Talk:Gunfight at the O.K. Corral

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Arizona, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arizona.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as B-importance on the importance scale.

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. Sbharris 23:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] 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." Sbharris 04:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.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. SBHarris 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

[edit] 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. Sbharris 00:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "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." 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. 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.SBHarris 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." Cteght 22:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. 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. 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 Cowboys 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. Chuck 22:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of Doc Holliday

On 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. Steve 14:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. -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. SBHarris 17:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. --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~~

[edit] Lord and Williams?

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

[edit] 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! 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. SBHarris 19:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 [1]. 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. SBHarris 01:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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:

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)

With this in the edit summary:

Difficult for bullet to go from thumb to outside of arm with arm in any "up" position. This becomes important to final Spicer verdict)

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. 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.SBHarris 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 unsigned comment was added by Robotsintrouble (talk • 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:

    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."

    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. SBHarris 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.

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. 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. SBHarris 05:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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? Arker 21:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a Wes Fuller and a Billy Claiborne. Who exactly are you talking about? SBHarris 06:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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) [2]. 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. SBHarris 06:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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". 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. SBHarris 05:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 66.182.95.86 07:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

We have no evidence that Doc was drunk. SBHarris 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. SBHarris 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 unsigned comment added by Doktorschley (talk • contribs) 01:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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. SBHarris 05:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 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 [citation needed] to it and hopefully someone with the material on hand will quickly add an appropriate reference. 69.108.230.116 12:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Well here's nice story on Billy, some of your answers should be answered:
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! 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. --ST47Talk·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. --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 unsigned comment added by Doktorschley (talk • contribs) 01:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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. -CaptainJae 12:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)