-dot-com.

== Very tendentious edits ==

"Wyatt shouldn't have been armed by this point either, but felt securely "on the side of the law", which would be to say, above the law."

In court, Wyatt said he considered himself a deputy town marshal under his brother, as he had temporarily held the town marshal's just just a couple of weeks before when Virgil was in Tucson, and hadn't been "undeputized". This statement was made in open court and the defense had every change to attack it as being unfactural, but they did not. Apparently Wyatt did indeed serve in his brother's capacity as chief of police. That makes him a deputy. There's circumstantial evidence that he wasn't drawing pay to do this and was not carrying a badge to do this, at the time of the shootout, but that only means he didn't have to work regular police deputy shifts. As an off duty lawman he had every right to carry a concealed weapon, just as off duty peace officers do today. So, you're wrong about the "above the law" part. Now, you can question nepotism and say Virgil shouldn't have been apointing his brother for high position, just as JFK wasn't supposed to make Bobby Kennedy (who'd never tried a legal case in his life) attorney general of the US. But that's a problem for the voter; it's not a problem of legality. And in this case, the voter had their say, and they said nothing. We have no record of petitions from townspeople that Virgil had left the city and left Wyatt Earp in charge! I have the same complaint about your edits that Wyatt was ready to commit "homicide". Wyatt had every chance to commit homicide against Tom McLaury and especially against Ike Clanton. He didn't shoot either of them. Ike had been armedw with rifle and pistol and drunkenly hunting Holiday hours before-- that would have got him killed by a SWAT team today. I find Virgil and Wyatt's policing, considering the provokation, quite exceptional. The key thing about Oct. 26 is that Ike Clanton lived through it. He shouldn't have. Even today, he probably wouldn't have, and no court would have held the officers liable. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 01:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 
 
*My edits were indeed tendentious, even biased. My name is Kieran McLaury Taylor and I have been taught the story of the massacre at the OK Corral as perpetrated by Wyatt Earp, allowed by his brother Virgil and assisted by Doc Holiday since I was just a wee child. You guys have obviously done your homework but is anyone aware of the relationship between the Earp family and the King Ranch? Thought about what the King Ranch might stand to gain if the heirs of the Clanton dynasty were to up and git killed? Wyatt knew he could do anything he wanted in Tombstone, and most of Arizona, including beat the tar out of a passerby for acquaintanceship with one of Wyatt's annoyances. There was good reason the Cowboys were frightened of disarming. They were on their way out of town and Wyatt had been trying to get away with killing them all day long. By some accounts they may have considered themselves out of town already, and Wyatt finally got what he was looking for: a pile of dead Cowboys. I'll remind you that Wyatt was vying for sheriff and randomly killing people was probably not in the interest of his long-term goals. Playing drama-queen and taking Ike's posturing personally, implicating several more individuals (whom he did his best to determine were unarmed) and then killing them all was far more defensible in court, as he proved quite effectively. Incidentally, do off-duty lawmen get to pistol whip individuals in the midst of arguments these days? How about on-duty lawmen? If Tom had a gun and that gave Wyatt the right to attack him, why wasn't Tom arrested? Why, at the very least, wasn't Tom relieved of his weapon? (Remember, we're talking about one of those dangerous, no-account, murderous Cowboys here). If Tom didn't have a weapon and Wyatt was just tipping towards psychotic, why was Virgil willing to assist him in pursuing his political aspirations? Well, because they're family, man. The description you give of The Cowboys seem more applicable to the structure of the law at that time and place. The argument that Wyatt's gang was just a bunch of innocent, upstanding fellows doesn't make sense in the context of Arizona during that time-period and most certainly not in terms of their handling of one loud-mouth punk (Ike) and a couple of guys in town on BUSINESS (my cousins). This is my first experiment with editing on wikipedia. I'm glad I could do it and I'm glad I haven't destroyed your guys's work, though I think it mostly banal, pedantic and one-sided. It seems you are being as honest as you can, considering your sources. You are, for the most part, literally, reading from the pages of history, written in the crookedest town in the West. As we all know, post-Doctorates and hacks alike: history is written by the survivors, and that's just what Wyatt Earp meant to insure. My intention has been to shake things up here and give the world a different perspective on events upon which we can only speculate at this great distance. Oh, and just a tad bit to annoy you dudes that read a consensus amongst a crooked judge and his testifying, murderous, crooked lawmen and decide that equals the truth. (I would have been happy to begin my rant on the talk page had I known it existed **sorry for the inconvenience**)[[Special:Contributions/99.141.56.160|99.141.56.160]] ([[User talk:99.141.56.160|talk]]) 06:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
:Kieran: I would only say that Wyatt and the Earps did not own Arizona, and that if they had had ties that deep to the King Ranch in Texas, they would have sought refuge there, not, as they did, in New Mexico first, then Colorado, and finally California. The King Ranch never took over the area around Tomstone or the Clanton holdings. Wyatt ended up a Californian, living with Johnny Behan's former commonlaw wife as his own commonlaw wife, and successfully mining a small ore claim. I do not think of the Earps and Holliday as white knights, but as hard men who were willing to do what it took to survive and uphold their interests. The cold-blooded killing took place in reprisal for the assassination of Morgan Earp and the wounding of Virgil, not at the OK Corral. The physical evidence of the fight is the Morgan and Doc were determined to shoot it out with the Cowboys, and that the Cowboys were determined to fight, hence Billy Clanton's wound in the right wrist, received as he drew his gun. I don't find any credible evidence that anyone other than the Earp party fired first. Morgan and Holliday fired first, as they had decided on the way down the street, but Wyatt and Virgil were not in on this. Virgil actually carried a cane in his right hand to demonstrate that he was not coming for a gunfight. He even called for his own side to halt as he heard hammers click back. On the other hand, Wyatt's claim that he and Billy opened the firing was contrived (as Josie Marcus forthrightly stated in her own account) to secure his innocence--and that of his entire party--from a charge of premeditated murder. Family histories are often deliberately constructed to support a particular interpretation. I was always taught that my family was Confederate, but research shows that they were Southerners who fought for the Union. It was quite a shock to learn that the Confederate connection, as related by my father was completely fictional. We were and remain Southerners by culture, just as the Earps were Unionists. But our politics I learned about 8 years ago (after believing otherwise for over 40 years) were Unionist. C'est la vie![[User:Doktorschley|Doktorschley]] ([[User talk:Doktorschley|talk]]) 02:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::'''The Earp Brothers of Tombstone''' was purportedly written by Virgil Earp's wife Allie. However, the incidents in the book are almost certainly fabricated by an "editor" (see Barra, 1998, book postscript). The same is true for much of '''I married Wyatt Earp''' which has been shamelessly fictionalized on top of a manuscript which doesn't contain specifics about the gunfight (Yes, Boyer made these up). As for the people in the Fremont meatmarket who heard Morgan tell Holliday "let them have it," it's meaningless without the prelude words, if any. If they'd been heard to say "Let them have it, no matter what," that would have been different. But for all we know, somebody caught only the tail-end of "If they make a move for their guns, let them have it," which might have been the whole sentence. I suspect Holliday's was one of the first two shots, from both the unusual amount of smoke and big report heard in the first two shots, and the fact that Tom (shot by Holliday) is shot early (since he's seen running away before most of the fight shots are fired). But we don't know who fired the other shot. It could as easily have been Frank as Morgan. I think Billy too young and Wyatt too cool to have done it, but we'll probably never know. And yes, the North-South thing, only 16 years after the Civil War, was very much alive in the City/Fed/Yankee/urban/Republican gambler politics of the Eastern Earps, vs. the Rural/County-Sheriff/Democratic/Southern Cowboy politics of the ex-Texans on the other side. That's how history goes. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 09:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

== Lack of death certificates for the cowboys ==

[http://genealogy.az.gov/ The State of Arizona] does not seem to have death certificates on file for anyone surnamed Clanton or McLaury (or any of the usual variations of McLaury accounted for in Irish or Scots family histories in North America) for the period 1880 to 1882. Rather odd. Would such have been "sealed" in the matter of a suspect who died in an officer involved shooting? Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/208.127.133.133|208.127.133.133]] ([[User talk:208.127.133.133|talk]]) 19:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

== The abbreviation "O.K." in "O.K. Corral" ==

What does the "O.K." in "O.K. Corral" stand for after all?
I read through the entire article and discussion, but unless my ADHD let me read over it, it's not written anywhere.
[[User:Kennin|Kennin]] ([[User talk:Kennin|talk]]) 11:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, I think I read in a magazine that it means Ormsby Kimberly. (Citation needed).
[[User:Urbanus Secundus|Urbanus Secundus]] ([[User talk:Urbanus Secundus|talk]]) 05:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

:See the wiki on [[okay]]. The abbreviation O.K. had been used for half a century to mean "good" or "in order" before the business in Tombstone. The debate about how it came to be is in the Wiki. It's not germane here, since lots of things were called O.K. by 1881, just as today. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 02:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

== The style, the particulars ==

Somebody has complained about the style of the report of the action, and I agree, but unfortunately it has been added to by people who think a Western story should have a Western campfire story-style narative. I'll be glad to clean it up if that doesn't dry too much fire.

One thing that is clearly wrong is the recent addition that the lot of the gunfight was being used by Harwood (owner of the house on the corner) to store firewood in. The OK Corral inquest makes note of "two houses" below Fly's (West of Fly's) which would put another structure between Fly's and Harwood's, which contemporary maps put on the corner. That's the McDonald Assay building according to maps, and it was against this that Billy was shot. It no longer stands. But there are clearly two buildings below Fly's in the 1882 photo in Bob Boze Bell's book on the shootout (see his book on Doc Holliday for a closeup), taken from a Fly photo from the Hill West of Tombstone (I forget the name of this hill, but I've stood on it myself). Even Harwood's house wasn't always where it is today: it's gone in the 1908 photo (see the photo in this article) and has obviously been someplace else in Tombstone in the meantime, but since moved back. I don't know this exact history of the perigrinations of the Harwood residence. In any case, it's clear that Billy died in the house near the corner near where Tom fell, and that's presumably the Harwood house. The most badly wounded man (Tom) was taken there, and probably that's why they took Billy there also. I'm not even sure the Assay building was open or livable at the time, and it would not have made sense to put the two wounded men in different buildings next to each other while waiting for the doctor. Frank died where he fell, across Fremont, but his body was eventually taken to the Harwood house also, to await the coroner. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 02:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

== Tombstone jurisdiction ==
As an outsider could the article clarify the jurisdictions involved. The action all took place in Tombstone (town or city) within the town limits (?); the article on Tombstone said it was founded 1879 and refers to Tombstone Ordinances No 7 & 9; but was 1879 when Tombstone was incorporated with a mayor and town marshal? The surrounding [[Cochise County]] where the "Cowboys" were from had recently (earlier in 1881) been incorporated out of [[Pima County, Arizona]]. And Virgil Earp held a federal appointment as Deputy US Marshal from 1879, was that from the Arizona Territory Governor? [[User:Hugo999|Hugo999]] ([[User talk:Hugo999|talk]]) 02:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
: Tombstone was incorporated with mayor and town-marsall in 1979, and officially became a city when its population went over 1000 in 1880 (thus town-marshal simply became city-marshal, but the office is better known as police chief and this title was used at the time also). The countryside outside Tombstone was under two jurisdictions-- at the county level by the Sheriff's office (exactly as today). With Cochise Co. having split off, this was Behan's turf (he is the first Cochise Co. sheriff), and it was Democratic and Southern and rural, quite unlike the town itself. There were a lot of stockraisers out there who were originally from Texas, and had been sympathetic to the Confederacy. The second level of jurisdiction was at the territorial level, and that indeed was the US marshal's office. The territory Marshal was Crawley Dake (a wonderful name), with the deputy being Virgil (I believe he was appointed by Dake, not directly by Governor Fremont; but Fremont did appoint Dake). So in the end you see the set-up for the conflict. The city-cops AND the feds are all Yankie/Republican/businessmen. The countryside and sheriff are basically Southerners, Democrats, and cowboys. The O.K. Corral fight has subtexts of the Civil War, which had ended only 16 years previously (and which Virgil had actually fought in). [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 20:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not clear on the relative jurisdictions & authorities of the Marshall vs. the Sheriff (Johnny Behan). Behan refused to help the Earps, but I don't know if his office either required him or prevented him from doing so. 01:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Sussmanbern|Sussmanbern]] ([[User talk:Sussmanbern|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sussmanbern|contribs]])  

==Glenn Boyer again==

I'm removing a gushing paragraph about Glenn G. Boyer in this article. There is no evidence that Boyer ever met Earp's Josie/Sadie Marcus (who died in 1944 when Boyer was in his early 20's), and indeed there indirect evidence against it, as he certainly would have mentioned such a meeting in his 1955 letter to Stuart Lake, which survives. See http://home.earthlink.net/~knuthco1/IMWEfiles2/curiousvendettasource.htm which probably should be referenced in this article if there is any more Boyerism. Moreover, there is no evidence that Boyer had access to anything other than the Cason manuscript in writing '''I married Wyatt Earp''' and therefore anything he/she says about the Tombstone years is suspect. It is third hand at best and fiction at worst. Boyer has also been caught making up worse stuff, see the link above. Certainly Boyer's contention (supposedly from Sadie that Wyatt avenged Warren's death in 1900, provably wrong (see the link above) as is the idea that Earp visited Holliday the day before Holliday died. Boyer is not to be trusted. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 21:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

:Thanks for this posting of the above link. It was quite helpful. I apologize for not having been aware of this insightful and well-researched article. On the issue of who started the fight, however, I note that the Inquest MS and Spicer's own analysis indicated the Billy Clanton was hit while drawing his gun. This shot came almost certainly from Morgan Earp. In addition, there is the testimony of Martha J. King in the Butcher Shop about the exchange between Wyatt and Morgan while walking past. I have not seen any evidence that would contradict this claim. On "I Married Wyatt Earp", one can follow much of what Boyer put in from Lake's material, which is fairly transparent, so things may not be as bad as they seem. In addition, memories do fade, and years get mixed around. Wyatt and Virgil COULD HAVE carred out revenge for Warren's murder, but the dating may have been off. In fact, who could know? Still, the article you have posted has seriously undermined Boyer's credibility for me as a researcher and writer, and while some of what is in "I Married Wyatt Earp" must be true (for instance, why would Josie imply that Wyatt's stipulated account was perjured if that was not the case? Is this just Boyer inserting his opinion into her mouth, so to speak?), and parts of it are obviously slanted to keep Josie from appearing to have been "not a nice person" for being first Johnny Behan's commonlaw wife and then Wyatt's, with hardly a transition, but this is all reflective of authenticity, it seems to be me. The difficult part now would seem to be sorting out anything that might be deliberate fiction, such as the episode surrounding Warren's murder.[[User:Doktorschley|Doktorschley]] ([[User talk:Doktorschley|talk]]) 06:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

:Thanks again.[[User:Doktorschley|Doktorschley]] ([[User talk:Doktorschley|talk]]) 12:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, you might want to consider putting the actual article into the references in the wiki article itself: Jeffrey J. Morey, "The Curious Vendetta of Glenn G. Boyer", in Quarterly of the National Association for Outlaw and Lawman History (NOLA), Vol. XVIII, No. 4, Oct.-Dec., 1994, p. 22-28. This piece is full of astute analysis and treatment of primary documents.[[User:Doktorschley|Doktorschley]] ([[User talk:Doktorschley|talk]]) 12:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

::Sure, let's think of a way to get it in, and where it should go as a reference. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 06:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be a detailed critical footnote, in conjunction with "I married Wyatt Earp"...something like, "For a better understanding of the sources we are dealing with, see...."[[User:Doktorschley|Doktorschley]] ([[User talk:Doktorschley|talk]]) 05:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

== O.K.? ==

What does the O.K. in "O.K. Corral" actually stand for? [[Special:Contributions/188.192.118.224|188.192.118.224]] ([[User talk:188.192.118.224|talk]]) 06:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

:Nobody knows. In 1881 it was a common a phase as now, although it was a bit more positive and meant "fine." The history of the phrase goes all the way back to the Van Buren Campaign, at least. See the [[O.K.]] article. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 07:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

::I should point out that the question is not "what does the "O.K." stand for in phrase meaning "adequate"" (which as you point out is covered in the [[O.K.]] article), but "what does the "O.K." in "O.K. Corral" stand for". To the point, is there any evidence (i.e. citations) that the "O.K." in "O.K. Corral" was supposed to be a reference to "okay", or is it mere speculation that it is referring to the phrase meaning "adequate", as opposed to some other abbreviation, like the initials of the owner or owners (e.g. Oscar Kendall or Oswald & Kennedy), or a misreading of "circle K", or just some random letters a person chose for a cattle/horse brand? -- [[Special:Contributions/174.21.224.236|174.21.224.236]] ([[User talk:174.21.224.236|talk]]) 06:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

== "Strength" of Cowboys ==

Can someone explain what this stat in the infobox indicates? My first assumption would be that it means how many Cowboys participated in the fight, but it says "2-6 (?)" as if there was some doubt about it when the number of fighters seems pretty well substantiated; and since three of them died, the number of course would have to be at least three, leaving me either puzzled as to where the "2" comes from or puzzled as to what the stat means in the first place. [[User:Mbinebri|'' '''Mbinebri''' '']] [[User talk:Mbinebri|talk ←]] 03:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

:I didn't construct the infobox. It think it was made by somebody with battle "infoboxitis." The figure for the cowboys probably comes from somebody figuring how many were armed. That could have been as small as 2 (Billy and Frank), even though 3 indeed were killed. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 01:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

==Wyatt Unhit?==

I just returned from Tombstone's "Helldorado Days". They said Wyatt Earp was a lousy shot in reality; the fact he wasn't hit at the shootout notwithstanding. He let Doc Holliday do the real shooting for him.[[Special:Contributions/68.231.189.108|68.231.189.108]] ([[User talk:68.231.189.108|talk]]) 02:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
:He was unhit all his life. This might as easily have been luck, as it was with George Washington and Douglas MacArthur, who also seemed bulletproof. Though his contemporaries like Masterson praised Wyatt's marksmanship, nobody knows how good he was with a pistol, as there's no clearly documented Wyatt Earp kill (or even hit) WITH a pistol. Wyatt shot a lot of buffalo, and it wouldn't surprise me if he was better with a rifle. Wyatt's two kills were with a shotgun. On the other hand, Doc's only really sure kill was with a shotgun, as well! Shotguns are outstanding weapons in a close gunfight, and neither law enforcement or the badguys are interested in fighting "fair" in any gunfight. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 07:04, 27 October 2009 (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 [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frank_Stilwell#Frank_Stilwell]], and leave any opinions you have about this matter. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 02:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

== rediscovered notes ==

[http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/04da4829-c4da-5795-b7f2-6b956bf94f6d.html original notes discovered.] This might be useful for improving the article quality --[[Special:Contributions/63.239.65.11|63.239.65.11]] ([[User talk:63.239.65.11|talk]]) 12:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

==American Civil War==
I've removed the following tagged, uncited statement from the lede:
: ''In other views, the fight was a more complex embodiment of some of the tensions of the [[American Civil War]] of a generation before.''

It was tagged as uncited 12 months ago, and I can't find any citation or even any mention in the rest of the article. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 15:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

== Make this article a candidate for deletion? ==

I think this article should be a candidate for deletion. There is no historical significance of this obscure so-called gunfight. I've never even heard of it. What justifies this fight to have it's own page and not any of the other gunfights between gangs that occur yearly in America's inner cities? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/98.231.231.231|98.231.231.231]] ([[User talk:98.231.231.231|talk]]) 14:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC) 

:You are of course free to [[WP:REGISTER|register an account]] and propose the article for deletion, but I suggest that first you read the article to understand the significance of the event. I'm sure there are many other things you've never heard of, but that doesn't mean their articles should be deleted. --[[User:CliffC|CliffC]] ([[User talk:CliffC|talk]]) 19:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

:::I hope you are not just trolling. Why don't you do a Google search on it? It's probably the most famous gunfight in American history, whether you think it should be or not (and I'm not going to attempt to tell you why-- read the article, plus [[Earp vendetta ride]]). The page itself gets 35,000 to 45,000 views a month, which is quite respectable for any Wikipedia article. There are very few historical events lasting less than a day 130 years ago that do anything as close to as well. The [[James A. Garfield assassination]], an event that happened less than three months before the O.K. Corral gunfight, gets only 7,000 to 8,000 views a month. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 19:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

::::Best not to feed it. --[[User:CliffC|CliffC]] ([[User talk:CliffC|talk]]) 20:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

A clear example of the bias in wikipedia. If you don't agree with someone, they are a troll. I haven't ever heard of this gunfight, but you wikipedia editors think the article about the gunfight that took out Tupac is worth deleting, and he's affected more lives than these white boys mentioned in the page here.

== gunfight "reads more like a story than an encyclopedia entry" ==

I love this whole page although whoever wrote large portions of it need to be clearer about sourcing.

I'm thinking that if that banner has been there since 08 either nobody agrees or nobody can make it better.

I disagree that it reads like a story. It seems to try to show so many perspectives that it ends up being an awkward difficult read. It tells how different people on different sides saw the events. If in reading that a story evolves in the mind of the reader that's not a problem with the writing.

The banner at the top has been there for 13 months. The one at this section, 37 months.

I don't agree that it's too much like a story or that it is not neutral.

I lobby for removing the story banners here and at the "Context" section. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jackhammer111|Jackhammer111]] ([[User talk:Jackhammer111|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jackhammer111|contribs]]) 22:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 

: I've cleaned it up a bit in the past week, but it still contains conclusions and ideas that are not supported by any sources. I think it still reads too much like a story and needs work. -- [[User:btphelps|btphelps]] ([[User_talk:Btphelps |talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Btphelps |contribs]]) 00:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

::Just be careful of removing stuff that isn't concluded in any sources, unless you're pretty sure you know what's in the major sources. The reading list of books at the end of this article and those at the ends of the bio articles on Wyatt Earp and Doc are the minimal reading list, especially the Inquest and Spicer transcripts given in Turner (which are the 90% of what anybody really "knows" about this event). The Glenn Boyer book '''I Married Wyatt Earp''' has been rightly deprecated and has been deemed totally untrustworthy by historians. The original Stuart Lake book that made Wyatt famous is a mixed bag. Lake was a newspaperman who could, and did, make up colorful stories where he didn't have any facts. However, much of the stuff in Lake (not all of it) is coorborated in the Flood manuscript, which (while horribly written), must have been more or less as Wyatt told it to Flood, because Flood had few others sources than Wyatt. (For example, Flood didn't have the Spicer manuscripts, and Lake did. And of course, Lake also had Flood and asked a few questions of Wyatt himself. The problem is that Lake never documented what Earp hold him personally). This is a problem on WP, since Flood was never published and isn't available online (Flood died in 1959, so it won't pass into public domain until around 2029, as I read US copyright law). I do have a photocopy of that manuscript, as typed by Flood himself, and I tend to give more credence to things that appear in BOTH Flood and Lake. And of course all of the modern (post 1990) biographers of the Earps and Holliday have made extensive use of Flood. Anyway to summarize, the article as it stands is somewhat stitched together in summarizing the modern biographies of the era, and we've more or less gotten rid of Boyer. I don't think there's much pure fantasizing left, although a full analysis of what everybody has said about this, would take a book-length article. So the question is what to leave out. Just about everything here, is a summary of some somebody else wrote and published SOMEPLACE. Even if the ref isn't here, yet. Discuss on talk page before major cutting (unless you're cutting Boyer, of course). [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 02:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

::: Sbharris, since you are blessed with a copy of the Flood manuscript, you are in the enviable position of being well situated to make any cuts that are not corroborated by both texts. Although you can't cite the Flood text as a source, your edits citing Lake's biography would certainly be more accurate than the unsourced content that is there now. I haven't taken a look to see what else specifically should be axed, perhaps you ought to. Anything that seems speculative or borders on making conclusions without supporting REFS ought to be removed IMO. -- [[User:btphelps|btphelps]] ([[User_talk:Btphelps |talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Btphelps |contribs]]) 07:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

::::The Flood manuscript can be quoted secondarily where it as quoted by Barra and others. That's not the problem that worries me most. The real problem here is that much of history-writing consists of "filling in the blanks" where we use our human understanding to infer things that are not directly said, in the manner of the [[Cyc]] computer database, except that we do a lot more of it. And you have to be willing to do it. For example, Virgil says in his Spicer testimony that since Doc was wearing a long coat, he gave Doc his shotgun so that citizens wouldn't be upset seeing a man armed with a shotgun walking through town. Virgil, in turn, took Doc's cane. Now, you have to be a human being to INFER that Doc got the shotgun BECAUSE he could hide it under his long coat. Virgil never says this. Similarly, you have to INFER that Virgil kept Doc's cane, and carried it in his right hand (he was right handed) and did this for a reason, and not out of some fit of absent-mindedness that caused him to carry a clothing accessory into a deadly gunfight when he could easily have handed it off to a bystander to take care of. And that this reason was not that he intended to use it as a spear, or to bonk Frank McLaury over the head with, or something of that nature. Rather, in keeping with hiding the shotgun, and also not drawing his own pistol from his pants, Virgil was attempting to look nonthreatening. Nearly all historians have inferred this (take a look). And yet you've deleted it. This kind of thing turns Wikipedia into a battleground of people behaving as though they were autistic or schizophrenic, unable to guess why people do any of the things they do, if it's not spelled out for them. I'd like such people to stay away from history articles. I hope you're not going to be like that. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 06:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

::::: I'm not interested in battling about anything. I'd gladly defer to someone with better expertise. If the kind of inferences you describe have been made by historians and researchers, then I suppose they can be attributed and sourced. This article has been so poorly referenced that it's pretty hard to tell what's some individual has made up vs. a professional inference. Since you have the relevant documents, you obviously have a much higher degree of expertise--and interest--than I do. I've been motivated to clean it up because I have a interest in western history and it's a high-profile article that was so over-written and full of what I saw as speculation. Please, feel free to re-add the cane bit and other parts like it and add the relevant sources. All well-sourced information is good! I'll gladly support that. -- [[User:btphelps|btphelps]] ([[User_talk:Btphelps |talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Btphelps |contribs]]) 08:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

==Archive due==

This talk page contains comments from as far back as 2006. I suggest it's about time for an archive. I've archived talk pages once or twice, but would gladly defer to someone who's more practiced with the procedure. I suggest archiving everything from the beginning to "Glenn Boyer Again". -- [[User:btphelps|btphelps]] ([[User_talk:Btphelps |talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Btphelps |contribs]]) 08:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Gunfight at the O.K. Corral

2010-12-31T14:41:34Z

98.231.231.231: /* Make this article a candidate for deletion? */ new section

{{WikiProject Arizona|class=B|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject American Old West|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2004-10-26|oldid1=9366341|date2=2005-10-26|oldid2=26511816|date3=2006-10-26|oldid3=83672060|date4=2007-10-26|oldid4=167192217|date5=2008-10-26|oldid5=247759241}}

Here's where to have a discussion on changes made to the O.K. Corral Fight page. If you find errors in previous changes, here's where to talk about them. I'll begin by noting that I changed the name-order in the picture of the 3 dead "cowboys." That's Tom on the left, with the face swollen from the day before. That's his brother Frank in the middle, looking much like Tom. And Billy Clanton is on the right. [[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 23:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

==Bill Claiborne==
The link listed for the gunfight does not even mention the fifth cowboy who took part (briefly) in the fight, Billy Claiborne.

COMMENT:
There's a reason for that: Claiborne said in testimony he wasn't armed and didn't fight, and nobody else thought he did, either. His role is one of bystander caught in the middle, who managed to get out of the way in time to avoid getting shot. I don't think Claiborne is important enough to be listed as a "fighter." [[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 04:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT:
I agree there's no evidence Billie Claiborne took part in the fight, so why is there mention in the main body that he "may" have fired a shot in ambush? No reliable source I can find even reports this as rumor. What is the genesis of this statement? There is no footnote attached to it. I seriously question it's inclusion in the main body of this page.(Buckeyes1, 7/1/08)

==Moved Material from Wyatt Earp Page==
I've finally moved a lot of O.K. Material from the Earp article to here. The Wyatt Earp page really was getting rather long (near the suggested length limit for Wiki articles), and the O.K. Corral material is the obvious stuff to move. This finally addresses some of the issues brought up on the Wyatt Earp discussion page. I still intend to flesh out the O.K. article some more, but this is a start.[[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 04:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC

Re: Tom was armed when confronted by Wyatt Earp.

I have a couple of difficulties with an assertion that Tom was armed at this time. 1. Tom was not involved in any of the proceedings of the night before in the Alhambra where Ike Clanton had been confronted and threatened by Doc Holliday and Morgan Earp. 2. If Wyatt Earp truly believed, and/or saw Tom with a pistol in his waistband, then why was Tom not arrested, disarmed and taken to court as was Ike Clanton just an hour or so earlier? It is more likely that Tom was not armed because Wyatt knew he had no cause to arrest Tom. However, Wyatt did see the necessity to beat Tom over the head with his pistol and then walk away saying "I could kill the s.o.b. (meaning Tom McLaury)"

I really believe the evidence points to Tom not being armed at the time of the confrontation with Wyatt.

Ellis Badon

:You could be right, but I think the weight of evidence is that Tom was armed when Wyatt beat him. We know he was armed that day in contravention to town law, and in the way that Wyatt thought-- with a pistol hidden in waistband under shirt. We know this because he deposited the pistol (just the weapon, not holster) in the Capitol Saloon the day after his arrival, about the time Wyatt beat him. From which saloon it was recovered and exhibited at the Spicer trial. Mehan thought he deposited the pistol between 1 and 2 pm. Bauer, who saw him beaten, says he saw him AFTERWARD at the Capitol, again between 1 and 2 pm. Strong evidence that this is when he got rid of the pistol. Whether Tom was armed at the OK Corral gunfight (and I dont' think he was, being easily able to have gotten his own pistol from the Capitol less than a block away), I think it' pretty clear that at the fight the Earps and Holliday THOUGHT he was-- were sure enough to waste two barrels of a shotgun on him, which is something nobody in their right mind does in a firefight on a man standing next to men who are manifestly armed and shooting back at you, and who make obviously more immediate targets than a man who is unarmed (as exhibited by the fact that nobody shot Ike, though I'm sure Earps and Holliday wanted badly to). Think what you like about Doc's meanness-- this goes far beyond that into ''stupidity'' in the circumstances unless Doc really believed Tom armed. And if he did, there are only a couple of ways he could have: he saw the weapon, or he believed Wyatt. Why didn't Wyatt arrest Tom? For the same reason he didn't try to arrest Frank, who was going about on 4th with a cartridge belt. Wyatt that day blustered about his being an officer to the court, but before the gunfight he didn't act like one. He wasn't wearng a badge or drawing pay and it really wasn't his business to be enforcing city law (he told Morgan the night before to take care of Ike). Certainly it was not his business to be taking men to jail. When specially deputized by Virgil an hour or two later before the walkdown to the OK Corral, he was FROM THEN ON acting as a deputy, which always was to him the same as the marshall. Before that, he split the difference, by considering himself enough a deputy to carry a weapon, but not enough of one to be arresting people on minor offenses. I'll add that this is not too different from a situation in which a cop is off duty-- most states still require him to carry an arm, but the laws he's going to enforce change. Felonies, yes. Misdemenors, no. Wyatt, who had filled in for Virgil as town marshal days before when Virgil was out of town for the Stilwell trial, considered himself a deputy off-duty. And behaved the part right up till Virgil demanded backup in confronting a group of armed and threatening men. This is neither hypcritical or irrational. It's not too far off SOP today. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 09:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
This is just my opinion but I think SBHarris makes a rather week argument. I think Mr. Badon is correct. If Tom was armed, he would have been arrested. He could have had his brother arrest him, or placed him under citizens arrest. The fact that Wyatt didn’t arrest him to me proves that Tom didn’t commit a crime. Wyatt did commit a crime (assault) so he walked away. We do not know that Tom was armed the night before. He could have checked his gun in the night before and then checked it out the next morning expecting to leave town. Then when he realized that he wasn’t leaving right away, he checked the gun back in.
Also, there is no evidence that I am aware of that Wyatt had any confrontation between Wyatt and Tom had taken place the night before, so I don’t understand your statement that Wyatt thought he was armed based on Tom’s actions the night before.
Finally I don’t believe that Bauer knew exactly when Tom checked in his gun. That evidence is circumstantial at best.
Damian

Comment:
I disagree entirely; I think Sbharris makes a good argument. If Tom had done all the machinations of dropping off his gun the night before, retrieving it the next morning and then dropping it off again why was none of this testified to at the Spicer hearing? Why should anyone create such an elaborate "back-story" with no supportable evidence other than their own pet theories?(Buckeyes1, 7/1/08) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Buckeyes1|Buckeyes1]] ([[User talk:Buckeyes1|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Buckeyes1|contribs]]) 19:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC) 

== Frank's pistol ==
---Frank's pistol, with two unfired rounds remaining in it---

What is the source for this?

::Answer: The Inquest Hearing and the Spicer Hearing, like everything else. Keefe says he agreed with Claibourne (after a re-examination where the cylinder was revolved to reveal the fired round that had been under the hammer) that Frank's pistol had "3 empty chambers." Obviously it didn't literally mean empty chambers. Probably it meant 3 actual empty brass, meaning 3 empty cases (Nobody would carry a Colt SAA (Frontier Six-Shooter, 44.-40) with a live round under the hammer, but sometimes people kept hammer down on a completely empty chamber to keep things simple, others used a fired brass case). But either way, 3 empty would leave a maximum of 3 live, and possibly 2 if the witnesses, by "3 empty" meant empty brass not empty chambers. I don't have Turner's book to hand here, but somebody else (perhaps at the Inquest) mentions Frank's pistol as the one with "two loads" remaining. Certainly it wasn't Billy's, and nobody ever found one for Tom. So I think it had 2 live rounds, 3 expended brass, and a truly empty chamber for carrying. I'll try to find you the other reference. [[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 00:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

== "You're a daisy if you do!" ==
I believe Doc Holliday's colorful "daisy" quote should be cut from paragraph 2 of the "Lead-up" section.

It's usually attributed to Doc during the gunfight itself, not during his confrontation with Ike Clanton on the previous day, and was reportedly addressed to Frank McLaury rather than to Clanton.

Also, "daisy" was not a threatening reference to cemetery flowers. It was a popular 1880's slang phrase meaning "someone or something very good." [[User:Cteght|Cteght]] 00:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

:You're right. I'll take it out and perhaps re-insert it. As I remember, it's attributed to Doc during the fight by an Inquest witness (the miner) who seems to have been omniscient (I think he claimed to have seen the bullet travel over and hit Doc on the holster, too). His account is also the newspaper account, since he said he talked to the paper, and the accounts match. I'll look into the reference meaning. B.B. Bell, of course, agrees with you. [[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 02:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It's my understanding that Doc said, "You're a good one if you do." The "daisy" quote is from the movies. While "Tombstone" was a great film, it was fiction; for example, it is extremely unlikely that Doc killed Johnny Ringo, since his whereabouts on that day are known and he was nowhere near the site of Ringo's death. -cneron

:The "daisy" quote is NOT from the movies. I'm sure it's contemporary, perhaps from a newspaper account, but I can't locate it the moment.[[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 22:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

cneron: I've seen Doc's utterance rendered as "You're a daisy if you do," "You're a good one if you do," and "You're a good one if you have." Since "daisy" meant "good one" in 1880's slang, even Doc himself probably couldn't have sworn to what he actually said in the heat of battle by the time a day had passed. Kevin Jarre astutely used the more colorful "daisy" version in his screenplay, but it's no more or less likely than the alternatives. Footnote: a little online noodling reveals that some slang etymologists believe that the modern term "doozy" evolved from the old-time slang usage of "daisy." [[User:Cteght|Cteght]] 22:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

==Cowboys==
The use of the term "cowboys" on this page is a little unclear. Although not as formalized an organization as portrayed in the movie ''Tombstone'', the "Cowboys" were a loose gang of sorts. The page appears to be using "cowboys" as a generic description of these guys, rather than as all being members of the same gang. [[User:Chuckstar|Chuck]] 07:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
:Well, the problem is the whole thing is unclear, and was even to the people of the time, who were there. There wasn't an organized gang like the mafia or the Crips. And they didn't wear signature clothing or colors or sashes as you see in the last movie Tombstone (that's a modern addition which is cute but misleading). These were a loose collaboration of semi-anarchistic stockthieves, which included, as a subgroup, a few people who would go so far as to rob a stage. They liked the country, and they knew each other and covered for each other, but there was no "capo" and nobody gave orders. One person who knew Curley Bill well noted that he came as close as anybody to being the head of the operation, but even he was a loner (his last "partner" shot him through the throat in mid 1881). All this complicated by the fact that some people in the group only robbed Mexicans. Others never crossed the border, but occasionally poached from local ranchers. Some of these sometimes worked as legitimate stockmen for legitimate ranchers like Hooker, and moved back and forth between legal and illegal worlds (nothing like working as an honest ranch hand to teach you skills you need to rustle). So nobody had any idea how many actual full-time rustlers (if you can define a cowboy that way) there were. They DID know that it was practically impossible to raise stock honestly in the area due to losses, that there was a huge illegal beef trade (supported by town butchers and thus by townspeople who ate beef--- this was the drug trade of its day). And that there was a certain class or number of men who had no jobs, no visible means of support, but always had lots of money to eat and drink and gamble with. They didn't work in the mines or saloons and they didn't work for honest ranches. Prime examples being the McLauries with their $3000 in cash from cattle sales but no registered brand (which you had to have to raise cattle). And so on. As lillies of the field; they toiled not, neither did they spin. But their pockets bulged, and it wasn't always with a pistol.

:This class of people pissed the Earps off, no end, especially as Virgil had been embarrassed with everybody else over the Patterson/McLaury mule theft, and Wyatt by having the Clantons steal his own horse. The Earps themselves were into a Nevada-type lifestyle of gaming and bartending and maybe sometimes (in the past) even pimping. They also worked now and again for private and goverment security. They looked down on rustlers. They thought that a man who will steal a cow from a Mexican may later steal a horse from an American. And a horsethief may go on to rob a stage and maybe shoot somebody doing it. There are lines you don't cross, and working for Wells, Fargo or the City or the Feds, I think helped the Earps never lose track of where that line was. Holliday too, for that matter. [[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 17:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
::That's all well and good, except that the article keeps referring to "cowboys" as though they were just some guys who happened to be, well, cowboys. It even wikilinks to the [[cowboys]] article, which is completely misleading as to what is meant by "cowboys" when discussing the goings-ons in Tombstone. There's even a whole section titled "More Cowboys enter town", as though it was just some random ranch hands that happened to come to town. You can prattle on all you want about how the Cowboys weren't the Crips (I never said they were), but that doesn't mean the article is not misleading on this issue. For example, there's a sentence "Wyatt Earp thought that all the cowboys, including Ike, were arming themselves in the store..." Huh? All the ranch hands in Tombstone were arming themselves? Why? Well, because that's not what happened. Only the '''C'''owboys were arming themselves. (Even then, the modifier "all" probably shouldn't apply.)

::I tried to fix it by changing as little as possible. Let me know what you think. [[User:Chuckstar|Chuck]] 22:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

== Picture of Doc Holliday ==
On [[Doc Holliday|the doc's]] page there is some confusion about whether the photo shown on this page is actually of the man himself. Perhaps it should be changed to the verified graduation photo?

:The one used in the Holliday article of course is the verified grad photo. We're trying also to get a usable version of the 1879 standing photo. After a lot of looking, I suspect the guy in the 3 "Tombstone" photos in dark suit and dyed hair (including the bowler hat one), is probably Holliday. Comparison with a good version of the 1879 photo will help. I've used a dark haired "Tombstone" photo in the Gunfight article until I resolve this. At least it's probably close to what Holliday WOULD have looked like at 30, whereas the grad student photo of 1872 at age 20, is still rather boyish, and I thought putting it in the Gunfight article would jar. [[User:Sbharris|Steve]] 14:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

== Unsolved History ==
I'm marking the "A legacy of questions" section NPOV, since whoever wrote has quite obviously formed the opinion that Unsolved History is simply wrong. It's also original research unless a source for the criticism can be cited. -[[User:Anþony|Anþony]] 07:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
:Now has been rewriten to remove the conclusion. It is a fact that this episode attempted to recreate the shotgun blast without using any period shotgun equipment. That's a boneheaded thing to do, but I will simply state the fact, and leave the reader to draw conclusions. This is a section about a controversial topic. So far as I can tell, one does not deal with controversy on WP simply by deleting all reference to it. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 17:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

== introduction ==
Hello. Ive just arrived at this page and, never having heard of this event before ofund it unclear as to the actual occuranc of the event from the opening paragraph. I suggest a little restructering to make it easier to undertand. --[[User:Chickenfeed9|Chickenfeed9]] 13:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

At the beginning of the whole thing, there are the words "Lead-up to the event", or something of that nature. Anyway, that is not what I am talking about. Right below that, are the words "Relevent Law in Tombstone". The word "relevent" is spelled wrong. It is really spelled like this: Relevant. I guess it is a typo or something.....~~DustieE~~

== Lord and Williams? ==
The newspaper article mentions the names Lord and Williams. Would they have been deputies of Behan? [[User:Scott Sanchez|knoodelhed]] 06:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

== Discovery Channel Episode ==
I saw the program "Unsolved History" referenced by dismissal in "A Legacy of Questions." My observations relate to (1) whether Tom McLaury had a concealed pistol (2) would Holliday waste a shot on an unarmed man. In the recreation, Tom was behind a horse on the off side from the rifle scabbard. If he had a hidden pistol, this was a safe place to fire from cover. However, he reached over the saddle to pull the rifle from its scabbard. An awkward move to perform from the off side when a horse is skittish and wheeling as you push against it. When he finally began to withdraw the rifle, his arm would have been raised in the motion. Less lucky, he had wheeled around and become exposed to Doc Holliday. Tom, no longer unarmed, presented a self-defense target to Holliday who fired the coroner's reported twelve OO buck into Tom's side and exposed armpit. Dropping the rifle, it fell back into position and the horse ended up out on the street. Virgil's statement Tom reached for a rifle is upheld; and Holliday is not the fool for firing at an unarmed man.
I recall from the program. further, that test firings with vintage arms and ammunition were made on sides of beef to show the effect. A request to Discovery Channel (now the Science Channel) might yield a copy of the program and answer other questions.
Finally, regarding the number of cartridges in one of the revolvers. Truly no experienced owner would carry with six loaded chambers. By the same token, no experienced hand would prepare for a fight and leave the sixth one empty!
[[User:JimBeam|JimBeam]] 08:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
::We'll have to take a look at that Discovery Channel episode again, as my recollection is that they used NO period arms or ammo, which makes it all completely bogus. But I'm perfectly willing to change my mind on the issue. You could of course be right that Tom was shot while reaching for a rifle, and that would explain his side wound under the arm. However, there's a simpler explanation, as this is exactly ''also'' the kind of wound you expect from a man in defensive posture who sees he's about to get blasted by a shotgun-- turned to the side and with arm raised to protect HEAD and FACE. It's a flinch. I've actually seen a man with shotgun pellets though the eyes in an LA gang-shooting, and it's not pretty. There are worse things than being shot in the body and the (correct in this case) instinct is to protect the head. But Tom was so close to the shooter that nothing helped. Yes, Tom reaching for the Winchester upholds Virgil's version (which isn't given very convincingly you'll notice-- even Virgil isn't too sure about it, and same is true for Wyatt's testimony on his point), but the major problem is there's no way to uphold the rest, which is that Tom had a pistol and fired it over the horse. Tom doesn't have time to do that. By Ham Light's account Tom is hit in the first salvo before the gap in shots that everyone heard, and that also fits with the unusually large blast of smoke that somebody else saw on the first salvo. No time for Tom to do anything with a pistol at all. The other problem is that we know somebody took a horse into the street and fired a pistol near it, using it for cover (two witnesses saw that, AFAIK), but this was almost certainly Frank, using his own horse, which makes sense (in emergencies you use your own gear). Tom didn't have a horse on site. Frank is going to be using his own for cover, etc. So are we going to have Tom reaching for BILLY'S Winchester-- an unfamiliar weapon on an unfamiliar horse? I just don't buy it. That's for James Bond films-- in emergencies with no time to think, real people use weapons and animals (and cars) they're used to, or else run like hell. We know that Tom DID run like hell, but alas for him he was already fatally wounded. I'm sorry to ruin the Old West romantic version of this tale where everybody does everything possible in a firefight, but I think the truth is more prosaic. All the fighting on the Cowboy side was done by the two men ready to do it. Men who'd just arrived in town, fresh, sober, angry, and armed and with mounts. The other two guys who'd been up all night and were sleep-deprived, beaten up, bandaged, disarmed, horseless, gearless, and in one case still drunk, both did just what you'd expect in a firefight: they ran. In one case, not before being shot fatally. Gunshot people almost always don't just fall down, in real life; they turn and run. Coroners and medical examiners everywhere know the syndrome where the body has ''one'' wound from front to back, and several others from back to front. Side wounds under arms from defensive fliches in close quarters are not uncommon, either :) On the issue of how many rounds in pistols. Seems reasonable that the Earps and Holliday, going down to what they thought might be a fight, would put that 6th round in in the cylinder. I don't quite think Frank and Billy really believed in their heart of hearts they were about to be involved in a shootout, or else they'd certainly have had rifles in hand, just as Ike had a couple of hours earlier. Anyway, the confusion on how many rounds remained in Frank's revolver suggests to me that there was an empty chamber in it. Can't prove it. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 19:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment:
Although Tom McLaury being armed seemed to mean little to Judge Spicer when handing down his decision, it remains one of the most interesting puzzlements of the street fight. It is not at all clear that Tom tried to retrieve the rifle on Billy Clanton's horse during the gunfight. Virgil Earp testified that as the Earp party entered the lot, Tom had his hand on the rifle in question. Later Virgil said Tom failed to retrieve that rife. This could mean Tom tried to get the rifle and failed, but it doesn't necessarily imply that. It could also mean that after he took his hands off the rifle, Tom didn't grab for the rifle again. Later when Tom was being shot by Doc Holliday, it appears he was reaching out towards Billy Clanton's mount. It could be supposed that he was indeed reaching for the rifle on that animal. However, it could also be that Tom was simply trying to regain the animal as a protective shield. The only one who could tell us Tom's McLaury's , intent at that specific moment was Tom, himself. And, of course, Tom died without his ever explaining his movements.

The most curious part of the testimony relative to the possibility that Tom was armed comes from R.F. Coleman. He claimed that as he reached The Union Market, two bullets hit a wagon situated in front of that location. The puzzle then becomes - who was shooting in an easterly direction down Fremont St? Michael Hickey claimed two bullets from Doc Holliday's pistol bounced off of Fly's wood frame building and careened back out to hit that particular wagon. There are two problems to this scenario. 1.) No witness described Holliday as shooting at Ike Clanton as that cowboy fled. The first time this allegation appears in print is in Burn's TOMBSTONE book. 2.) Slugs fired at Fly's building would most probably have lodged into the wood structure rather than bounce off. Remember, the cowboys were situated west of the Earps. So, it doesn't make much sense for any of the Earp party to be firing in an easterly direction. Thus, it would appear that one of the cowboy party fired the shots which hit the wagon in question. Since Ike was fleeing and Frank Mclaury was out in the middle of Freemont St., it would have been either Billy Clanton or Tom McLaury that hit the wagon. I don't know if Tom was responsible but the two shots Coleman referred to keeps the question of Tom's being armed alive because it is not at all clear that Billy was in a position to have hit that wagon. Tom, on the other hand, was standing on the street directly in line to where the two shoots ended up.

Actually, in his testimony, Wyatt didn't claim to have seen Tom fire. He said he was under the impression that Tom fired. It was Virgil who said he saw Tom shoot over the horse. This seems to be what Wyatt told Bat Masterson. Some of this confusion comes from a certain reading of Mrs. J.C. Collier's newspaper interview wherein she says she saw a cowboy shoot under his horse's neck. While some researchers have viewed this as confirmation that Tom McLaury did actually fire during the street fight. It could also be argued that Mrs. Collier was really describing Frank McLaury shooting back toward the Earps as he exited the lot while pulling his horse behind him. However, if you believe it was Frank she was referring to (and by her own account she was a block or so away from the fight) then your left answering the question of how and why a man with a fresh gut wound was still clutching his horse as he stumbled out into the street while attempting to return fire? (Buckeyes1, 7/1/08) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Buckeyes1|Buckeyes1]] ([[User talk:Buckeyes1|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Buckeyes1|contribs]]) 19:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC) 
::The question is even worse for a guy with 12 buckshot through this chest from right to left through the thorax. :) You can shoot while gut-shot, but try it while not being able to breathe. But as noted below, C. H. Light saw Tom fall long before Frank, who was messing with this horse in the middle of the street, lost it and then went down. So that's the end of it. That guy shooting over the horse with pistol, was Frank. Not as interesting as the various descriptors have it, but interesting enough. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 21:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment:
I don’t think it’s quite as black & white a question as your reply makes it seem. Tom was indeed shot as you say however, I beleive that those people who believe he was armed and did fire over (or under) his horse beleive he did so 'before" Doc leveled the fatal blast. As I mentioned in a previous comment, a second ‘forgotten’ witness was Mrs. J.C. Colyer of Kansas City, who was visiting with her sister in Tombstone that day. When the shooting erupted, Mrs. Colyer was sitting in a buggy in front of the post office on the southeast corner of Fremont and Fourth streets, less than a block away from the vacant lot. She returned to Kansas City, and her belated account of the gunfight was published in the December 30, 1881, issue of the Tombstone Epitaph: ‘The cowboys opened fire on them. And you never saw such shooting. One of the cowboys, after he had been shot three times, raised himself on his elbow and shot one of the officers and fell back dead….[A]nother used his horse as a barricade and shot under his neck.’ And since other testimony confirms that neither Billy Clanton nor Frank McLaury ever got behind a horse to use it as a barricade, then it could only have been Tom McLaury that Mrs. Colyer saw shooting under the horse’s neck.
The biggest key to the question of whether Tom McLaury had a gun is the testimony of another impartial witness, laundryman Peter H. Fellehy. According to the wording of the Hayhurst transcript of the coroner’s inquest, Fellehy testified:
After the shooting commenced…,[t]he younger one of the Earps was firing at a man behind the horse. Holliday was also firing at the same man behind the horse, and firing at a man who had run by him to the opposite side of the street. Then I see the man who had the horse let go the reins of the bridle and kept staggering all the time, until he fell on his back near a horse. He still held his pistol in his hand, but [I] did not see it go off after he had fell.
I then went to the young man who was lying on the sidewalk and offered to pick him up….I picked up a revolver that was lying five feet from him and laid it at his side. This was the man that lay on the north side of Fremont Street.
Fellehy’s words make it clear that the ‘man behind the horse’ that Doc and Morgan were shooting at was a different man than the one that Doc shot at who ran ‘to the opposite side of the street’ and collapsed on the sidewalk on the north side of Fremont Street. Based on other testimony in the Spicer hearing, we know that this second man, who led his horse out of the vacant lot but was never behind the horse, and who then fell on the north side of Fremont Street, was Frank McLaury. So Fellehy’s ‘man behind the horse’ has to be either Billy Clanton or Tom McLaury. And we also know from other testimony that Billy Clanton never got near his horse. Therefore, Fellehy’s ‘man behind the horse’ who ‘fell on his back near a horse ‘ and’still held his pistol in his hand’ could only have been Tom McLaury.
But this basic Fellehy evidence doesn’t stop there. I emphasized the word ‘horse’ in Fellehy’s testimony, because the wording in the versions of his testimony that appeared in the Nugget and the Epitaph contains two startling exceptions to the wording in the Hayhurst transcript: The Nugget states that the ‘man with the horse…was staggering all the time until he fell; he had his pistol still when he fell.’ And the Epitaph version quotes Fellehy as saying, ‘Then I saw the man who held the horse let go the bridle and keep staggering until he fell, his back within a few feet of a house; had a pistol in his hand, but I did not see it go off.’
And so, we see that the Hayhurst transcript version of Fellehy’s testimony states that the ‘man behind the horse’ with a pistol fell on his back near a ‘horse,’ while the Epitaph version states that he fell with his back within a few feet of a ‘house.’ That difference in one letter in one word of Fellehy’s testimony brings us to the witness you mentioned above, ‘mining man’ Charles Hamilton ‘Ham’ Light, who was in his room at the Aztec House on the corner of Third and Fremont streets when he heard two shots and ‘jumped’ to his side window on Third Street looking up Fremont Street. According to the October 29 Nugget, Light testified, ‘I saw a man reel and fall on the corner of Fremont and Third streets on the south side, right directly on the corner of the house….I saw another man standing, leaning, against a building joining the vacant lot….The man never stirred after he fell at the corner of the street….I did not see that man fire any shot.’
Because Light didn’t see the beginning of the gunfight, he also couldn’t have seen the man who fell on the corner fire any shots. But Light’s testimony clearly identifies two different men being shot on the south side of Fremont street — Billy Clanton leaning against the Harwood house in the vacant lot, and Tom McLaury falling on the southeast corner of Fremont and Third. Therefore, Light’s man beside the ‘house’ confirms that Fellehy’s man with a ‘pistol’ beside the ‘house’ — not Hayhurst’s ‘horse’ — could only have been the same man, Tom McLaury. (Buckeyes1, 7/2/08) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Buckeyes1|Buckeyes1]] ([[User talk:Buckeyes1|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Buckeyes1|contribs]]) 01:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 
:: I have noticed that, in the section of the main article titled [[Gunfight_at_the_O.K._Corral#A_legacy_of_questions|A legacy of questions]], a {{fact}} warning is appended to the unidentified "episode of [[Discovery Channel]]'s ''[[Unsolved History]]''". All I was able to find out is that ''Shoot-Out at the O.K. Corral'' figures as Episode no.10 in the [[List of episodes in Unsolved History]], with no indication of date.

::Some details about a DVD titled ''Shoot Out at the O.K. Corral'' (and presumably containing the videorecording of the aired episode), can be found at the website of the [http://ipac3.vpl.ca/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=12169052O7IE7.13607&profile=pac&uri=link=3100009~!4027875~!3100001~!3100002&aspect=subtab13&menu=search&ri=1&source=~!horizon&term=979.1+U59w&index=CALLDD Vancouver Public Library, '''Call #:''' 979.1 U59w] and also at [http://www.amazon.com/Discovery-Channel-Unsolved-History-Corral/dp/B000MWFTZC Amazon.com, '''ASIN:''' B000MWFTZC]. [[User:Miguel de Servet|Miguel de Servet]] ([[User talk:Miguel de Servet|talk]]) 13:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

::: I have removed the {{fact}} warning appended to the unidentified "episode of [[Discovery Channel]]'s ''[[Unsolved History]]''", and replaced it with a footnote essentially detailing the above info.[[User:Miguel de Servet|Miguel de Servet]] ([[User talk:Miguel de Servet|talk]]) 14:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

== Guadalupe Canyon ==

There exists an article (which is in sad need of attension) on the [[Guadalupe Canyon Massacre]] of August, 1881. It cites a "theory" that Earps and Holliday somehow slipped away from Tombstone down to the AZ/NM/Sonora Mexico "three corners" area [http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/us_mexico_border/txu_oclc_13545307_063.jpg]. The problem with the "theory" is that there's basically no evidence for it. 5 men were killed in the ambush but 2 survived, and both of *them* said they saw Mexicans doing the shooting. Perhaps the Earps and Holliday were up behind a grassy knoll, controlling the Mexicans. If so, history is silent. I personally think the Mexicans acted alone. I'm not willing to have conspiracy theorists ruin a perfectly good historical article like one on the O.K. Corral. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 01:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

== Billy's wound ==
[An interesting discussion which probably deserves to be preserved here]

Regarding your recent edit, I'm curious about the details of your edit summary. You edited the article text to say:
<blockquote>Billy Clanton was shot through the right arm, close to the wrist joint (Keefe testified the bullet passed through the arm from "inside to outside," entering the arm close to the base of the thumb, and exiting "on the back of the wrist diagonally" with the latter wound larger)</blockquote>
With this in the edit summary:
<blockquote>Difficult for bullet to go from thumb to outside of arm with arm in any "up" position. This becomes important to final Spicer verdict)</blockquote>
I'm not an expert on this particular gunfight or the Spicer verdict you mention, but if you mean to say that the injury would be difficult to sustain if Clanton were in the act of surrender with arms raised, I disagree.. It's difficult to explain using text but if Clanton had his right hand raised that injury seems entirely consistent... especially if the attacker was firing from Clanton's left. [[User:Robotsintrouble|Robotsintrouble]] 07:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

:Anything works from Clanton's left, agreed. But if the attackers are facing squarely off, which I can't imagine them not doing in the circumstances described, it just doesn't work. Also, Billy, if he uses his right arm first to fire with, is going to have right side toward attackers, if anything. Again, no way for a bullet to hit his inside-thumb part of wrist and exit at the back, behind the hand. Not with hand up in surrender.[[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 07:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
::Hi, pleased to meet you too... but I don't follow your logic. First, the fog of combat and time make this discussion academic without a better record of the original autopsy records. Then again, I'm something of an academic so I don't mind a little intellectual exercise.
::In an attempt to show the anatomical contradiction in your argument, let us assume for a moment that the fighters were indeed in a standoff, and that Clayton's pistol was pointed at his assailants. In this posture, the only angles of attack from which a bullet could enter his inner arm and exit through the wrist are at least slightly to the attacker's left (unless Doc Holliday called in aerial support). While this by itself is completely plausible given the close range of the gunfight (mostly 10 feet or less according to the article), the resulting injury track would likely travel towards his elbow before exiting.

::This matters because of one detail: I note that you've changed the wording of the original text slightly: according to the quote, the entry wound was at the inside (ventral/palmar surface) of his ''arm'', not his ''wrist'' as you just said. This is in contrast to the exit wound, which is specifically described as being from the back of his ''wrist''. If Clayton were pointing his pistol anywhere near his attackers, it should be the other way around-- entry wound closer to the hand (distal end of the arm), exit closer to the elbow (proximal end of the arm).
::In order for the wound to exit from the back of the wrist after entering the inner arm near the thumb, one of the following is true:
::*One or more of our many assumptions is wildly incorrect (most likely)
::*The attacker was almost directly to Clayton's left (or to the left of where his pistol was pointed)
::*Clayton had thrown up his hands, in which case this wound is completely plausible: '''he would have turned his hands, and thus the inside surface of his arms, towards his assailaints'''. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Robotsintrouble|Robotsintrouble]] ([[User talk:Robotsintrouble|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Robotsintrouble|contribs]]) 08:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

*Back in the bad old days there often were no autopsies-- certainly not full ones-- and there was none here. The doctor acting as temporary Coroner in the case, Dr. Harry M. Mathews, only describes the fatal wounds (and then only from superficial exam of the stripped bodies), and ignores the wrist altogether. The ONLY description we have of Billy's wrist is that of Thomas Keefe, a witness and carpenter, who felt the wounds on the dead Billy, and even poked a finger into one to the bone (rather in the matter of Thomas the Apostle, one supposes) to see for himself. He testifies in the Spicer hearing. Nobody else says anything about the matter until Judge Spicer declares in this judgement that "William Clanton was wounded on the wrist of the right hand on the first fire and thereafter used his pistol with the left. The wound is not such as could have been received with the hands thrown up, and the wound received by Thomas McLaury was such as could not be received with his hands on his coat lapels." Regard this, Spicer had seen during the trial a demo, and the only document we have of this reads exactly: <blockquote>In response to shot on wrist: "It went from the inside to the outside." Course of ball was diagnonal across the wrist [here witness illustrates upon the arm of Mr. Fitch, the direction in which the ball passed through the arm of Billy Clanton, by showing that the ball entered nearly in line with the base of the thumb, and emerged on the back of the wrist diagonally.] Says the orifice on the outside of the wrist was the largest. Did not see any powder burn on Billy Clanton's body or clothing." </blockquote> So far as I know, that's all the info history has for us. Except that we know the demo apparently convinced the judge. From our description we can put this in various ways-- obviously in anatomic position the base of thumb is lateral with arm down and there's no way to get a bullet into it except to rotate the forearm somewhat inward so the thumbside (what we usually call the lateral side of the forearm) is more forward, so it can receive a bullet. You can do that easily with the arm down and rotated 45 degrees inward, naturally. It's very hard to get into that position (thumb forward, ventral surface diagonally exactly behind, to allow a posterior exit on the ventral/back wrist) with the arm UP. Because you really have to crank that arm around to get the thumb in front, with the arm raised. That's what the judge apparently concluded. ''We'' have only verbal description. Finally, I might add that the bullet may well have hit Billy while he was in the act of drawing his pistol from a holster, which would for a moment have put him in exactly the right position to get a bullet above the thumb and out through the back of the wrist. Try it. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 19:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

::::Here is the one problem I have with Alford E. Turner's reconstruction [[The OK Corral Inquest]]. Turner says that the first shot to hit Billy was fired by Morgan Earp and hit him in the chest. The fact is that the chest wound was in the left breast, above the nipple. This was the killing shot. Morgan and Holliday opened the firing (Wyatt aparently lied on this point to protect his brother and his friend), with Doc Holliday drawing his pistol, shoving it into Frank McLaury's belly and then stepping back a couple of paces. He and Morgan fired almost simultaneously. Morgan's shot would have been the one that hit Billy in the wrist as he drew, forcing Billy to continue the fight by firing left handed. He showed his mettle, however, by hitting at least two of the Earp Party before going down himself.~~Doktorschley. 2 March 2008.
::::: A. Bauer (who knew none of the men) saw a man we presume to be Doc poke one of the cowboys in the stomach with a "large bronze pistol". Doc himself was mentioned to carry a nickel-plated pistol, so if this was Doc, he wasn't using his pistol to poke with. But the mystery is easily solved if we remember that Doc has a very short barrelled [[coach gun]] shotgun, which presumably would have been the right color and size. Bauer, a dressmaker, cannot have been expected to know this if Doc was holding the weapon one-handed. Light's testimony suggests Tom was hit early in the first two shots, and we know that was a shotgun blast from doc. That would put this early in the fight. The idea that Doc poked Frank has no basis that I know of. Doc would not have carried a loaded shotgun while using a pistol in a close up gunfight-- that's simply crazy. Wyatt said one of the first two shots was him shooting Frank, and this may be true. He also said the other was Billy shooting at him, and I think this is NOT true, and covers for Doc. Old timers do think Doc fired first. They are probably right, but it was surely with the shotgun. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 04:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the fascinating historical aside. In fact, I had the same thought myself - a bullet impact in the act of drawing a pistol - a few hours after leaving the comment. An interesting little snippet of history.. I've never actually seen [[Tombstone (movie)]], do you have any films you would recommend that re-enact the battle? I'm particularly interested in the story of [[Doc Holliday]]. [[User:Robotsintrouble|Robotsintrouble]] 05:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

::::The best I know of so far are Tombstone and the Costner Wyatt Earp. Both are much closer to history than anything before, though the O.K. sequence will necessarily be short and not complete. The Doc in both of them is pretty good. Kilmer and Quaid are both excellent. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 05:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment:
The best and most historically accurate re-enactment I've ever seen is from an old TV series from the early '70s titled David L. Wolper presents "Shootout at the O.K. Corral". Narrated by none other than Bonanza's Lorne Greene. Extremely difficult to find now-a-days but well worth the time if you can find a copy. Also, the old TV series "You are There" presented a rather accurate re-enactment also with the added bonus of going into the build up that lead to the shootout. That one is available at Amazon.com I believe. (Buckeyes1, 7/1/08)

== Wes Claiborne? ==

I see other sources on the net say that he wasn't even there. Do we have reliable sources to place him there? [[User:Arker|Arker]] 21:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

:There's a Wes Fuller and a Billy Claiborne. Who exactly are you talking about? [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 06:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

==Note left for last editor==
'''Would you stop deleting the fact tags in the [[Gunfight at the O.K. Corral]] article?'''
The fact tags asking for citations in how the fighters were armed, are there for a reason. I want to know why you think you know this information. We know how Frank and Billy were armed, from the serial numbers on their Colt Single Action Army .44-40 "Frontier Six Shooters" given at the Spicer hearing. These have been been traced by Alford Turner and are given in his book The O.K. Corral Inquest (1981) [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-3810(198304)14%3A2%3C227%3ATOKCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O]. Turner states we don't know for sure what anybody else had that day, and so far as I know, he's right. So if you know more, cite your sources. Otherwise this material is going to go as "guessed" from various places. I'm formally asking you to stop putting in history you have no source for. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 06:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

==Wes Fuller, participant in the gunfight?==

In the article's introduction, it groups Wes Fuller as a participant in the gunfight on the cowboys' side. I'm surprised to read this. Wikipedia, in fact, is the only place I've ever read such a claim, though it is not repeated in the article's main body. According to Paula Marks's ''And Die in the West'', and according to Fuller himself, he was "on his way to warn Billy [Clanton] to get out of town when he saw the confrontation develop from a position in the alley behind Fly's" (pg. 222). As far as I can tell historians have always viewed him as just a witness, no different than John Behan or Billy Allen. No one, that I can tell, claims he fired a shot, or was shot at. Why then has he been thrown into the middle of it here?

Also, this article claims Fuller was a member of the "Cowboy Gang," which I took to mean he was a cowboy like the victims. For what it's worth, Marks says he claimed his occupation was a gambler when he gave his testimony on the gunfight, so perhaps it would be best to just call him "a friend of the cowboys". [[User:71.129.81.136|71.129.81.136]] 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:You are completely right. Fuller wasn't part of the original article, and somebody keeps adding him as a participant. If you believe the testimony of Fuller himself, as you note, he wasn't. I've fixed it. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 05:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

== Biased ==

I have been doing a personal study of the O.K. Coral shootout for a history progect. After Reading most if not all of the trial testimonials i was convinced for the cowboy side, in a non-conventional way-Virgil was the real cause of the killing(in my opinion)to me he purposly took holliday with him not to hide a shotgun as your article says but to start the fight (why in his right mind would he bring a drunk man to hide a shotgun)if you would try to show a little more ''dead'' cowboy piont of view it would help the articles quality alot thank you
[[User:66.182.95.86|66.182.95.86]] 07:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:We have no evidence that Doc was drunk. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 05:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

But why would he bring Doc, who had already threatened Ike, to confront them. There were several other people that offered there help, but Virgil decided to bring someone that had already had a motive and had threatened to kill a member of the group. I think that was the users point.
Damian

::Can't tell you for sure what was going through Virgil's mind, but Virgil said later that Doc always showed up when there posse work to be done. He'd ridden with the Earps many times in the past in that role, and probably expected to be included. That day he had a long coat which could hide a shotgun, so he was extra-useful. If he looked sober, Virgil probably figured he was a fearless posseman. Virgil did have some reason to exclude him, but Ike had had hard words with Wyatt, and doubtless with Virgil and Morgan too, earlier, when they had brained him and taken his weapons. Who was Virgil going to bring that he trusted, and who Ike had NOT threatened?? Ike threatned all the Earps and Holliday that day. And Frank had basically done the same some days earlier, when Virgil had re-arrested Pete Spence, and thereby pissed off the entire Clanton/McLaury faction. This was a no-win situation. The Cowboys didn't recognize the authority of *anybody* in law enforcement. They wanted VIRGIL disarmed. They didn't hate Behen, but they totally ignored him, too. Virgil was in the position of either 1) Taking people the Cowboys didn't fear (who would no doubt be ignored like Behan), or else 2) Taking people the Cowboys DID fear, but who then would be accused of having a reason to do violence to the Cowboys. A lose-lose proposition. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 01:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This response is totally accurate, and even Judge Spicer notes the absurdity of the Cowboys' insistence that the law enforcement officers be disarmed. No one even disputes these claims, as members of the cowboy faction actually made them publicly. Reading the terstimony of the disinterested parties to fight, as Judge Spicer did, demonstrates that the Cowboys were lying in most of their particulars, and that the idiotic Ike Clanton even undercut his own testimony. Behan was complicitous with the Cowboys, and probably held his position out of their sufferance.~~Doktorschley. 2 March 2008. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Doktorschley|Doktorschley]] ([[User talk:Doktorschley|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Doktorschley|contribs]]) 01:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 

No single perspective can claim accuracy when arguing a point in history. It is known that multiple witnesses to the onslaught saw Billy's hands in the air as he was killed. It is known that Tom McLaury was not armed. All stories corroborated except Wyatt's until Ike Clanton's convoluted testimony corrupted the defense's case. Ike's inconsistencies were about an unrelated event, namely the stagecoach robbery. Let's remember, folks, in order to convict a Marshall and his brothers of murder in the far west in 1881 you would need a case that was 110% solid. Ike was an idiot and certainly didn't have the organizational abilities nor the aptitude to work within the status quo that Wyatt Earp did, as was shown during this trial. Without every element suffering the acid test and coming out unscathed Wyatt and his Gang would walk. And what happened? They walked. -Kieran McLaury Taylor [[Special:Contributions/99.141.56.160|99.141.56.160]] ([[User talk:99.141.56.160|talk]]) 03:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The claim that the Cowboys raised their hands into the air was cooked up by Behan, Ike Clanton, and others of that party to make the accusation of premeditated murder stick. Yet this claim does not jibe with the wound in Billy's right wrist, which had to be made while drawing his gun right-handed. It also is contradicted by the unaffiliated witnesses, such as Addie Bourland, who was more than willing to implicate the Earps, describing Doc Holliday as drawing a bronze pistol and shoving it into Frank McLaury's stomach and stepping back before the shooting started. If the Earps wanted to shoot unarmed surrendering men, they could easily have shot down Ike Clanton and Billy Claiborne. This fact came out in the Spicer hearing. The McLaury entry above that Wyatt and or Holliday had a hand in robbing the stage is totally abstruse: it has no basis in fact and appears to have been fabricated by Ike. His claims in this regard are again contradicted by the fact that Wyatt could easily have shot Ike down in the street when Ike was unarmed and did not. At least Wyatt thought it was a fight only between armed men, and his actions bear that out. To speak of "Wyatt and his Gang" is really interesting, since Virgil Earp was the leader of the Earp faction at this time. Only when Virgil was crippled and Morgan was dead did Wyatt form his famous posse and set out to eliminate those who remained of the Clanton-McLaury group. Interestingly enough, Wyatt, Holliday and the rest of this group did not immediately kill Ike Clanton and his father. I hope I am not stepping on family toes here.[[User:Doktorschley|Doktorschley]] ([[User talk:Doktorschley|talk]]) 01:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

=== Dramatizations ====
I think it is worth mentioning that, although the shootout at the OK Corral has been depicted in more than a dozen movies, seldom has it been presented accurately. In a number of films, the shootout is at dawn, the corral is in the middle of nowhere and surrounded by nothing but cactus and tumbleweed. The relative position, equipment, and even number of participants - not to mention the number and identity of the casualties - are almost always contrary to fact. Someone with too much time on his hands could patch together clips from several movies to have a Youtube video showing how different various dramatizations have been. [[User:Sussmanbern|Sussmanbern]] ([[User talk:Sussmanbern|talk]]) 01:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

== Billy Clanton's "only" photograph ==

The caption under the photo of the deceased McLaury brothers and Billy Clanton says that it is "the only known photograph" of Clanton, however I just returned from a trip to Tombstone and there is a sign/map at the site of the shootout with a picture of all participants, including Billy Clanton. Just a heads-up.
:There are no known photos of Billy except the one of him in his coffin. A "picture" is not a photograph. If you saw anything which purported to be a photo, it was a fake one. Which wouldn't be unusual for Tombstone. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 05:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

== Sources? ==

I'm not saying that there is any false information, my knowledge of American history has never been that extensive beyond surface details. I was just curious why the article doesn't seem to cite any actual sources. It is at all possible that the person (or persons) who wrote the article are knowledgeable and wrote based on credible research and reference materials. I'm just wondering why none of the sources seem to be cited in the article itself. It just seemed to me that something as mythologized, fictionalized and retold from a number of complex and contradictory perspectives should be clearly and articulately based upon in depth factual research that is actually cited. Again, not saying that it is wrong, just that I don't see any footnotes on research material used in the article. Maybe I am wrong, and I am just missing what is being cited, but I just wanted to point this out in case there is a correction that should be made.

: Ideally, all Wikipedia articles will eventually have footnotes listing references. If there's any particular statement you're especially unsure about, add a {{Talkfact}} to it and hopefully someone with the material on hand will quickly add an appropriate reference. [[User:69.108.230.116|69.108.230.116]] 12:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:Well here's nice story on Billy, some of your answers should be answered:
: [http://www.bignosekate.com/bnkokcorral.htm True story, gunfight at the o.k. corral]
: Imdb info http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050468/ as article says
::The "nice story on Billy" is rife with inaccuracies. Love the Atari 2600 recreation of the gunfight though! [[User:Kkbay|Kkbay]] ([[User talk:Kkbay|talk]]) 22:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what the article is about, I don't see a problem with including links to information about related topics, such as the imdb link - that's the purpose of external links: Even if this article was perfect, it wouldn't have that information on the movie, however it is very closely related and contributes to the reader's understanding of the topic. --[[User:ST47|ST47]][[User talk:ST47|Talk]]·[[User:ST47/Desk|Desk]] 15:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
:This issue is directly addressed by [[Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided]] (item 13). The IMDB link does not directly relate to the topic of this article and thus should not be included here. It instead relates directly to [[Gunfight at the O.K. Corral (1957 film)]] where a link to the IMDB page already exists. There is also a link to the article about the film available in this article's ''Representation in film, TV and literature'' section. Thus the information you wish to see included is available at the cost of an extra click without causing confusion to anyone following the link from this page only to find that the IMDB page provides no information directly tied to this article's topic. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]'' [[User talk:Allen3|talk]] 18:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

In terms of sources, what is left out here is Alford E. Turner's [[OK Corral Inquest]]--the complete documents from the Spicer hearing. Reading Judge Spicer's treatment, it is clear that he disspelled the competing claims of the Earps and Holliday on one hand, and Behan and the Cowboys on the other. The deciding testimony was provided by seamstress Addie Bourland, across the street from the gunfight, and Cochise County Probate Judge J.H. Lucas, across the street and about 200 feet away in the Mining Exchange Building. The testimony of these two disinterested persons refuted claims by Behan, et al., that Billy Clanton had thrown up his hands at Virgil Earp's command, and that Tom McLaury had thrown open his vest to show that he was unarmed. Interestingly enough, editor Turner, one of the leading authorities on the Earps at the time, concluded that Doc Holliday and Morgan Earp had opened the firing almost simultaneously, hitting Frank McLaury (Holliday, with a pistol to the stomach) and Billy Clanton (Morgan Earp; probably to Billy Clanton's right wrist, which is why witnesses reported that he was firing left-handed). That Tom McLaury was unarmed is doubtful, and it is likely that Behan or some other Cowboy confederate removed his pistol surreptitiously. Certainly, the Earps could have shot down both Ike Clanton and Billy Claiborne, who ran through the middle of the fight, but did not do so. No one confuted Wyatt Earp's testimony that he screamed at Ike Clanton, "Commence to fighting or get away!" Given these facts, Tom McLaury probably was firing as Wyatt testified, but had his gun spirited away by a confederate after the shooting was done and the street was littered with the dead (3) and wounded (3). I'm of a mind to revised these parts of the account with copious notes. I am glad to see that someone had the sense to cite Marks' [[And Die in the West]], which points out the determination of Morgan Earp and Doc Holliday to open the fray, as related by Martha King, who was in the Butcher Shop on Fremont Street when the Earp's passed. Marks' work, nevertheless, is an apology for the Cowboy side. I prefer Alford E. Turner's more critical work, with its detailed reliance on the public testimony and his own copious notes on the course of events.~~Doktorschley 2 March 2008 —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Doktorschley|Doktorschley]] ([[User talk:Doktorschley|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Doktorschley|contribs]]) 01:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 
:: Agree that the transcript of Inquest and Trial (both partly available online, but completely available with additional valuable commentary in Alford Turner, are THE primary sources for all this. If you have something that disagrees with this stuff (which disagrees with itself, but is at least contemporary and taken under oath), you might want to question it. As to whether or not Tom was armed, my guess is not. Turner thinks so (see pg 202) but I think he's wrong. C. H. "Ham" Light, no friend of the Earps (in fact a mining business partner of Stilwell's!) saw most of the fight from the Aztec House, which still stands, just northwest of the site at 3rd and Fremont. Light testifies at the earlier Inquest (not the later trial, where he does not testify) that he heard the first two shots of the fight, and reached the window while all participants were still standing. Billy was at the house corner shooting, and others were shooting him. Somebody was out in the street with a horse (this would have to be Frank, with his own horse-- it wasn't Tom, for reasons which will be coming). And there was Doc, getting hit and turning around from a bullet struck to the hip, but not falling (so this was not Morgan). The most important thing Light saw was that immediately after the first couple of shots, and while everybody else was still firing, Tom was already running away from the battle, going West on Fremont, to fall at the corner of Fremont and 3rd-- a run and fall that Light saw. So he'd been hit before Light ever saw him, as also concluded by Light. Now, we know two relevant things: The shotgun was used by Holliday early, perhaps in one of the two first shots, because nobody who is burdened with a shotgun (and isn't used to it) starts off shooting a pistol one-handed while they dangle a loaded shotgun (even a short [[coach gun]] in the other!). Bourland's testimony also implicates a very large pistol, which was probably the [[coach gun]]. Tom was hit by NOTHING other than this shotgun blast, which was early, and nobody else HAD a shotgun. Thus, Tom was hit in first few seconds of the fight. And was already running like hell to get away, by the time Light looked in on the first part of the fight. Nobody gets a double load of 12 buckshot though the chest side-to-side, and then starts shooting off a pistol. Nor did Tom really have TIME to do this. Light says the guy lying at the corner (who is surely Tom) lay there nearly the whole time of the fight and must have been one of the first people shot. Clear enough? If Tom was armed, he didn't use his weapon-- he just didn't have time or means. The guy in the street with the horse, shooting after this, mistaken for Tom by many, was instead his brother Frank-- which is natural because it was Frank's horse, after all (also the two looked a lot like each other, if you see the caskets pic). And if all that's not enough, we know where Tom's weapon was-- half a block away, fully loaded, at the Capitol Saloon, as testified to by Andrew Mehan, bar-keep, where Tom had left it between 1 and 2 pm on the day of the fight. (Turner knows this, but refuses to believe it!) The idea that Tom picked up a second pistol on 4th Street (Spangenberg's) or on Allen (The Butcher shop) just before the fight, means he would have had to walk it right by where his own pistol was checked at 4th and Fremont, to get to the fight! Those people who think they saw Tom get a pistol at the butcher's really saw no pistol but infered it. They SAW him get something to bulge his pants pocket. We know what may not have been anything but a lot of money and receipts, which were found on his body. Was Tom armed all night? Of course, since he didn't drop off his pistol till the next day. Was he armed when Wyatt buffaloed him, at just about the same time he dropped his pistol off? Very probably. Bauer said he saw Tom at the Capitol Saloon AFTER Bauer himself saw Tom pistolwhipped by Wyatt. So either Tom visited that saloon twice that day (once just before being beaten and once after) or else (as seems more likely), he went there shortly after being beaten to drop off his pistol and get a drink. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 21:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

== Sources and <! tags ==

I removed all the thoughts within the <! tags; they were pointless and unsubstantiated to boot. I also put some citation needed tags in, since, as someone mentioned above, we don't have many resources proving what seem to be opinions. -[[User:CaptainJae|CaptainJae]] 12:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

== Harwood house ==

The "Harwood house" which is at the corner of 3rd and Fremont today, wasn't there in 1908 (see the photo in the article). I believe it was removed to another position and then returned to its present place. However, it was not the house against which the gunfight occurred and Billy Clanton died. The testimony at the hearing makes clear that in 1881 there were two houses "below" (West) of Fry's, and these on maps show as the McDonald House and the Harwood house, which was on the corner (in the same position as now). The gunfight lot was very narrow--scarely an alley (and may actually have been an alley, and an alternate entrance to the Corral lot, accounting for a lot of confused history, and for Wyatt's "bad" drawing of 1926). But the narrowness is also alluded to, in testimony. Both houses also show in an 1881 photo made by Fly from the hill to the West of town, which is reprinted in closeup in places like Bob Boze Bell's illustrated books on the fight. In 1881, two houses are (again) seen to the West of Fly's, before 3rd street. Presumably the closest to Fly's is the McDonald house, though nobody mentions it by name in the Inquest or Trial. However, the house on the corner was where the dead and dying were taken, possibly because Tom McLaury was closest to it. We don't know why, but if Tom (nearest to death when found) was taken to one house, the one nearest to him on the corner, then the other two men would have been taken there also, by default. I've changed some text. I think Turner himself may be wrong on this point. I'll have cites in a bit from the Inquest/Trial transcripts, which are the primary sources for everything. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 03:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for confusing the McDonald and Harwood houses...a careless mistake on my part.[[User:Jmtremg|Jmtremg]] ([[User talk:Jmtremg|talk]]) 03:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding C.S. Fly and mention of Jersey's Livery Stable, this info was found on the web site www-legendsofamerica-dot-com.

== Very tendentious edits ==

"Wyatt shouldn't have been armed by this point either, but felt securely "on the side of the law", which would be to say, above the law."

In court, Wyatt said he considered himself a deputy town marshal under his brother, as he had temporarily held the town marshal's just just a couple of weeks before when Virgil was in Tucson, and hadn't been "undeputized". This statement was made in open court and the defense had every change to attack it as being unfactural, but they did not. Apparently Wyatt did indeed serve in his brother's capacity as chief of police. That makes him a deputy. There's circumstantial evidence that he wasn't drawing pay to do this and was not carrying a badge to do this, at the time of the shootout, but that only means he didn't have to work regular police deputy shifts. As an off duty lawman he had every right to carry a concealed weapon, just as off duty peace officers do today. So, you're wrong about the "above the law" part. Now, you can question nepotism and say Virgil shouldn't have been apointing his brother for high position, just as JFK wasn't supposed to make Bobby Kennedy (who'd never tried a legal case in his life) attorney general of the US. But that's a problem for the voter; it's not a problem of legality. And in this case, the voter had their say, and they said nothing. We have no record of petitions from townspeople that Virgil had left the city and left Wyatt Earp in charge! I have the same complaint about your edits that Wyatt was ready to commit "homicide". Wyatt had every chance to commit homicide against Tom McLaury and especially against Ike Clanton. He didn't shoot either of them. Ike had been armedw with rifle and pistol and drunkenly hunting Holiday hours before-- that would have got him killed by a SWAT team today. I find Virgil and Wyatt's policing, considering the provokation, quite exceptional. The key thing about Oct. 26 is that Ike Clanton lived through it. He shouldn't have. Even today, he probably wouldn't have, and no court would have held the officers liable. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 01:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 
 
*My edits were indeed tendentious, even biased. My name is Kieran McLaury Taylor and I have been taught the story of the massacre at the OK Corral as perpetrated by Wyatt Earp, allowed by his brother Virgil and assisted by Doc Holiday since I was just a wee child. You guys have obviously done your homework but is anyone aware of the relationship between the Earp family and the King Ranch? Thought about what the King Ranch might stand to gain if the heirs of the Clanton dynasty were to up and git killed? Wyatt knew he could do anything he wanted in Tombstone, and most of Arizona, including beat the tar out of a passerby for acquaintanceship with one of Wyatt's annoyances. There was good reason the Cowboys were frightened of disarming. They were on their way out of town and Wyatt had been trying to get away with killing them all day long. By some accounts they may have considered themselves out of town already, and Wyatt finally got what he was looking for: a pile of dead Cowboys. I'll remind you that Wyatt was vying for sheriff and randomly killing people was probably not in the interest of his long-term goals. Playing drama-queen and taking Ike's posturing personally, implicating several more individuals (whom he did his best to determine were unarmed) and then killing them all was far more defensible in court, as he proved quite effectively. Incidentally, do off-duty lawmen get to pistol whip individuals in the midst of arguments these days? How about on-duty lawmen? If Tom had a gun and that gave Wyatt the right to attack him, why wasn't Tom arrested? Why, at the very least, wasn't Tom relieved of his weapon? (Remember, we're talking about one of those dangerous, no-account, murderous Cowboys here). If Tom didn't have a weapon and Wyatt was just tipping towards psychotic, why was Virgil willing to assist him in pursuing his political aspirations? Well, because they're family, man. The description you give of The Cowboys seem more applicable to the structure of the law at that time and place. The argument that Wyatt's gang was just a bunch of innocent, upstanding fellows doesn't make sense in the context of Arizona during that time-period and most certainly not in terms of their handling of one loud-mouth punk (Ike) and a couple of guys in town on BUSINESS (my cousins). This is my first experiment with editing on wikipedia. I'm glad I could do it and I'm glad I haven't destroyed your guys's work, though I think it mostly banal, pedantic and one-sided. It seems you are being as honest as you can, considering your sources. You are, for the most part, literally, reading from the pages of history, written in the crookedest town in the West. As we all know, post-Doctorates and hacks alike: history is written by the survivors, and that's just what Wyatt Earp meant to insure. My intention has been to shake things up here and give the world a different perspective on events upon which we can only speculate at this great distance. Oh, and just a tad bit to annoy you dudes that read a consensus amongst a crooked judge and his testifying, murderous, crooked lawmen and decide that equals the truth. (I would have been happy to begin my rant on the talk page had I known it existed **sorry for the inconvenience**)[[Special:Contributions/99.141.56.160|99.141.56.160]] ([[User talk:99.141.56.160|talk]]) 06:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
:Kieran: I would only say that Wyatt and the Earps did not own Arizona, and that if they had had ties that deep to the King Ranch in Texas, they would have sought refuge there, not, as they did, in New Mexico first, then Colorado, and finally California. The King Ranch never took over the area around Tomstone or the Clanton holdings. Wyatt ended up a Californian, living with Johnny Behan's former commonlaw wife as his own commonlaw wife, and successfully mining a small ore claim. I do not think of the Earps and Holliday as white knights, but as hard men who were willing to do what it took to survive and uphold their interests. The cold-blooded killing took place in reprisal for the assassination of Morgan Earp and the wounding of Virgil, not at the OK Corral. The physical evidence of the fight is the Morgan and Doc were determined to shoot it out with the Cowboys, and that the Cowboys were determined to fight, hence Billy Clanton's wound in the right wrist, received as he drew his gun. I don't find any credible evidence that anyone other than the Earp party fired first. Morgan and Holliday fired first, as they had decided on the way down the street, but Wyatt and Virgil were not in on this. Virgil actually carried a cane in his right hand to demonstrate that he was not coming for a gunfight. He even called for his own side to halt as he heard hammers click back. On the other hand, Wyatt's claim that he and Billy opened the firing was contrived (as Josie Marcus forthrightly stated in her own account) to secure his innocence--and that of his entire party--from a charge of premeditated murder. Family histories are often deliberately constructed to support a particular interpretation. I was always taught that my family was Confederate, but research shows that they were Southerners who fought for the Union. It was quite a shock to learn that the Confederate connection, as related by my father was completely fictional. We were and remain Southerners by culture, just as the Earps were Unionists. But our politics I learned about 8 years ago (after believing otherwise for over 40 years) were Unionist. C'est la vie![[User:Doktorschley|Doktorschley]] ([[User talk:Doktorschley|talk]]) 02:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::'''The Earp Brothers of Tombstone''' was purportedly written by Virgil Earp's wife Allie. However, the incidents in the book are almost certainly fabricated by an "editor" (see Barra, 1998, book postscript). The same is true for much of '''I married Wyatt Earp''' which has been shamelessly fictionalized on top of a manuscript which doesn't contain specifics about the gunfight (Yes, Boyer made these up). As for the people in the Fremont meatmarket who heard Morgan tell Holliday "let them have it," it's meaningless without the prelude words, if any. If they'd been heard to say "Let them have it, no matter what," that would have been different. But for all we know, somebody caught only the tail-end of "If they make a move for their guns, let them have it," which might have been the whole sentence. I suspect Holliday's was one of the first two shots, from both the unusual amount of smoke and big report heard in the first two shots, and the fact that Tom (shot by Holliday) is shot early (since he's seen running away before most of the fight shots are fired). But we don't know who fired the other shot. It could as easily have been Frank as Morgan. I think Billy too young and Wyatt too cool to have done it, but we'll probably never know. And yes, the North-South thing, only 16 years after the Civil War, was very much alive in the City/Fed/Yankee/urban/Republican gambler politics of the Eastern Earps, vs. the Rural/County-Sheriff/Democratic/Southern Cowboy politics of the ex-Texans on the other side. That's how history goes. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 09:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

== Lack of death certificates for the cowboys ==

[http://genealogy.az.gov/ The State of Arizona] does not seem to have death certificates on file for anyone surnamed Clanton or McLaury (or any of the usual variations of McLaury accounted for in Irish or Scots family histories in North America) for the period 1880 to 1882. Rather odd. Would such have been "sealed" in the matter of a suspect who died in an officer involved shooting? Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/208.127.133.133|208.127.133.133]] ([[User talk:208.127.133.133|talk]]) 19:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

== The abbreviation "O.K." in "O.K. Corral" ==

What does the "O.K." in "O.K. Corral" stand for after all?
I read through the entire article and discussion, but unless my ADHD let me read over it, it's not written anywhere.
[[User:Kennin|Kennin]] ([[User talk:Kennin|talk]]) 11:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, I think I read in a magazine that it means Ormsby Kimberly. (Citation needed).
[[User:Urbanus Secundus|Urbanus Secundus]] ([[User talk:Urbanus Secundus|talk]]) 05:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

:See the wiki on [[okay]]. The abbreviation O.K. had been used for half a century to mean "good" or "in order" before the business in Tombstone. The debate about how it came to be is in the Wiki. It's not germane here, since lots of things were called O.K. by 1881, just as today. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 02:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

== The style, the particulars ==

Somebody has complained about the style of the report of the action, and I agree, but unfortunately it has been added to by people who think a Western story should have a Western campfire story-style narative. I'll be glad to clean it up if that doesn't dry too much fire.

One thing that is clearly wrong is the recent addition that the lot of the gunfight was being used by Harwood (owner of the house on the corner) to store firewood in. The OK Corral inquest makes note of "two houses" below Fly's (West of Fly's) which would put another structure between Fly's and Harwood's, which contemporary maps put on the corner. That's the McDonald Assay building according to maps, and it was against this that Billy was shot. It no longer stands. But there are clearly two buildings below Fly's in the 1882 photo in Bob Boze Bell's book on the shootout (see his book on Doc Holliday for a closeup), taken from a Fly photo from the Hill West of Tombstone (I forget the name of this hill, but I've stood on it myself). Even Harwood's house wasn't always where it is today: it's gone in the 1908 photo (see the photo in this article) and has obviously been someplace else in Tombstone in the meantime, but since moved back. I don't know this exact history of the perigrinations of the Harwood residence. In any case, it's clear that Billy died in the house near the corner near where Tom fell, and that's presumably the Harwood house. The most badly wounded man (Tom) was taken there, and probably that's why they took Billy there also. I'm not even sure the Assay building was open or livable at the time, and it would not have made sense to put the two wounded men in different buildings next to each other while waiting for the doctor. Frank died where he fell, across Fremont, but his body was eventually taken to the Harwood house also, to await the coroner. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 02:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

== Tombstone jurisdiction ==
As an outsider could the article clarify the jurisdictions involved. The action all took place in Tombstone (town or city) within the town limits (?); the article on Tombstone said it was founded 1879 and refers to Tombstone Ordinances No 7 & 9; but was 1879 when Tombstone was incorporated with a mayor and town marshal? The surrounding [[Cochise County]] where the "Cowboys" were from had recently (earlier in 1881) been incorporated out of [[Pima County, Arizona]]. And Virgil Earp held a federal appointment as Deputy US Marshal from 1879, was that from the Arizona Territory Governor? [[User:Hugo999|Hugo999]] ([[User talk:Hugo999|talk]]) 02:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
: Tombstone was incorporated with mayor and town-marsall in 1979, and officially became a city when its population went over 1000 in 1880 (thus town-marshal simply became city-marshal, but the office is better known as police chief and this title was used at the time also). The countryside outside Tombstone was under two jurisdictions-- at the county level by the Sheriff's office (exactly as today). With Cochise Co. having split off, this was Behan's turf (he is the first Cochise Co. sheriff), and it was Democratic and Southern and rural, quite unlike the town itself. There were a lot of stockraisers out there who were originally from Texas, and had been sympathetic to the Confederacy. The second level of jurisdiction was at the territorial level, and that indeed was the US marshal's office. The territory Marshal was Crawley Dake (a wonderful name), with the deputy being Virgil (I believe he was appointed by Dake, not directly by Governor Fremont; but Fremont did appoint Dake). So in the end you see the set-up for the conflict. The city-cops AND the feds are all Yankie/Republican/businessmen. The countryside and sheriff are basically Southerners, Democrats, and cowboys. The O.K. Corral fight has subtexts of the Civil War, which had ended only 16 years previously (and which Virgil had actually fought in). [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 20:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not clear on the relative jurisdictions & authorities of the Marshall vs. the Sheriff (Johnny Behan). Behan refused to help the Earps, but I don't know if his office either required him or prevented him from doing so. 01:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Sussmanbern|Sussmanbern]] ([[User talk:Sussmanbern|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sussmanbern|contribs]])  

==Glenn Boyer again==

I'm removing a gushing paragraph about Glenn G. Boyer in this article. There is no evidence that Boyer ever met Earp's Josie/Sadie Marcus (who died in 1944 when Boyer was in his early 20's), and indeed there indirect evidence against it, as he certainly would have mentioned such a meeting in his 1955 letter to Stuart Lake, which survives. See http://home.earthlink.net/~knuthco1/IMWEfiles2/curiousvendettasource.htm which probably should be referenced in this article if there is any more Boyerism. Moreover, there is no evidence that Boyer had access to anything other than the Cason manuscript in writing '''I married Wyatt Earp''' and therefore anything he/she says about the Tombstone years is suspect. It is third hand at best and fiction at worst. Boyer has also been caught making up worse stuff, see the link above. Certainly Boyer's contention (supposedly from Sadie that Wyatt avenged Warren's death in 1900, provably wrong (see the link above) as is the idea that Earp visited Holliday the day before Holliday died. Boyer is not to be trusted. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 21:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

:Thanks for this posting of the above link. It was quite helpful. I apologize for not having been aware of this insightful and well-researched article. On the issue of who started the fight, however, I note that the Inquest MS and Spicer's own analysis indicated the Billy Clanton was hit while drawing his gun. This shot came almost certainly from Morgan Earp. In addition, there is the testimony of Martha J. King in the Butcher Shop about the exchange between Wyatt and Morgan while walking past. I have not seen any evidence that would contradict this claim. On "I Married Wyatt Earp", one can follow much of what Boyer put in from Lake's material, which is fairly transparent, so things may not be as bad as they seem. In addition, memories do fade, and years get mixed around. Wyatt and Virgil COULD HAVE carred out revenge for Warren's murder, but the dating may have been off. In fact, who could know? Still, the article you have posted has seriously undermined Boyer's credibility for me as a researcher and writer, and while some of what is in "I Married Wyatt Earp" must be true (for instance, why would Josie imply that Wyatt's stipulated account was perjured if that was not the case? Is this just Boyer inserting his opinion into her mouth, so to speak?), and parts of it are obviously slanted to keep Josie from appearing to have been "not a nice person" for being first Johnny Behan's commonlaw wife and then Wyatt's, with hardly a transition, but this is all reflective of authenticity, it seems to be me. The difficult part now would seem to be sorting out anything that might be deliberate fiction, such as the episode surrounding Warren's murder.[[User:Doktorschley|Doktorschley]] ([[User talk:Doktorschley|talk]]) 06:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

:Thanks again.[[User:Doktorschley|Doktorschley]] ([[User talk:Doktorschley|talk]]) 12:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, you might want to consider putting the actual article into the references in the wiki article itself: Jeffrey J. Morey, "The Curious Vendetta of Glenn G. Boyer", in Quarterly of the National Association for Outlaw and Lawman History (NOLA), Vol. XVIII, No. 4, Oct.-Dec., 1994, p. 22-28. This piece is full of astute analysis and treatment of primary documents.[[User:Doktorschley|Doktorschley]] ([[User talk:Doktorschley|talk]]) 12:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

::Sure, let's think of a way to get it in, and where it should go as a reference. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 06:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be a detailed critical footnote, in conjunction with "I married Wyatt Earp"...something like, "For a better understanding of the sources we are dealing with, see...."[[User:Doktorschley|Doktorschley]] ([[User talk:Doktorschley|talk]]) 05:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

== O.K.? ==

What does the O.K. in "O.K. Corral" actually stand for? [[Special:Contributions/188.192.118.224|188.192.118.224]] ([[User talk:188.192.118.224|talk]]) 06:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

:Nobody knows. In 1881 it was a common a phase as now, although it was a bit more positive and meant "fine." The history of the phrase goes all the way back to the Van Buren Campaign, at least. See the [[O.K.]] article. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 07:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

::I should point out that the question is not "what does the "O.K." stand for in phrase meaning "adequate"" (which as you point out is covered in the [[O.K.]] article), but "what does the "O.K." in "O.K. Corral" stand for". To the point, is there any evidence (i.e. citations) that the "O.K." in "O.K. Corral" was supposed to be a reference to "okay", or is it mere speculation that it is referring to the phrase meaning "adequate", as opposed to some other abbreviation, like the initials of the owner or owners (e.g. Oscar Kendall or Oswald & Kennedy), or a misreading of "circle K", or just some random letters a person chose for a cattle/horse brand? -- [[Special:Contributions/174.21.224.236|174.21.224.236]] ([[User talk:174.21.224.236|talk]]) 06:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

== "Strength" of Cowboys ==

Can someone explain what this stat in the infobox indicates? My first assumption would be that it means how many Cowboys participated in the fight, but it says "2-6 (?)" as if there was some doubt about it when the number of fighters seems pretty well substantiated; and since three of them died, the number of course would have to be at least three, leaving me either puzzled as to where the "2" comes from or puzzled as to what the stat means in the first place. [[User:Mbinebri|'' '''Mbinebri''' '']] [[User talk:Mbinebri|talk ←]] 03:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

:I didn't construct the infobox. It think it was made by somebody with battle "infoboxitis." The figure for the cowboys probably comes from somebody figuring how many were armed. That could have been as small as 2 (Billy and Frank), even though 3 indeed were killed. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 01:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

==Wyatt Unhit?==

I just returned from Tombstone's "Helldorado Days". They said Wyatt Earp was a lousy shot in reality; the fact he wasn't hit at the shootout notwithstanding. He let Doc Holliday do the real shooting for him.[[Special:Contributions/68.231.189.108|68.231.189.108]] ([[User talk:68.231.189.108|talk]]) 02:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
:He was unhit all his life. This might as easily have been luck, as it was with George Washington and Douglas MacArthur, who also seemed bulletproof. Though his contemporaries like Masterson praised Wyatt's marksmanship, nobody knows how good he was with a pistol, as there's no clearly documented Wyatt Earp kill (or even hit) WITH a pistol. Wyatt shot a lot of buffalo, and it wouldn't surprise me if he was better with a rifle. Wyatt's two kills were with a shotgun. On the other hand, Doc's only really sure kill was with a shotgun, as well! Shotguns are outstanding weapons in a close gunfight, and neither law enforcement or the badguys are interested in fighting "fair" in any gunfight. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 07:04, 27 October 2009 (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 [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frank_Stilwell#Frank_Stilwell]], and leave any opinions you have about this matter. [[User:Sbharris|S]][[User:Sbharris|B]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 02:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

== rediscovered notes ==

[http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/04da4829-c4da-5795-b7f2-6b956bf94f6d.html original notes discovered.] This might be useful for improving the article quality --[[Special:Contributions/63.239.65.11|63.239.65.11]] ([[User talk:63.239.65.11|talk]]) 12:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

==American Civil War==
I've removed the following tagged, uncited statement from the lede:
: ''In other views, the fight was a more complex embodiment of some of the tensions of the [[American Civil War]] of a generation before.''

It was tagged as uncited 12 months ago, and I can't find any citation or even any mention in the rest of the article. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 15:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

== Make this article a candidate for deletion? ==

I think this article should be a candidate for deletion. There is no historical significance of this obscure so-called gunfight. I've never even heard of it. What justifies this fight to have it's own page and not any of the other gunfights between gangs that occur yearly in America's inner cities?

Aristotle

2010-02-11T19:46:09Z

98.231.231.231:

{{pp-move-indef}}
{{Otheruses}}
{{Infobox Philosopher
|region = Western philosophy
|era = [[Ancient philosophy]]
|color = #B0C4DE
|image_name = Aristotle Altemps Inv8575.jpg
|image_caption = Marble bust of Aristotle. Roman copy after a Greek bronze original by [[Lysippus]] c. 330 BC. The alabaster mantle is modern
|name ={{polytonic|Ἀριστοτέλης}}, ''Aristotélēs''
|birth_date =384 BC [[Stageira]], [[Chalcidice]]
|death_date =322 BC (age 61 or 62) [[Euboea]]
|school_tradition = [[Peripatetic school]] [[Aristotelianism]]
|main_interests = [[Physics]], [[Metaphysics]], [[Poetry]], [[Theatre]], [[Music]], [[Rhetoric]], [[Politics]], [[Government]], [[Ethics]], [[Biology]], [[Zoology]]
|notable_ideas = [[Golden mean (philosophy)|Golden mean]], [[Reason]], [[Logic]], Passion
|influences = [[Parmenides]], [[Socrates]], [[Plato]], [[Heraclitus]], [[Democritus]]
|influenced = Virtually all [[Western philosophy]] after his works, [[Alexander the Great]], [[Avicenna]], [[Averroes]], [[Maimonides]], [[Albertus Magnus]], [[Thomas Aquinas]], [[Duns Scotus]], [[Ptolemy]], [[Copernicus]], [[Galileo]], and most of [[Islamic philosophy]], [[Jewish philosophy]], [[Christian philosophy]], [[science]] and '''[[List of writers influenced by Aristotle|more...]]'''.
|box_width = 26em
}}
{{Aristotelianism}}
'''Aristotle''' ({{lang-el|Ἀριστοτέλης}}, ''Aristotélēs'') (384 BC – 322 BC) was a [[Greeks|Greek]] philosopher, a student of [[Plato]] and teacher of [[Lindsay Hammes the Great]]. His writings cover many subjects, including physics, [[metaphysics]], [[Poetics (Aristotle)|poetry]], theater, music, logic, rhetoric, politics, government, ethics, biology, and zoology.
Together with Plato and [[Socrates]] (Plato's teacher), Aristotle is one of the most important founding figures in [[Western philosophy]]. Aristotle's writings constitute a first at creating a comprehensive system of Western philosophy, encompassing morality and aesthetics, logic and science, politics and metaphysics.

Aristotle's views on the [[Aristotelian physics|physical sciences]] profoundly shaped medieval scholarship, and their influence extended well into the [[Renaissance]], although they were ultimately replaced by Newtonian physics. In the biological sciences, some of his observations were confirmed to be accurate only in the nineteenth century. His works contain the earliest known formal study of logic, which was incorporated in the late nineteenth century into modern [[formal logic]]. In metaphysics, [[Aristotelianism]] had a profound influence on [[Judeo-Islamic philosophies (800 - 1400)|philosophical and theological thinking in the Islamic and Jewish traditions]] in the [[Middle Ages]], and it continues to influence [[Christian theology]], especially [[Eastern Orthodox Christian theology|Eastern Orthodox theology]], and the [[scholasticism|scholastic]] tradition of the [[Catholic Church]]. His ethics, though always influential, gained renewed interest with the modern advent of [[virtue ethics]]. All aspects of Aristotle's philosophy continue to be the object of active academic study today. Though Aristotle wrote many elegant treatises and dialogues ([[Cicero]] described his literary style as "a river of gold"),<ref>{{cite web
| last =Cicero
| first =Marcus Tullius
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title ="flumen orationis aureum fundens Aristoteles"
| work =Acadmeica
| publisher =
| date =106BC-43BC
| url =http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/gutenberg/1/4/9/7/14970/14970-h/14970-h.htm#BkII_119
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate =25-Jan-2007}}</ref> it is thought that the majority of his writings are now lost and only about one-third of the original works have survived.<ref>[[Jonathan Barnes]], "Life and Work" in ''The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle'' (1995), p. 9.</ref>

Despite the far-reaching appeal that Aristotle's works have traditionally enjoyed, today modern scholarship questions a substantial portion of the Aristotelian corpus as authentically Aristotle's own.<ref name="Cornell">Terence Irwin and Gail Fine, [[Cornell University]], ''Aristotle: Introductory Readings.'' Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. (1996), Introduction, pp. xi-xii.</ref>

==Life==
Aristotle was born in [[Stageira]], [[Chalcidice]], in 384 BC, about {{convert|55|km|0|abbr=on}} east of modern-day [[Thessaloniki]].<ref>{{cite book | title = Aristotle: The Great Philosophers | author = McLeisch, Kenneth Cole| publisher = Routledge | year = 1999 | isbn = 0-415-92392-1 | page = 5}}</ref> His father [[Nicomachus (father of Aristotle)|Nicomachus]] was the personal physician to [[Amyntas III of Macedon|King Amyntas of Macedon]]. Aristotle was trained and educated as a member of the [[aristocracy]]. At about the age of eighteen, he went to [[Athens]] to continue his education at [[Platonic Academy|Plato's Academy]]. Aristotle remained at the academy for nearly twenty years, not leaving until after Plato's death in 347 BC. He then traveled with [[Xenocrates]] to the court of his friend [[Hermias of Atarneus]] in Asia Minor. While in Asia, Aristotle traveled with [[Theophrastus]] to the island of [[Lesbos Island|Lesbos]], where together they researched the [[botany]] and zoology of the island. Aristotle married Hermias's adoptive daughter (or niece) [[Pythias]]. She bore him a daughter, whom they named Pythias. Soon after Hermias' death, Aristotle was invited by [[Philip II of Macedon]] to become the tutor to his son [[Alexander the Great]] in 343 B.C.<ref name="philosophy1972">Bertrand Russell, "A History of Western Philosophy", Simon & Schuster, 1972</ref>

[[Image:Arabic aristotle.jpg|thumb|left|upright|Early Islamic portrayal of Aristotle]]
Aristotle was appointed as the head of the royal academy of [[Macedon]]. During that time he gave lessons not only to Alexander, but also to two other future kings: [[Ptolemy I Soter|Ptolemy]] and [[Cassander]]. In his ''Politics'', Aristotle states that only one thing could justify monarchy, and that was if the virtue of the king and his family were greater than the virtue of the rest of the citizens put together. Tactfully, he included the young prince and his father in that category. Aristotle encouraged Alexander toward eastern conquest, and his attitude towards Persia was unabashedly ethnocentric. In one famous example, he counsels Alexander to be 'a leader to the Greeks and a despot to the barbarians, to look after the former as after friends and relatives, and to deal with the latter as with beasts or plants'.<ref>Peter Green, ''Alexander of Macedon'', 1991 University of California Press, Ltd. Oxford, England. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data, p.58–59</ref>

By 335 BC he had returned to Athens, establishing his own school there known as the [[Lyceum (Classical)|Lyceum]]. Aristotle conducted courses at the school for the next twelve years. While in Athens, his wife Pythias died and Aristotle became involved with [[Herpyllis]] of [[Stageira]], who bore him a son whom he named after his father, [[Nicomachus (son of Aristotle)|Nicomachus]]. According to the [[Suda]], he also had an [[eromenos]], [[Palaephatus|Palaephatus of Abydus]].<ref>William George Smith,''Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology'', vol. 3, [http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/2421.html p. 88]</ref>

It is during this period in Athens from 335 to 323 BC when Aristotle is believed to have composed many of his works.<ref name="philosophy1972"/> Aristotle wrote many dialogues, only fragments of which survived. The works that have survived are in [[treatise]] form and were not, for the most part, intended for widespread publication, as they are generally thought to be lecture aids for his students. His most important treatises include ''[[Physics (Aristotle)|Physics]]'', ''[[Metaphysics (Aristotle)|Metaphysics]]'', ''[[Nicomachean Ethics]]'', ''[[Politics (Aristotle)|Politics]]'', ''[[De Anima]] (On the Soul)'' and ''[[Poetics (Aristotle)|Poetics]]''.

Aristotle not only studied almost every subject possible at the time, but made significant contributions to most of them. In physical science, Aristotle studied anatomy, astronomy, economics, [[embryology]], geography, geology, meteorology, physics and zoology. In philosophy, he wrote on aesthetics, ethics, government, metaphysics, politics, psychology, rhetoric and theology. He also studied education, foreign customs, literature and poetry. His combined works constitute a virtual encyclopedia of Greek knowledge. It has been suggested that Aristotle was probably the last person to know everything there was to be known in his own time.<ref>{{cite book
| last =Neill
| first =Alex
| coauthors =Aaron Ridley
| title =The Philosophy of Art: Readings Ancient and Modern
| publisher =McGraw Hill
| year =1995
| page =488
| url =http://www.amazon.com/dp/0070461929/
}}</ref>

Near the end of Alexander's life, Alexander began to suspect plots against himself, and threatened Aristotle in letters. Aristotle had made no secret of his contempt for Alexander's pretense of divinity, and the king had executed Aristotle's grandnephew [[Callisthenes]] as a traitor. A widespread tradition in antiquity suspected Aristotle of playing a role in Alexander's death, but there is little evidence for this.<ref>Peter Green, ''Alexander of Macedon'', 1991 University of California Press, Ltd. Oxford, England. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data, p.379,459</ref>

Upon Alexander's death, anti-Macedonian sentiment in Athens once again flared. [[Eurymedon the hierophant]] denounced Aristotle for not holding the gods in honor. Aristotle fled the city to his mother's family estate in [[Chalcis]], explaining, "I will not allow the Athenians to sin twice against philosophy,"<ref>{{cite book
| last =Jones
| first =W.T.
| title =The Classical Mind: A History of Western Philosophy
| publisher =Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
| year =1980
| page =216
| url =http://www.amazon.com/dp/0155383124/
}}, cf. ''Vita Marciana'' 41.</ref> a reference to Athens's prior [[Trial of Socrates|trial and execution of Socrates]]. However, he died in Euboea of [[natural causes]] within the year (in 322 BC). Aristotle named chief executor his student [[Antipater]] and left a [[Will (law)|will]] in which he asked to be buried next to his wife.<ref>Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt by Hildegard Temporini, Wolfgang
Haase[http://books.google.com/books?id=ifqGuiHo6eQC&pg=PA3862&dq=Antipater+Aristotle+will&sig=sQzQVBdRmk-spNdZnyd1MwzAPTc Aristotle's Will]</ref>

==Logic==
[[Image:Aristotle in Nuremberg Chronicle.jpg|thumb|upright|Aristotle portrayed in the 1493 ''[[Nuremberg Chronicle]]'' as a 15th-century-A.D. scholar]]
{{Main|Term logic}}
{{details|Non-Aristotelian logic}}

With the ''[[Prior Analytics]]'', Aristotle is credited with the earliest study of [[formal logic]], and his conception of it was the dominant form of Western logic until 19th century advances in [[mathematical logic]]. [[Kant]] stated in the ''Critique of Pure Reason'' that Aristotle's theory of logic completely accounted for the core of deductive inference.
===History===
Aristotle "says that 'on the subject of reasoning' he 'had nothing else on an earlier date to speak of'".<ref>{{cite book
| last =Bocheński
| first =I. M.
| title =Ancient Formal Logic
| publisher =North-Holland Publishing Company
| year =1951
| location =Amsterdam
}}</ref> However, Plato reports that [[syntax]] was devised before him, by [[Prodicus of Ceos]], who was concerned by the correct use of words. Logic seems to have emerged from [[dialectics]]; the earlier philosophers made frequent use of concepts like ''[[reductio ad absurdum]]'' in their discussions, but never truly understood the logical implications. Even Plato had difficulties with logic; although he had a reasonable conception of a [[deducting system]], he could never actually construct one and relied instead on his [[dialectic]].<ref name="Bocheński, 1951">Bocheński, 1951.</ref> Plato believed that deduction would simply follow from [[premise]]s, hence he focused on maintaining solid premises so that the [[Logical consequence|conclusion]] would logically follow. Consequently, Plato realized that a method for obtaining conclusions would be most beneficial. He never succeeded in devising such a method, but his best attempt was published in his book ''[[Sophist (dialogue)|Sophist]]'', where he introduced his division method.<ref>{{cite book
| last =Rose
| first =Lynn E.
| title =Aristotle's Syllogistic
| publisher =Charles C Thomas Publisher
| year =1968
| location =Springfield
}}</ref>

===Analytics and the ''Organon''===
{{Main|Organon}}
What we today call ''Aristotelian logic'', Aristotle himself would have labeled "analytics". The term "logic" he reserved to mean ''dialectics''. Most of Aristotle's work is probably not in its original form, since it was most likely edited by students and later lecturers. The logical works of Aristotle were compiled into six books in about the early 1st century AD:
#''Categories''
#''On Interpretation''
#''Prior Analytics''
#''Posterior Analytics''
#''Topics''
#''On Sophistical Refutations''

The order of the books (or the teachings from which they are composed) is not certain, but this list was derived from analysis of Aristotle's writings. It goes from the basics, the analysis of simple terms in the ''Categories,'' the analysis of propositions and their elementary relations in ''On Interpretation'', to the study of more complex forms, namely, syllogisms (in the ''Analytics'') and dialectics (in the ''Topics'' and ''Sophistical Refutations''). The first three treatises form the core of the logical theory ''stricto sensu'': the grammar of the language of logic and the correctness rules of reasoning. There is one volume of Aristotle's concerning logic not found in the ''Organon'', namely the fourth book of ''Metaphysics.''.<ref name="Bocheński, 1951"/>

==Aristotle's scientific method==
[[Image:Sanzio 01 Plato Aristotle.jpg|thumb|Plato (left) and Aristotle (right), a detail of ''[[The School of Athens]]'', a fresco by [[Raphael]]. Aristotle gestures to the earth, representing his belief in knowledge through empirical observation and experience, while holding a copy of his ''[[Nicomachean Ethics]]'' in his hand, whilst Plato gestures to the heavens, representing his belief in [[The Forms]].]]
{{details|Aristotle's theory of universals}}

Like his teacher Plato, Aristotle's philosophy aims at the [[Universality (philosophy)|universal]]. Aristotle, however, found the universal in [[particular]] things, which he called the essence of things, while Plato finds that the universal exists apart from particular things, and is related to them as their [[prototype]] or [[exemplar]]. For Aristotle, therefore, philosophic method implies the ascent from the study of particular phenomena to the knowledge of essences, while for Plato philosophic method means the descent from a knowledge of universal [[Theory of Forms|Forms]] (or ideas) to a contemplation of particular imitations of these. For Aristotle, "form" still refers to the unconditional basis of [[phenomena]] but is "instantiated" in a particular substance (see ''[[Aristotle#Universals and particulars|Universals and particulars]]'', below). In a certain sense, Aristotle's method is both [[Inductive reasoning|inductive]] and [[Deductive reasoning|deductive]], while Plato's is essentially deductive from ''[[A priori and a posteriori (philosophy)|a priori]]'' principles.<ref>{{cite book
| last =Jori
| first =Alberto
| title =Aristotele
| publisher =Bruno Mondadori Editore
| year =2003
| location =Milano
}}</ref>

In Aristotle's terminology, "natural philosophy" is a branch of philosophy examining the phenomena of the natural world, and includes fields that would be regarded today as physics, biology and other natural sciences. In modern times, the scope of ''philosophy'' has become limited to more generic or abstract inquiries, such as ethics and metaphysics, in which logic plays a major role. Today's philosophy tends to exclude empirical study of the natural world by means of the [[scientific method]]. In contrast, Aristotle's philosophical endeavors encompassed virtually all facets of intellectual inquiry.

In the larger sense of the word, Aristotle makes philosophy coextensive with reasoning, which he also would describe as "science". Note, however, that his use of the term ''science'' carries a different meaning than that covered by the term "scientific method". For Aristotle, "all science (''dianoia'') is either practical, poetical or theoretical" (''Metaphysics'' 1025b25). By practical science, he means ethics and politics; by poetical science, he means the study of poetry and the other fine arts; by theoretical science, he means physics, [[mathematics]] and metaphysics.

If logic (or "analytics") is regarded as a study preliminary to philosophy, the divisions of Aristotelian philosophy would consist of: (1) [[Logic]]; (2) Theoretical Philosophy, including Metaphysics, Physics, Mathematics, (3) Practical Philosophy and (4) Poetical Philosophy.

In the period between his two stays in Athens, between his times at the Academy and the Lyceum, Aristotle conducted most of the scientific thinking and research for which he is renowned today. In fact, most of Aristotle's life was devoted to the study of the objects of natural science. Aristotle's metaphysics contains observations on the nature of numbers but he made no original contributions to mathematics. He did, however, perform [[original research]] in the natural sciences, e.g., botany, zoology, physics, astronomy, chemistry, meteorology, and several other sciences.

Aristotle's writings on science are largely qualitative, as opposed to quantitative. Beginning in the sixteenth century, scientists began applying mathematics to the physical sciences, and Aristotle's work in this area was deemed hopelessly inadequate. His failings were largely due to the absence of concepts like mass, velocity, force and temperature. He had a conception of speed and temperature, but no quantitative understanding of them, which was partly due to the absence of basic experimental devices, like clocks and thermometers.

His writings provide an account of many scientific observations, a mixture of precocious accuracy and curious errors. For example, in his ''[[History of Animals]]'' he claimed that human males have more teeth than females<ref>Aristotle, ''History of Animals'', 2.3.</ref> and in the ''[[Generation of Animals]]'' he said the female is as it were a deformed male.<ref>{{cite book|author=Aristotle|title=Generation of animals|first=1943|date=1953|publisher=Harvard University Press via Google Books|other=Arthur Leslie Peck}}</ref>

In a similar vein, [[John Philoponus]], and later [[Galileo Galilei|Galileo]], showed by simple experiments that Aristotle's theory that a heavier object falls faster than a lighter object is incorrect.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philoponus/#2.2 |title=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Plato.stanford.edu |date= |accessdate=2009-04-26}}</ref> On the other hand, Aristotle refuted [[Democritus]]'s claim that the [[Milky Way]] was made up of "those stars which are shaded by the earth from the sun's rays," pointing out (correctly, even if such reasoning was bound to be dismissed for a long time) that, given "current astronomical demonstrations" that "the size of the sun is greater than that of the earth and the distance of the stars from the earth many times greater than that of the sun, then...the sun shines on all the stars and the earth screens none of them."<ref>Aristotle, ''Meteorology'' 1.8, trans. E.W. Webster, rev. J. Barnes.</ref>

In places, Aristotle goes too far in deriving 'laws of the universe' from simple observation and over-stretched [[reason]]. Today's [[scientific method]] assumes that such thinking without sufficient facts is ineffective, and that discerning the validity of one's hypothesis requires far more rigorous experimentation than that which Aristotle used to support his laws.

Aristotle also had some scientific blind spots. He posited a geocentric cosmology that we may discern in selections of the ''Metaphysics'', which was widely accepted up until the 1500s. From the 3rd century to the 1500s, the dominant view held that the Earth was the center of the universe ([[geocentrism]]).

Since he was perhaps the philosopher most respected by European thinkers during and after the Renaissance, these thinkers often took Aristotle's erroneous positions as given, which held back science in this epoch.<ref>[[John Burnet (classicist)|Burent, John.]] 1928. ''Platonism'', Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 61, 103–104.</ref> However, Aristotle's scientific shortcomings should not mislead one into forgetting his great advances in the many scientific fields. For instance, he founded logic as a formal science and created foundations to biology that were not superseded for two millennia. Moreover, he introduced the fundamental notion that nature is composed of things that change and that studying such changes can provide useful knowledge of underlying constants.

==Physics==
{{Main|Physics (Aristotle)}}
===The five elements===
{{Main|Classical element}}
*[[Fire (classical element)|Fire]], which is hot and dry.
*[[Earth (classical element)|Earth]], which is cold and dry.
*[[Air (classical element)|Air]], which is hot and wet.
*[[Water (classical element)|Water]], which is cold and wet.
*[[Aether (classical element)|Quintessence]], which is the divine substance that makes up the [[Celestial spheres|heavenly spheres]] and heavenly bodies (stars and planets).

Each of the four earthly elements has its natural place; the earth at the centre of the universe, then water, then air, then fire. When they are out of their natural place they have natural motion, requiring no external cause, which is towards that place; so bodies sink in water, air bubbles rise up, rain falls, flame rises in air. The heavenly element has perpetual circular motion.

===Causality, The Four Causes===
{{Main|Four causes}}
*[[Material cause]] describes the material out of which something is composed. Thus the material cause of a table is wood, and the material cause of a car is rubber and steel. It is not about action. It does not mean one domino knocks over another domino.
*The [[formal cause]] tells us what a thing is, that any thing is determined by the definition, form, pattern, essence, whole, synthesis or archetype. It embraces the account of causes in terms of fundamental principles or general laws, as the whole (i.e., macrostructure) is the cause of its parts, a relationship known as the whole-part causation. Plainly put the formal cause according to which a statue or a domino, is made is the idea existing in the first place as exemplar in the mind of the sculptor, and in the second place as intrinsic, determining cause, embodied in the matter. Formal cause could only refer to the essential quality of causation. A more simple example of the formal cause is the blueprint or plan that one has before making or causing a human made object to exist.
*The [[efficient cause]] is that from which the change or the ending of the change first starts. It identifies 'what makes of what is made and what causes change of what is changed' and so suggests all sorts of agents, nonliving or living, acting as the sources of change or movement or rest. Representing the current understanding of causality as the relation of cause and effect, this covers the modern definitions of "cause" as either the agent or agency or particular events or states of affairs. More simply again that which immediately sets the thing in motion. So take the two dominos this time of equal weighting, the first is knocked over causing the second also to fall over. This is effectively efficient cause.
*The [[final cause]] is that for the sake of which a thing exists or is done, including both purposeful and instrumental actions and activities. The final cause or telos is the purpose or end that something is supposed to serve, or it is that from which and that to which the change is. This also covers modern ideas of mental causation involving such psychological causes as volition, need, motivation or motives, rational, irrational, ethical, and all that gives purpose to behavior.

Additionally, things can be causes of one another, causing each other reciprocally, as hard work causes fitness and vice versa, although not in the same way or function, the one is as the beginning of change, the other as the goal. (Thus Aristotle first suggested a reciprocal or circular causality as a relation of mutual dependence or influence of cause upon effect). Moreover, Aristotle indicated that the same thing can be the cause of contrary effects; its presence and absence may result in different outcomes. Simply it is the goal or purpose that brings about an event (not necessarily a mental goal). Taking our two dominos, it requires someone to intentionally knock the dominos over as they cannot fall themselves.

Aristotle marked two modes of causation: proper (prior) causation and accidental (chance) causation. All causes, proper and incidental, can be spoken as potential or as actual, particular or generic. The same language refers to the effects of causes, so that generic effects assigned to generic causes, particular effects to particular causes, operating causes to actual effects. Essentially, causality does not suggest a temporal relation between the cause and the effect.

All further investigations of causality will consist of imposing the favorite hierarchies on the order causes, such as final > efficient > material > formal ([[Thomas Aquinas]]), or of restricting all causality to the material and efficient causes or to the efficient causality (deterministic or chance) or just to regular sequences and correlations of natural phenomena (the natural sciences describing how things happen instead of explaining the whys and wherefores).

===Optics===
Aristotle held more accurate theories on some optical concepts than other philosophers of his day. The earliest known written evidence of a [[camera obscura]] can be found in Aristotle's documentation of such a device in 350 BC in ''Problemata''. Aristotle's apparatus contained a dark chamber that had a single small hole, or [[aperture]], to allow for sunlight to enter. Aristotle used the device to make observations of the sun and noted that no matter what shape the hole was, the sun would still be correctly displayed as a round object. In modern cameras, this is analogous to the [[Diaphragm (optics)|diaphragm]]. Aristotle also made the observation that when the distance between the tiny hole and the surface with the image increased, the image was amplified.<ref>{{cite web|author=Michael Lahanas |url=http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Optics.htm |title=Optics and ancient Greeks |publisher=Mlahanas.de |date= |accessdate=2009-04-26}}</ref>

===Chance and spontaneity===
Spontaneity and chance are causes of effects. Chance as an incidental cause lies in the realm of [[sumbebekos|accidental things]]. It is "from what is spontaneous" (but note that what is spontaneous does not come from chance). For a better understanding of Aristotle's conception of "chance" it might be better to think of "coincidence": Something takes place by chance if a person sets out with the intent of having one thing take place, but with the result of another thing (not intended) taking place. For example: A person seeks donations. That person may find another person willing to donate a substantial sum. However, if the person seeking the donations met the person donating, not for the purpose of collecting donations, but for some other purpose, Aristotle would call the collecting of the donation by that particular donator a result of chance. It must be unusual that something happens by chance. In other words, if something happens all or most of the time, we cannot say that it is by chance.

There is also more specific kind of chance, which Aristotle names "luck", that can only apply to human beings, since it is in the sphere of moral actions. According to Aristotle, luck must involve choice (and thus deliberation), and only humans are capable of deliberation and choice. "What is not capable of action cannot do anything by chance".<ref>Aristotle, ''Physics'' 2.6</ref>

==Metaphysics==
[[Image:Uni Freiburg - Philosophen 4.jpg|thumb|Statue of Aristotle (1915) by Cipri Adolf Bermann at the [[University of Freiburg]] [[Freiburg im Breisgau|im Breisgau]]]]
{{Main|Metaphysics (Aristotle)}}
Aristotle defines metaphysics as "the knowledge of [[immaterial]] being," or of "being in the highest degree of abstraction." He refers to metaphysics as "first philosophy", as well as "the theologic science."

===Substance, potentiality and actuality===
{{See also|Potentiality and actuality (Aristotle)}}
Aristotle examines the concept of substance and essence (''[[ousia]]'') in his ''Metaphysics'', Book VII and he concludes that a particular substance is a combination of both matter and form. As he proceeds to the book VIII, he concludes that the matter of the substance is the [[Material substratum|substratum]] or the stuff of which it is composed, ''e.g.'' the matter of the house are the bricks, stones, timbers etc., or whatever constitutes the ''potential'' house. While the form of the substance, is the ''actual'' house, namely 'covering for bodies and chattels' or any other [[Genus-differentia definition|differentia]] (see also [[predicables]]). The formula that gives the components is the account of the matter, and the formula that gives the differentia is the account of the form.<ref>Aristotle, ''Metaphysics'' VIII 1043a 10–30</ref>

With regard to the change (''[[kinesis]]'') and its causes now, as he defines in his [[Physics (Aristotle)|Physics]] and [[On Generation and Corruption]] 319b-320a, he distinguishes the coming to be from: 1) growth and diminution, which is change in quantity; 2) locomotion, which is change in space; and 3) alteration, which is change in quality.

The coming to be is a change where nothing persists of which the resultant is a property. In that particular change he introduces the concept of potentiality (''[[dynamis]]'') and actuality (''[[entelecheia]]'') in association with the matter and the form.

Referring to potentiality, this is what a thing is capable of doing, or being acted upon, if it is not prevented by something else. For example, the seed of a plant in the soil is potentially (''dynamei'') plant, and if is not prevented by something, it will become a plant. Potentially beings can either 'act' (''[[poiein]]'') or 'be acted upon' (''[[paschein]]''), which can be either innate or learned. For example, the eyes possess the potentiality of sight (innate – being acted upon), while the capability of playing the flute can be possessed by learning (exercise – acting).

Actuality is the fulfillment of the end of the potentiality. Because the end (''telos'') is the principle of every change, and for the sake of the end exists potentiality, therefore actuality is the end. Referring then to our previous example, we could say that actuality is when the seed of the plant becomes a plant.

" For that for the sake of which a thing is, is its principle, and the becoming is for the sake of the end; and the actuality is the end, and it is for the sake of this that the potentiality is acquired. For animals do not see in order that they may have sight, but they have sight that they may see."<ref>Aristotle, ''Metaphysics'' IX 1050a 5–10</ref>

In conclusion, the matter of the house is its potentiality and the form is its actuality. The [[formal cause]] (''aitia'') then of that change from potential to actual house, is the [[reason]] (''logos'') of the house builder and the [[final cause]] is the end, namely the house itself. Then Aristotle proceeds and concludes that the actuality is prior to potentiality in formula, in time and in substantiality.

With this [[definition]] of the particular substance (i.e., matter and form), Aristotle tries to solve the problem of the unity of the beings, ''e.g.'', what is that makes the man one? Since, according to Plato there are two Ideas: animal and biped, how then is man a unity? However, according to Aristotle, the potential being (matter) and the actual one (form) are one and the same thing.<ref>Aristotle, ''Metaphysics'' VIII 1045a-b</ref>

===Universals and particulars===
{{Main|Aristotle's theory of universals}}

Aristotle's predecessor, Plato, argued that all things have a universal form, which could be either a property, or a relation to other things. When we look at an apple, for example, we see an apple, and we can also analyze a form of an apple. In this distinction, there is a particular apple and a universal form of an apple. Moreover, we can place an apple next to a book, so that we can speak of both the book and apple as being next to each other.

Plato argued that there are some universal forms that are not a part of particular things. For example, it is possible that there is no particular good in existence, but "good" is still a proper universal form. [[Bertrand Russell]] is a contemporary philosopher that agreed with Plato on the existence of "uninstantiated universals".

Aristotle disagreed with Plato on this point, arguing that all universals are instantiated. Aristotle argued that there are no universals that are unattached to existing things. According to Aristotle, if a universal exists, either as a particular or a relation, then there must have been, must be currently, or must be in the future, something on which the universal can be predicated. Consequently, according to Aristotle, if it is not the case that some universal can be predicated to an object that exists at some period of time, then it does not exist.

In addition, Aristotle disagreed with Plato about the location of universals. As Plato spoke of the world of the forms, a location where all universal forms subsist, Aristotle maintained that universals exist within each thing on which each universal is predicated. So, according to Aristotle, the form of apple exists within each apple, rather than in the world of the forms.

==Biology and medicine==
In Aristotelian science, most especially in biology, things he saw himself have stood the test of time better than his retelling of the reports of others, which contain error and superstition. He dissected animals, but not humans and his ideas on how the human body works have been almost entirely superseded.

===Empirical research program===
[[Image:Octo2.jpg|thumb|Octopus swimming]]
[[Image:Torpedo fuscomaculata2.jpg|thumb|''Torpedo fuscomaculata'']]
Aristotle is the earliest natural historian whose work has survived in some detail. Aristotle certainly did research on the natural history of [[Lesbos]], and the surrounding seas and neighbouring areas. The works that reflect this research, such as ''[[History of Animals]]'', ''[[Generation of Animals]]'', and ''[[Parts of Animals]]'', contain some observations and interpretations, along with sundry myths and mistakes. The most striking passages are about the sea-life visible from observation on Lesbos and available from the catches of fishermen. His observations on [[catfish]], [[Electric ray|electric fish]] (''[[Torpedo (genus)|Torpedo]]'') and angler-fish are detailed, as is his writing on [[cephalopod]]s, namely, ''[[Octopus]]'', ''Sepia'' ([[cuttlefish]]) and the paper nautilus (''[[Argonauta argo]]''). His description of the [[hectocotylus|hectocotyl arm]] was about two thousand years ahead of its time, and widely disbelieved until its rediscovery in the nineteenth century. He separated the aquatic mammals from fish, and knew that sharks and rays were part of the group he called Selachē ([[selachians]]).<ref name="Singer, Charles 1931">Singer, Charles. ''A short history of biology''. Oxford 1931.</ref>

[[Image:Triakis semifasciata.jpg|thumb|Leopard shark]]

Another good example of his methods comes from the ''Generation of Animals'' in which Aristotle describes breaking open fertilized chicken eggs at intervals to observe when visible organs were generated.

He gave accurate descriptions of [[ruminant]]s' four-chambered fore-stomachs, and of the [[Ovoviviparity|ovoviviparous]] embryological development of the [[hound shark]] ''[[Mustelus mustelus]]''.<ref>Emily Kearns, "Animals, knowledge about," in ''[[Oxford Classical Dictionary]]'', 3rd ed., 1996, p. 92.</ref>

===Classification of living things===
Aristotle's classification of living things contains some elements which still existed in the nineteenth century. What the modern zoologist would call vertebrates and invertebrates, Aristotle called 'animals with blood' and 'animals without blood' (he was not to know that complex invertebrates do make use of [[haemoglobin]], but of a different kind from vertebrates). Animals with blood were divided into live-bearing (humans and mammals), and egg-bearing (birds and fish). Invertebrates ('animals without blood') are insects, crustacea (divided into non-shelled – cephalopods – and shelled) and testacea (molluscs). In some respects, this incomplete classification is better than that of [[Linnaeus]], who crowded the invertebrata together into two groups, Insecta and Vermes (worms).

For [[Charles Singer]], "Nothing is more remarkable than [Aristotle's] efforts to [exhibit] the relationships of living things as a ''scala naturae''"<ref name="Singer, Charles 1931"/> Aristotle's ''History of Animals'' classified organisms in relation to a hierarchical "[[Great chain of being|Ladder of Life]]" (''scala naturae''), placing them according to complexity of structure and function so that higher organisms showed greater vitality and ability to move.<ref>Aristotle, of course, is not responsible for the later use made of this idea by clerics.</ref>

Aristotle believed that intellectual purposes, i.e., [[formal cause]]s, guided all natural processes. Such a [[teleological]] view gave Aristotle cause to justify his observed data as an expression of formal design. Noting that "no animal has, at the same time, both tusks and horns," and "a single-hooved animal with two horns I have never seen," Aristotle suggested that Nature, giving no animal both horns and tusks, was staving off vanity, and giving creatures faculties only to such a degree as they are necessary. Noting that ruminants had a multiple stomachs and weak teeth, he supposed the first was to compensate for the latter, with Nature trying to preserve a type of balance.<ref>Mason, ''A History of the Sciences'' pp 43–44</ref>

In a similar fashion, Aristotle believed that creatures were arranged in a graded scale of perfection rising from plants on up to man, the ''scala naturae'' or [[Great Chain of Being]].<ref>Mayr, ''The Growth of Biological Thought'', pp 201–202; see also: Lovejoy, ''The Great Chain of Being''</ref> His system had eleven grades, arranged according "to the degree to which they are infected with potentiality", expressed in their form at birth. The highest animals laid warm and wet creatures alive, the lowest bore theirs cold, dry, and in thick eggs.

Aristotle also held that the level of a creature's perfection was reflected in its form, but not preordained by that form. Ideas like this, and his ideas about souls, are not regarded as science at all in modern times.

He placed emphasis on the type(s) of soul an organism possessed, asserting that plants possess a vegetative soul, responsible for reproduction and growth, animals a vegetative and a sensitive soul, responsible for mobility and sensation, and humans a vegetative, a sensitive, and a rational soul, capable of thought and reflection.<ref>Aristotle, ''De Anima'' II 3</ref>

Aristotle, in contrast to earlier philosophers, but in accordance with the Egyptians, placed the rational soul in the heart, rather than the brain.<ref>Mason, ''A History of the Sciences'' pp 45</ref> Notable is Aristotle's division of sensation and thought, which generally went against previous philosophers, with the exception of [[Alcmaeon of Croton|Alcmaeon]].<ref>Guthrie, ''A History of Greek Philosophy'' Vol. 1 pp. 348</ref>

===Successor: Theophrastus===
[[Image:161Theophrastus 161 frontespizio.jpg|thumb|Frontispiece to a 1644 version of the expanded and illustrated edition of ''[[Historia Plantarum]]'' (ca. 1200), which was originally written around 200 BC]]
{{Main|Theophrastus|Historia Plantarum}}
Aristotle's successor at the [[Lyceum]], [[Theophrastus]], wrote a series of books on botany—the ''[[Historia Plantarum|History of Plants]]''—which survived as the most important contribution of antiquity to botany, even into the [[Middle Ages]]. Many of Theophrastus' names survive into modern times, such as ''carpos'' for fruit, and ''pericarpion'' for seed vessel.

Rather than focus on formal causes, as Aristotle did, Theophrastus suggested a mechanistic scheme, drawing analogies between natural and artificial processes, and relying on Aristotle's concept of the [[efficient cause]]. Theophrastus also recognized the role of sex in the reproduction of some higher plants, though this last discovery was lost in later ages.<ref>Mayr, ''The Growth of Biological Thought'', pp 90–91; Mason, ''A History of the Sciences'', p 46</ref>

===Influence on Hellenistic medicine===
{{details|Medicine in ancient Greece}}
After Theophrastus, the Lyceum failed to produce any original work. Though interest in Aristotle's ideas survived, they were generally taken unquestioningly.<ref>Annas, ''Classical Greek Philosophy'' pp 252</ref> It is not until the age of [[Alexandria]] under the [[Ptolemaic dynasty|Ptolemies]] that advances in biology can be again found.

The first medical teacher at Alexandria [[Herophilos|Herophilus of Chalcedon]], corrected Aristotle, placing intelligence in the brain, and connected the nervous system to motion and sensation. Herophilus also distinguished between [[vein]]s and [[artery|arteries]], noting that the latter [[pulse]] while the former do not.<ref>Mason, ''A History of the Sciences'' pp 56</ref> Though a few ancient [[atomism|atomists]] such as [[Lucretius]] challenged the [[teleology|teleological]] viewpoint of Aristotelian ideas about life, teleology (and after the rise of Christianity, [[natural theology]]) would remain central to biological thought essentially until the 18th and 19th centuries. [[Ernst Mayr]] claimed that there was "nothing of any real consequence in biology after Lucretius and Galen until the Renaissance."<ref>Mayr, ''The Growth of Biological Thought'', pp 90–94; quotation from p 91</ref> Aristotle's ideas of natural history and medicine survived, but they were generally taken unquestioningly.<ref>Annas, ''Classical Greek Philosophy'', p 252</ref>

==Practical philosophy==
===Ethics===
{{Main|Aristotelian ethics}}

Aristotle considered ethics to be a practical rather than theoretical study, i.e., one aimed at doing good rather than knowing for its own sake. He wrote several treatises on ethics, including most notably, the ''[[Nichomachean Ethics]]''.

Aristotle taught that virtue has to do with the proper function (''ergon'') of a thing. An eye is only a good eye in so much as it can see, because the proper function of an eye is sight. Aristotle reasoned that humans must have a function specific to humans, and that this function must be an activity of the ''[[De Anima|psuchē]]'' (normally translated as ''soul'') in accordance with reason (''[[logos]]''). Aristotle identified such an optimum activity of the soul as the aim of all human deliberate action, ''[[eudaimonia]]'', generally translated as "happiness" or sometimes "well being". To have the potential of ever being happy in this way necessarily requires a good character (''ēthikē'' ''[[aretē]]''), often translated as moral (or ethical) virtue (or excellence).

Aristotle taught that to achieve a virtuous and potentially happy character requires a first stage of having the fortune to be habituated not deliberately, but by teachers, and experience, leading to a later stage in which one consciously choses to do the best things. When the best people come to live life this way their practical wisdom (''[[phronēsis]]'') and their intellect (''[[nous]]'') can develop with each other towards the highest possible ethical virtue, that of wisdom.

===Politics===
{{Main|Politics (Aristotle)}}
In addition to his works on ethics, which address the individual, Aristotle addressed the city in his work titled ''[[Politics (Aristotle)|Politics]]''. Aristotle's conception of the city is organic, and he is considered one of the first to conceive of the city in this manner.<ref>{{cite book | last =Ebenstein | first =Alan | coauthors =William Ebenstein | title =Introduction to Political Thinkers | publisher =Wadsworth Group | year =2002 | page =59}}</ref> Aristotle considered the city to be a natural community. Moreover, he considered the city to be prior to the [[family]] which in turn is prior to the individual, i.e., last in the order of becoming, but first in the order of being . He is also famous for his statement that "man is by nature a political animal." Aristotle conceived of politics as being like an [[organism]] rather than like a [[machine]], and as a collection of parts none of which can exist without the others.

It should be noted that the modern understanding of a political community is that of the state. However, the state was foreign to Aristotle. He referred to political communities as cities. Aristotle understood a city as a political "partnership" . Subsequently, a city is created not to avoid injustice or for economic stability , but rather to live a good life: "The political partnership must be regarded, therefore, as being for the sake of noble actions, not for the sake of living together" . This can be distinguished from the social contract theory which individuals leave the [[state of nature]] because of "fear of violent death" or its "inconveniences."<ref>For a different reading of social and economic processes in the ''Nicomacean Ethics'' and ''Politics'' see Polanyi, K. (1957) "Aristotle Discovers the Economy" in ''Primitive, Archaic and Modern Economies: Essays of Karl Polanyi'' ed. G. Dalton, Boston 1971, 78–115</ref>

===Rhetoric and poetics===
{{Main|Rhetoric (Aristotle)|Poetics (Aristotle)}}
Aristotle considered [[epic poetry]], tragedy, comedy, [[Dithyramb|dithyrambic poetry]] and music to be [[Mimesis|imitative]], each varying in imitation by medium, object, and manner.<ref>Aristotle, ''Poetics'' I 1447a</ref> For example, music imitates with the media of rhythm and harmony, whereas dance imitates with rhythm alone, and poetry with language. The forms also differ in their object of imitation. Comedy, for instance, is a dramatic imitation of men worse than average; whereas tragedy imitates men slightly better than average. Lastly, the forms differ in their manner of imitation – through narrative or character, through change or no change, and through drama or no drama.<ref>Aristotle, ''Poetics'' III</ref> Aristotle believed that imitation is natural to mankind and constitutes one of mankind's advantages over animals.<ref>Aristotle, ''Poetics'' IV</ref>

While it is believed that Aristotle's ''Poetics'' comprised two books – one on comedy and one on tragedy – only the portion that focuses on tragedy has survived. Aristotle taught that tragedy is composed of six elements: plot-structure, character, style, spectacle, and lyric poetry.<ref>Aristotle, ''Poetics'' VI</ref> The characters in a tragedy are merely a means of driving the story; and the plot, not the characters, is the chief focus of tragedy. Tragedy is the imitation of action arousing pity and fear, and is meant to effect the [[catharsis]] of those same emotions. Aristotle concludes ''Poetics'' with a discussion on which, if either, is superior: epic or tragic [[mimesis]]. He suggests that because tragedy possesses all the attributes of an epic, possibly possesses additional attributes such as spectacle and music, is more unified, and achieves the aim of its mimesis in shorter scope, it can be considered superior to epic.<ref>Aristotle, ''Poetics'' XXVI</ref>

Aristotle was a keen systematic collector of riddles, folklore, and proverbs; he and his school had a special interest in the riddles of the [[Pythia|Delphic Oracle]] and studied the fables of [[Aesop]].<ref>Temple, Olivia, and Temple, Robert (translators), [http://books.google.com/books?id=ZB-rVxPvtPEC&pg=PR3&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=0_0 The Complete Fables By Aesop] Penguin Classics, 1998. ISBN 0140446494 Cf. Introduction, pp. xi-xii.</ref>

==Modern scholarship==
{{See also|Corpus Aristotelicum#Overview of the extant works}}
Modern scholarship reveals that Aristotle's "lost" works stray considerably in characterization<ref name="Cornell" /> from the surviving Aristotelian corpus. Whereas the lost works appear to have been originally written with an intent for subsequent publication, the surviving works do not appear to have been so.<ref name="Cornell" /> Rather the surviving works mostly resemble lectures unintended for publication.<ref name="Cornell" /> The authenticity of a portion of the surviving works as originally Aristotelian is also today held suspect, with some books duplicating or summarizing each other, the authorship of one book questioned and another book considered to be unlikely Aristotle's at all.<ref name="Cornell" />

Some of the individual works within the corpus, including the ''[[Constitution of Athens]],'' are regarded by most scholars as products of Aristotle's "school," perhaps compiled under his direction or supervision. Others, such as ''On Colors,'' may have been produced by Aristotle's successors at the Lyceum, e.g., [[Theophrastus]] and [[Straton]]. Still others acquired Aristotle's name through similarities in doctrine or content, such as the ''De Plantis,'' possibly by [[Nicolaus of Damascus]]. Other works in the corpus include medieval [[palmistries]] and [[astrological]] and [[magical]] texts whose connections to Aristotle are purely fanciful and self-promotional.

==Loss of his works==
According to a distinction that originates with Aristotle himself, his writings are divisible into two groups: the "[[exoteric]]" and the "[[esoteric]]".<ref>[[Jonathan Barnes]], "Life and Work" in ''The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle'' (1995), p. 12; Aristotle himself: ''Nichomachean Ethics'' 1102a26–27. Aristotle himself never uses the term "esoteric" or "acroamatic". For other passages where Aristotle speaks of ''exōterikoi logoi'', see [[W. D. Ross]], ''Aristotle's Metaphysics'' (1953), vol. 2, pp. 408–410. Ross defends an interpretation according to which the phrase, at least in Aristotle's own works, usually refers generally to "discussions not peculiar to the [[Peripatetic school]]", rather than to specific works of Aristotle's own.</ref> Most scholars have understood this as a distinction between works Aristotle intended for the public (exoteric), and the more technical works (esoteric) intended for the narrower audience of Aristotle's students and other philosophers who were familiar with the jargon and issues typical of the Platonic and Aristotelian schools. Another common assumption is that none of the exoteric works is extant – that all of Aristotle's extant writings are of the esoteric kind. Current knowledge of what exactly the exoteric writings were like is scant and dubious, though many of them may have been in dialogue form. (''Fragments'' of some of Aristotle's dialogues have survived.) Perhaps it is to these that [[Cicero]] refers when he characterized Aristotle's writing style as "a river of gold";<ref>{{cite web
| last =Cicero
| first =Marcus Tullius
| title ="flumen orationis aureum fundens Aristoteles"
| work =Academica
| date =106BC-43BC
| url =http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/gutenberg/1/4/9/7/14970/14970-h/14970-h.htm#BkII_119
| accessdate =25 January 2007 |dateformat=dmy}}</ref> it is hard for many modern readers to accept that one could seriously so admire the style of those works currently available to us.<ref>Barnes, "Life and Work", p. 12.</ref> However, some modern scholars have warned that we cannot know for certain that Cicero's praise was reserved specifically for the exoteric works; a few modern scholars have actually admired the concise writing style found in Aristotle's extant works.<ref>Barnes, "Roman Aristotle", in Gregory Nagy, ''Greek Literature'', Routledge 2001, vol. 8, p. 174 n. 240.</ref>

One major question in the history of Aristotle's works, then, is how were the exoteric writings all lost, and how did the ones we now possess come to us?<ref>The definitive, English study of these questions is Barnes, "Roman Aristotle".</ref> The story of the original manuscripts of the esoteric treatises is described by [[Strabo]] in his ''Geography'' and [[Plutarch]] in his ''[[Parallel Lives]]''.<ref>"Sulla."</ref> The manuscripts were left from Aristotle to his successor [[Theophrastus]], who in turn willed them to [[Neleus of Scepsis]]. Neleus supposedly took the writings from Athens to [[Scepsis]], where his heirs let them languish in a cellar until the first century BC, when [[Apellicon of Teos]] discovered and purchased the manuscripts, bringing them back to Athens. According to the story, Apellicon tried to repair some of the damage that was done during the manuscripts' stay in the basement, introducing a number of errors into the text. When [[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]] occupied Athens in 86 BC, he carried off the library of Apellicon to [[Rome]], where they were first published in 60 BC by the grammarian [[Tyrannion of Amisus]] and then by philosopher [[Andronicus of Rhodes]].<ref>Ancient Rome: from the early Republic to the assassination of Julius Caesar‎ - Page 513, Matthew Dillon, Lynda Garland</ref><ref>The Encyclopedia Americana, Volume 22‎ - Page 131, Grolier Incorporated - Juvenile Nonfiction</ref>

[[Carnes Lord]] attributes the popular belief in this story to the fact that it provides "the most plausible explanation for the rapid eclipse of the Peripatetic school after the middle of the third century, and for the absence of widespread knowledge of the specialized treatises of Aristotle throughout the Hellenistic period, as well as for the sudden reappearance of a flourishing Aristotelianism during the first century B.C."<ref>{{cite book
|last=Lord
|first=Carnes
|title=Introduction to the Politics, by Aristotle
|publisher=[[Chicago University Press]]
|year=1984
|location=Chicago
|page=11
}}</ref> Lord voices a number of reservations concerning this story, however. First, the condition of the texts is far too good for them to have suffered considerable damage followed by Apellicon's inexpert attempt at repair. Second, there is "incontrovertible evidence," Lord says, that the treatises were in circulation during the time in which Strabo and Plutarch suggest they were confined within the cellar in Scepsis. Third, the definitive edition of Aristotle's texts seems to have been made in Athens some fifty years before Andronicus supposedly compiled his. And fourth, ancient library catalogues predating Andronicus' intervention list an Aristotelian corpus quite similar to the one we currently possess. Lord sees a number of post-Aristotelian interpolations in the ''[[Politics (Aristotle)|Politics]]'', for example, but is generally confident that the work has come down to us relatively intact.

As the influence of the ''falsafa''{{Clarify|date=August 2009}} grew in the West, in part due to [[Gerard of Cremona]]'s translations and the spread of [[Averroism]], the demand for Aristotle's works grew. [[William of Moerbeke]] translated a number of them into Latin. When [[Thomas Aquinas]] wrote his [[theology]], working from Moerbeke's translations, the demand for Aristotle's writings grew and the [[Greek language|Greek]] manuscripts returned to the West, stimulating a revival of Aristotelianism in [[Europe]], and ultimately revitalizing European thought through Muslim influence in Spain to fan the embers of the Renaissance.{{Citation needed|date=August 2009}}

==Legacy==

[[Image:Aristoteles Louvre.jpg|thumb|upright|Portrait of Aristoteles. Pentelic marble, copy of the Imperial Period (1st or 2nd century) of a lost [[bronze sculpture]] made by [[Lysippos]]]]
===Development of logic===
Twenty-three hundred years after his death, Aristotle remains one of the most influential people who ever lived. He was the founder of [[formal logic]], pioneered the study of [[zoology]], and left every future scientist and philosopher in his debt through his contributions to the scientific method.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/34560/Aristotle |title=Aristotle (Greek philosopher) - Britannica Online Encyclopedia |publisher=Britannica.com |date= |accessdate=2009-04-26}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last= Durant |first=Will |authorlink=Will Durant |title=[[The Story of Philosophy]] |year=1926 (2006) |publisher=Simon & Schuster, Inc. |location=United States |isbn=9780671739164 |page= 92}}</ref> Despite these accolades, many of Aristotle's errors held back science considerably. [[Bertrand Russell]] notes that "almost every serious intellectual advance has had to begin with an attack on some Aristotelian doctrine". Russell also refers to Aristotle's ethics as "repulsive", and calls his logic "as definitely antiquated as Ptolemaic astronomy". Russell notes that these errors make it difficult to do historical justice to Aristotle, until one remembers how large of an advance he made upon all of his predecessors.<ref name="philosophy1972"/> Of course, the problem of excessive devotion to Aristotle is more a problem of those later centuries and not of Aristotle himself.

===Later Greek philosophers===
The immediate influence of Aristotle's work was felt as the Lyceum grew into the [[Peripatetic school]]. Aristotle's notable students included [[Aristoxenus]], [[Dicaearchus]], [[Demetrius of Phalerum]], [[Eudemos of Rhodes]], [[Harpalus]], [[Hephaestion]], [[Meno]], [[Mnason of Phocis]], [[Nicomachus (son of Aristotle)|Nicomachus]], and [[Theophrastus]]. Aristotle's influence over Alexander the Great is seen in the latter's bringing with him on his expedition a host of zoologists, botanists, and researchers. He had also learned a great deal about Persian customs and traditions from his teacher. Although his respect for Aristotle was diminished as his travels made it clear that much of Aristotle's geography was clearly wrong, when the old philosopher released his works to the public, Alexander complained "Thou hast not done well to publish thy acroamatic doctrines; for in what shall I surpass other men if those doctrines wherein I have been trained are to be all men's common property?"<ref>Plutarch, ''Life of Alexander''</ref>

===Influence on Christian theologians===
Aristotle is referred to as "The Philosopher" by [[Scholasticism|Scholastic]] thinkers such as [[Thomas Aquinas]]. See ''[[Summa Theologica]]'', Part I, Question 3, etc. These thinkers blended Aristotelian philosophy with Christianity, bringing the thought of Ancient Greece into the Middle Ages. It required a repudiation of some Aristotelian principles for the sciences and the arts to free themselves for the discovery of modern scientific laws and empirical methods. The medieval English poet [[Geoffrey Chaucer|Chaucer]] describes his student as being happy by having
:                     '' at his beddes heed''
:''Twenty bookes, clad in blak or reed,''
:''Of aristotle and his philosophie,''<ref>Geoffrey Chaucer, ''[[The Canterbury Tales]]'', Prologue, lines 295–295</ref>
The Italian poet [[Dante Alighieri|Dante]] says of Aristotle in [[The Divine Comedy|the first circles of hell]],
:''I saw the Master there of those who know,''
:''Amid the philosophic family,''
:''By all admired, and by all reverenced;''
:''There Plato too I saw, and Socrates,''
:''Who stood beside him closer than the rest.''<ref>''vidi ’l maestro di color che sanno''
''seder tra filosofica famiglia.''
''Tutti lo miran, tutti onor li fanno'':
''quivi vid’ïo Socrate e Platone''
''che ’nnanzi a li altri più presso li stanno;'' Dante, ''L’Inferno'' (Hell), Canto IV. Lines 131–135</ref>

===Views on women===
{{Main|Aristotle's views on women}}
Aristotle believed that women are colder than men and thus a lower form of life.<ref>{{cite book|author=Lovejoy, Arthur|title=The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea|location=Cambridge|publisher=Harvard University Press|year=1964|isbn=0674361539}}</ref> His assumption carried forward unexamined to [[Galen]] and others for almost two thousand years until the sixteenth century.<ref name=Tuana>{{cite book|author=Tuana, Nancy|title=The Less Noble Sex: Scientific, Religious and Philosophical Conceptions of Women's Nature|date=1993|pages=21, 169|publisher=Indiana University Press|isbn=0-253-36098-6}}</ref> He also believed that females could not be fully human.<ref>Tuana, ''The Less Noble Sex'' p. 19, and footnote 8 p. 176</ref> His analysis of procreation is frequently criticized on the grounds that it presupposes an active, ensouling masculine element bringing life to an inert, passive, lumpen female element; it is on these grounds that Aristotle is considered by some feminist critics to have been a [[Misogyny|misogynist]].<ref>{{cite book
| last =Harding
| first =Sandra
| coauthors =Merrill B. Hintikka
| title =Discovering Reality,: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science
| publisher =Springer
| date =31 December 1999
| page =372
| url =http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/9027714967/
}}</ref>
On the other hand, Aristotle gave equal weight to women's happiness as he did to men's, and commented in his Rhetoric that a society cannot be happy unless women are happy too. In places like Sparta where the lot of women is bad, there can only be half-happiness in society.(see Rhetoric 1.5.6)

===Post-Enlightenment thinkers===
The German philosopher [[Friedrich Nietzsche]] has been said to have taken nearly all of his political philosophy from Aristotle.<ref>Durant, p. 86</ref> However implausible this is, it is certainly the case that Aristotle's rigid separation of action from production, and his justification of the subservience of slaves and others to the virtue – or ''arete'' – of a few justified the ideal of aristocracy. It is [[Martin Heidegger]], not Nietzsche, who elaborated a new interpretation of Aristotle, intended to warrant his deconstruction of scholastic and philosophical tradition. More recently, [[Alasdair MacIntyre]] has attempted to reform what he calls the Aristotelian tradition in a way that is anti-elitist and capable of disputing the claims of both liberals and Nietzscheans.<ref>Kelvin Knight, ''Aristotelian Philosophy'', Polity Press, 2007, ''passim''.</ref>

==List of works==
{{Main|Corpus Aristotelicum}}
The works of Aristotle that have survived from antiquity through Mediæval manuscript transmission are collected in the [[Corpus Aristotelicum]]. These texts, as opposed to Aristotle's lost works, are technical philosophical treatises from within Aristotle's school. Reference to them is made according to the organization of [[Immanuel Bekker]]'s nineteenth-century edition, which in turn is based on ancient classifications of these works.

==See also==
*[[Aristotelianism]]
*[[Aristotelian ethics]]
*[[Aristotelian physics]]
*[[Aristotelian view of God]]
*[[List of writers influenced by Aristotle]]
*[[Corpus Aristotelicum]]
*[[Conimbricenses]]
*[[Hylomorphism]]
*[[Philia]]
*[[Phronesis]]

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==Further reading==
The secondary literature on Aristotle is vast. The following references are only a small selection.
*[[J. L. Ackrill|Ackrill J. L.]] 2001. Essays on Plato and Aristotle, Oxford University Press, USA
*{{cite book|last=Adler |first=Mortimer J. | authorlink = Mortimer Adler |title=[[Aristotle for Everybody]] |publisher=Macmillan |location=New York |year=1978}} A popular exposition for the general reader.
*Bakalis Nikolaos. 2005. Handbook of Greek Philosophy: From Thales to the Stoics Analysis and Fragments, Trafford Publishing ISBN 1-4120-4843-5
*Barnes J. 1995. The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle, Cambridge University Press
*{{cite book |last=Bocheński |first=I. M. |title=Ancient Formal Logic |publisher=North-Holland Publishing Company |location=Amsterdam |year=1951}}
*Bolotin, David (1998). ''An Approach to Aristotle's Physics: With Particular Attention to the Role of His Manner of Writing.'' Albany: SUNY Press. A contribution to our understanding of how to read Aristotle's scientific works.
*[[Myles Burnyeat|Burnyeat, M. F.]] ''et al.'' 1979. Notes on Book Zeta of Aristotle's Metaphysics. Oxford: Sub-faculty of Philosophy
*Chappell, V. 1973. Aristotle's Conception of Matter, Journal of Philosophy 70: 679–696
*Code, Alan. 1995. Potentiality in Aristotle's Science and Metaphysics, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 76
*Frede, Michael. 1987. Essays in Ancient Philosophy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press
*Gill, Mary Louise. 1989. Aristotle on Substance: The Paradox of Unity. Princeton: Princeton University Press
* {{cite book |last=Guthrie |first=W. K. C. |title=A History of Greek Philosophy, Vol. 6 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |year=1981}}
*Halper, Edward C. (2007) ''One and Many in Aristotle's Metaphysics, Volume 1: Books Alpha — Delta'', Parmenides Publishing, ISBN 978-1-930972-21-6
*Halper, Edward C. (2005) ''One and Many in Aristotle's Metaphysics, Volume 2: The Central Books'', Parmenides Publishing, ISBN 978-1-930972-05-6
*Irwin, T. H. 1988. Aristotle's First Principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press
* [[Alberto Jori|Jori, Alberto]]. 2003. ''Aristotele'', Milano: Bruno Mondadori Editore (Prize 2003 of the "International Academy of the History of Science") ISBN 88-424-9737-1
*Knight, Kelvin. 2007. ''Aristotelian Philosophy: Ethics and Politics from Aristotle to MacIntyre'', Polity Press.
*Lewis, Frank A. 1991. ''Substance and Predication in Aristotle''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
*[[G. E. R. Lloyd|Lloyd, G. E. R.]] 1968. ''Aristotle: The Growth and Structure of his Thought''. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr., ISBN 0-521-09456-9.
*Lord, Carnes. 1984. Introduction to ''The Politics'', by Aristotle. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
*Loux, Michael J. 1991. Primary Ousia: An Essay on Aristotle's Metaphysics Ζ and Η. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press
*Owen, G. E. L. 1965c. The Platonism of Aristotle, Proceedings of the British Academy 50 125–150. Reprinted in J. Barnes, M. Schofield, and R. R. K. Sorabji (eds.), Articles on Aristotle, Vol 1. Science. London: Duckworth (1975). 14–34
*Pangle, Lorraine Smith (2003). ''Aristotle and the Philosophy of Friendship''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aristotle's conception of the deepest human relationship viewed in the light of the history of philosophic thought on friendship.
*Reeve, C. D. C. 2000. Substantial Knowledge: Aristotle's Metaphysics. Indianapolis: Hackett.
* {{cite book |last=Rose |first=Lynn E. | title=Aristotle's Syllogistic |publisher=Charles C Thomas Publisher |location=Springfield |year=1968}}
* {{cite book |last=Ross |first=Sir David | authorlink = W. D. Ross |title=Aristotle |publisher=Routledge | edition = 6th |location=London |year=1995}} A classic overview by one of Aristotle's most prominent English translators, in print since 1923.
*Scaltsas, T. 1994. Substances and Universals in Aristotle's Metaphysics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
*Strauss, Leo. "On Aristotle's ''Politics''" (1964), in ''The City and Man'', Chicago; Rand McNally.
* {{cite book |last=Swanson |first=Judith |title=The Public and the Private in Aristotle's Political Philosoophy |publisher=Cornell University Press |location=Ithaca |year=1992}}
* {{cite book |last=Taylor |first=Henry Osborn |url=http://web.archive.org/web/20060211201625/http://www.ancientlibrary.com/medicine/index.html |title=Greek Biology and Medicine |year=1922 |chapter=Chapter 3: Aristotle's Biology | chapterurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20060327222953/http://www.ancientlibrary.com/medicine/0051.html}}
* {{cite book |last=Veatch |first=Henry B. | authorlink = Henry Babcock Veatch |title=Aristotle: A Contemporary Appreciation |publisher=Indiana U. Press |location=Bloomington |year=1974}} For the general reader.
*Woods, M. J. 1991b. "Universals and Particular Forms in Aristotle's Metaphysics." Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy supplement. 41–56

==External links==
{{sisterlinks}}
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htm The Catholic Encyclopedia] (general article)
*[http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/a/aristotl.htm The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy] (general article)
*Scholarly surveys of focused topics from the ''[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'': articles on [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/ Aristotle], [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotelianism-renaissance/ Aristotle in the Renaissance], [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-biology/ Biology], [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/ Causality], [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-commentators/ Commentators on Aristotle], [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/ Ethics], [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/ Logic], [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-mathematics/ Mathematics], [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/ Metaphysics], [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-natphil/ Natural philosophy], [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-noncontradiction/ Non-contradiction], [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/ Political theory], [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-psychology/ Psychology], [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/ Rhetoric]

'''Collections of works'''
*[http://classics.mit.edu/Browse/index-Aristotle.html Massachusetts Institute of Technology] – primarily in English
*[http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/a#a2747 Project Gutenberg] – English texts
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/perscoll?.submit=Change&collection=Any&type=text&lang=Any&lookup=Aristotle Tufts University] – at the [[Perseus Project]], in both English and Greek
*[http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/ University of Adelaide] – primarily in English
*[http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/philosophes/Aristote/table.htm P. Remacle's collection] – [[Greek language|Greek]] with French translation
*The 11-volume 1837 Bekker edition of ''Aristotle's Works'' in Greek ([http://isnature.org/Files/Aristotle/ PDF]|[http://grid.ceth.rutgers.edu/ancient/greek/aristotle_greek/ DJVU])

'''Other'''
*{{worldcat id|id=lccn-n79-4182}}
*[http://www.concharto.org/search/eventsearch.htm?_tag=timeline%20of%20aristotle&_maptype=0 Timeline of Aristotle's life]
{{planetmath|id=5840|title=Aristotle}}

{{Philosophy topics}}
{{Logic}}
{{Ancient Greece topics}}
{{Peripatetics}}
{{metaphysics}}
{{Ethics}}
{{philosophy of science}}
{{philosophy of language}}

{{Persondata
|NAME=Aristotle
|ALTERNATIVE NAMES=Ἀριστοτέλης (Greek)
|SHORT DESCRIPTION=[[Greek philosophy|Greek]] [[philosopher]]
|DATE OF BIRTH=384 BC
|PLACE OF BIRTH=[[Stageira]]
|DATE OF DEATH=322 BC
|PLACE OF DEATH=[[Chalcis]]
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Aristotle}}
[[Category:384 BC births]]
[[Category:322 BC deaths]]
[[Category:Aristotle| ]]
[[Category:Academic philosophers]]
[[Category:Acting theorists]]
[[Category:Ancient Greek mathematicians]]
[[Category:Ancient Greek philosophers]]
[[Category:Ancient Greek physicists]]
[[Category:Ancient Greeks in Macedon]]
[[Category:Ancient Stagirites]]
[[Category:Attic Greek writers]]
[[Category:Beekeepers]]
[[Category:Cosmologists]]
[[Category:Defenders of slavery]]
[[Category:Empiricists]]
[[Category:Greek biologists]]
[[Category:Greek logicians]]
[[Category:History of logic]]
[[Category:History of philosophy]]
[[Category:History of science]]
[[Category:Humor researchers]]
[[Category:Meteorologists]]
[[Category:Philosophers of ancient Chalcidice]]
[[Category:Metic philosophers in Classical Athens]]
[[Category:Peripatetic philosophers]]
[[Category:Philosophers of language]]
[[Category:Philosophers of law]]
[[Category:Philosophers of mind]]
[[Category:Political philosophers]]
[[Category:Rhetoric theorists]]
[[Category:Philosophers and tutors of Alexander the Great]]

{{Link FA|fi}}
{{Link FA|de}}
{{Link FA|hu}}

[[af:Aristoteles]]
[[als:Aristoteles]]
[[ar:أرسطو]]
[[an:Aristótil]]
[[ast:Aristóteles]]
[[az:Aristotel]]
[[bn:এরিস্টটল]]
[[zh-min-nan:Aristotélēs]]
[[ba:Аристотель]]
[[be:Арыстоцель]]
[[be-x-old:Арыстотэль]]
[[bs:Aristotel]]
[[br:Aristoteles]]
[[bg:Аристотел]]
[[ca:Aristòtil]]
[[cv:Аристотель]]
[[ceb:Aristóteles]]
[[cs:Aristotelés]]
[[cy:Aristoteles]]
[[da:Aristoteles]]
[[de:Aristoteles]]
[[et:Aristoteles]]
[[el:Αριστοτέλης]]
[[es:Aristóteles]]
[[eo:Aristotelo]]
[[ext:Aristóteli]]
[[eu:Aristoteles]]
[[fa:ارسطو]]
[[hif:Aristotle]]
[[fo:Aristoteles]]
[[fr:Aristote]]
[[fy:Aristoteles]]
[[ga:Arastotail]]
[[gd:Aristotle]]
[[gl:Aristóteles]]
[[gan:亞里斯多德]]
[[gu:એરિસ્ટોટલ]]
[[ko:아리스토텔레스]]
[[hy:Արիստոտել]]
[[hi:अरस्तु]]
[[hr:Aristotel]]
[[io:Aristoteles]]
[[id:Aristoteles]]
[[ia:Aristotele]]
[[ie:Aristoteles]]
[[os:Аристотель]]
[[is:Aristóteles]]
[[it:Aristotele]]
[[he:אריסטו]]
[[jv:Aristoteles]]
[[kn:ಅರಿಸ್ಟಾಟಲ್‌]]
[[ka:არისტოტელე]]
[[kk:Аристотель]]
[[sw:Aristoteli]]
[[ht:Aristotle]]
[[ku:Arîstoteles]]
[[lad:Aristoteles]]
[[la:Aristoteles]]
[[lv:Aristotelis]]
[[lb:Aristoteles]]
[[lt:Aristotelis]]
[[jbo:aristoteles]]
[[hu:Arisztotelész]]
[[mk:Аристотел]]
[[ml:അരിസ്റ്റോട്ടില്‍]]
[[mt:Aristotile]]
[[mr:ऍरिस्टोटल]]
[[arz:اريسطو]]
[[ms:Aristotle]]
[[cdo:Ā-lī-sê̤ṳ-dŏ̤-dáik]]
[[mwl:Aristóteles]]
[[mn:Аристотель]]
[[my:အရစ္စတိုတယ်]]
[[nah:Aristotelēs]]
[[nl:Aristoteles]]
[[nds-nl:Aristoteles]]
[[new:एरिस्टोटल]]
[[ja:アリストテレス]]
[[no:Aristoteles]]
[[nn:Aristoteles]]
[[nov:Aristotéles]]
[[oc:Aristòtel]]
[[uz:Arastu]]
[[pag:Aristotle]]
[[pnb:ارسطو]]
[[ps:ارسطو]]
[[pms:Aristòtil]]
[[nds:Aristoteles]]
[[pl:Arystoteles]]
[[pt:Aristóteles]]
[[kaa:Aristotel]]
[[ro:Aristotel]]
[[qu:Aristotelis]]
[[ru:Аристотель]]
[[sah:Аристотель]]
[[sa:अरस्तु]]
[[sc:Aristotele]]
[[sco:Aristotle]]
[[sq:Aristoteli]]
[[scn:Aristòtili]]
[[simple:Aristotle]]
[[sk:Aristoteles]]
[[sl:Aristotel]]
[[szl:Arystoteles]]
[[sr:Аристотел]]
[[sh:Aristotel]]
[[fi:Aristoteles]]
[[sv:Aristoteles]]
[[tl:Aristoteles]]
[[ta:அரிசுட்டாட்டில்]]
[[kab:Aristot]]
[[tt:Аристотель]]
[[te:అరిస్టాటిల్]]
[[th:อริสโตเติล]]
[[tg:Арасту]]
[[tr:Aristoteles]]
[[uk:Аристотель]]
[[ur:ارسطو]]
[[vi:Aristoteles]]
[[vo:Aristoteles]]
[[fiu-vro:Aristoteles]]
[[war:Aristóteles]]
[[yi:אריסטו]]
[[yo:Aristotulu]]
[[zh-yue:阿里士多德]]
[[diq:Aristoteles]]
[[bat-smg:Aristuotelis]]
[[zh:亚里士多德]]