The more I read about the Old West the more conflicted I become. Was Doc Holliday a man killer? Was Wyatt Earp to blame for the shootout at the O. K. Corral ? Was Ike Clanton the town drunk?
There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus on these question or many other similar questions.
So, how does one decide who to believe when reading and researching events of the Old West? First, look to see if the author has listed his/her sources. If there are no sources listed I consider the comment hearsay. If there are sources listed I try to view the source myself to make sure the author correctly and or completely quoted the source. I also look for phrases like, I believe or it appears or it seems. I recognize such phrases as the authors opinion. When reading what is being advertised as historical or factual events the last thing I want to read is an authors opinion. Just give me the facts and nothing more I'll come to my own conclusions. Eventually I may sense the authors slant and when that happens I consider the book nothing more then fiction.
Without naming names I can tell you how particular authors lean when it comes to certain figures from the Old West. You may be thinking to yourself right now of a certain author who you have read enough of his work that you know his slant. These guys aren't writing from a historical perspective but from an agenda and their goal is to muddy the waters and create confusion.
Even if you are able to get your hands on documents from the time period in question one must take into consideration that authors motivations. Remember, back then, just like today, people have political affiliations and write in that direction.
