text:
Winnipeg Blue Bombers

The Winnipeg Blue Bombers are a professional Canadian football team based in Winnipeg, Manitoba. The Blue Bombers compete in the Canadian Football League (CFL) as a member club of the league's West division. They play their home games at Princess Auto Stadium.

The Blue Bombers were founded in 1930 as the Winnipeg Rugby Football Club, later changed to the Winnipeg Football Club, which is the organization's legal name. The Blue Bombers are one of three community owned teams, without shareholders, in the CFL.

Since their establishment, the Blue Bombers have won the Grey Cup championship 12 times, most recently in 2021 CFL season when they defeated the Hamilton Tiger-Cats 33–25 in the 108th Grey Cup. The team holds the record for most Grey Cup appearances of any team (28) and Winnipeg were the first club in Western Canada to win a championship.

Team facts

 * Founded: 1930
 * Formerly known as: Winnipegs 1930–1935
 * Helmet design: Gold background, with a white "W" and blue trim
 * Uniform colours: Blue, gold with white accents
 * Past uniform colours: Green and white 1930 to 1932
 * Nicknames: Bombers, Blue and Gold, Big Blue
 * Mascots: Buzz and Boomer
 * Fight Song: "Bombers Victory March" Credited to T.H Guild & J. Guild
 * Stadium: Osborne Stadium (1935–1952), Canad Inns Stadium (1953–2012, known as Winnipeg Stadium prior to 2000), Princess Auto Stadium (2013–present, known as Investors Group Field from 2013–19 and as IG Field from 2019–24)
 * Local radio: 680 CJOB
 *  Main rivals: Saskatchewan Roughriders (see Labour Day Classic and Banjo Bowl), Hamilton Tiger-Cats (a team they have played on numerous occasions for the Grey Cup).
 * Western Division 1st place: 17—1935, 1936, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1947, 1950, 1952, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1972, 2021, 2022, 2023
 * East Division 1st Place: 7—1987, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994, 2001, 2011
 * Western Division championships: 21—1935, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1941, 1945, 1946, 1947, 1950, 1953, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1961, 1962, 1965, 1984, 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023
 * Eastern Division championships: 7 — 1988, 1990, 1992, 1993, 2001, 2007, 2011
 * Grey Cup Championships: 12—1935, 1939, 1941, 1958, 1959, 1961, 1962, 1984, 1988, 1990, 2019, 2021
 * Division history: Western Football Conference (1961–1980), West Division (1981–1986), East Division (1987–1994), North Division (1995), West Division (1996), East Division (1997–2001), West Division (2002–2005), East Division (2006–2013), West Division (2014–present)
 * 2023 regular season record: 14 wins, 4 losses

Beginnings
The first football team in Winnipeg was formed in 1879, named the Winnipeg Rugby Football Club. On June 10, 1930, the Winnipeg Tammany Tigers, who were in financial difficulty, disbanded and merged with some of the other teams in the city to create the new Winnipeg Rugby Football Club, known unofficially and simply as the Winnipegs or even the even shorter  'Pegs,  adopting the colours green and white. The Winnipegs played their first game against St.John's Rugby Football Club on June 13, 1930, losing 7–3. In 1932, the Winnipegs and St. John's joined and adopted blue and gold as their colours. In 1933 they also absorbed the Garrison Rugby Club football team. The Winnipegs played in the Manitoba Rugby Football Union from 1930 to 1935.

First Grey Cup Victory
By 1935 Western teams had been to the Grey Cup game 10 times, but they had always gone home empty-handed. The East was much more powerful, outscoring their opponents 236–29 through those ten games. On December 7, 1935, the Winnipegs got their first trip, to the 23rd Grey Cup. The game was being held in Hamilton, with the home-town Tigers their opponents. It was a rainy day at Hamilton Amateur Athletic Association Grounds, with 6,405 fans in attendance.

Winnipeg was up 5–0 before many fans had even reached their seats. Hamilton player Jack Craig let the opening kickoff bounce to the turf, and a Winnipeg player promptly recovered the ball at the Hamilton 15-yard line. Winnipeg scored quickly on a Bob Fritz pass to Bud Marquardt to get the early lead. After scoring another touchdown on a Greg Kabat catch in the endzone, Winnipeg went into halftime up 12–4. Their lead was soon cut to three points in the second half after Hamilton scored a touchdown of their own, helped by a blocked kick that placed the ball on the Winnipeg 15-yard line.

Then, after a Hamilton rouge, Winnipeg's Fritz Hanson caught a punt, and after a few moves and a few missed tackles, was on his way to a 78-yard touchdown return, making the score 18–10. Hamilton forced a safety to bring themselves within six points, but failed to cross the goal-line, getting as far as the Winnipeg four-yard line. The final score was Winnipeg 18, Hamilton 12.

With that, Winnipeg had become the first team from Western Canada to win the Grey Cup.

Early days of glory
After the Grey Cup victory in 1935, The Winnipeg Tribune sports writer Vince Leah called the team the "Blue Bombers of Western football". Until then, the team had no official nickname, but they quickly began using "Winnipeg Blue Bombers". Journalist Jim Coleman wrote that the name came at a time when boxer Joe Louis had international success with his similar nickname, the Brown Bomber.

In 1935, the Blue Bombers, Calgary Bronks, and Regina Roughriders formed the Western Interprovincial Football Union at the highest level of play in Western Canada. Between 1936 and 1949, the Bombers won the right to compete for the Grey Cup in 1937, 1938, 1939, 1941, 1942, 1943, and 1945. Of these appearances, Winnipeg won only twice: in 1939 over the Ottawa Rough Riders, and again in their 1941 rematch.

Jack Jacobs, known as Indian Jack, was a Creek quarterback from Oklahoma. He came to the Bombers in 1950 after a successful career in the United States. He led the Bombers to two Grey Cup appearances, losing both. His exciting style of play and extreme talent increased ticket sales and overall awareness and popularity of the club. The revenue the Bombers were getting from their newfound popularity was enough to convince them to move from the small, outdated Osborne Stadium to the new Winnipeg Stadium (later known as Canad Inns Stadium). ). Jacobs was so well-liked that fans even referred to the new stadium as "The House that Jack Built". Jacobs retired in 1954 to become a talent scout for the team.

In 1951, Jack Jacobs became the first professional football quarterback to throw for over 3,000 yards in a season, with 3,248. That year, he was also the first professional football quarterback to throw for at least 30 touchdowns, with 33. The next year he bested that mark with 34.

Bud Grant era
Bud Grant joined the team in 1953 after a two-year stint with the Philadelphia Eagles, as one of numerous NFL players lured to Canada during the first part of the decade for then-better salaries. After a four-year career as a receiver (classified only as "offensive end" at the time), he accepted the position of head coach of the Bombers in 1957. Grant went on to coach the team for the next 10 years before becoming the head coach of the NFL's Minnesota Vikings.

In 1956, Blue Bombers fans named Labatt's Pilsener Lager, which had a blue label, Labatt Blue, in honour of their team. In 1958, the Blue Bombers joined the newly formed Canadian Football League, and have competed there since.

During Grant's tenure as head coach, the Bombers welcomed the likes of Ken Ploen, Leo Lewis, Ernie Pitts, and Ed Kotowich to the team. The Bombers competed in six Grey Cup games during Grant's tenure, winning four (1958, 1959, 1961, and 1962). In 1961, the Bombers won 21–14 over the Hamilton Tiger-Cats in the first Grey Cup game to go into overtime. The Bombers and Ticats met again in the 1962 Grey Cup, with the game being postponed with 9:29 left in the fourth quarter due to zero visibility in the famous "Fog Bowl". The game resumed the next morning, with the Bombers winning 28–27.

During the second half of the 1960s, the Bombers' domination gave way to lean years, with four seasons of double digits in the loss column. The team bounced back in the early 1970s with the likes of quarterback Don Jonas, running-back Mack Herron, and wide receivers Jim Thorpe and Bob LaRose. The team finished first in the Western Conference in 1972, the first time it had done so since 1962. However, the Bombers came up short in the Western final against the Saskatchewan Roughriders, squandering a 13-point third-quarter lead en route to a heartbreaking 27–24 loss, with Saskatchewan kicker Jack Abendschan scoring on a short field goal attempt on the last play of the game to send the 'Riders to the 1972 Grey Cup against Hamilton. The 1972 season was also the last time the team finished first in the West until the 2021 season. The team struggled for a few more seasons under coaches Jim Spavital and Bud Riley before Ray Jauch was brought in as head coach before the 1978 season. Under Jauch, the Bombers became one of the stronger teams in the West, but usually behind Jauch's former team, the powerhouse Edmonton Eskimos coached by Hugh Campbell.

In 1981, wide receiver Eugene Goodlow became the first CFL player to reach the century mark in receptions in a season. Goodlow caught 100 passes for 1,494 yards and 14 touchdowns. That season, the Bombers became one of the first teams to have three receivers with at least 1,000 yards in a season: Goodlow with 1,494, Joe Poplawski with 1,271, and Rick House with 1,102.

Cal Murphy era

In 1983, Cal Murphy was hired to be the new head coach of the Blue Bombers. Almost immediately, Murphy set the tone for his career with the Bombers by trading popular QB Dieter Brock at midseason (because of Brock's desire to play in the USFL) to Hamilton in exchange for QB Tom Clements. Trading Brock turned out to be a wise decision; Clements led the Bombers to a crushing victory in the 1984 Grey Cup, coincidentally over the Brock-led Tiger-Cats. This was Winnipeg's first Grey Cup in 22 years, and also their last win and appearance in the championship game as the Western representative until their victory in the 107th Grey Cup. Murphy was named coach of the year in both 1983 and 1984.

In 1987, Murphy stepped down as head coach to become general manager, and assistant coach Mike Riley (son of former Winnipeg coach Bud Riley) took over head-coaching duties. Then, just prior to the start of the 1987 season, the Montreal Alouettes folded. With the East Division suddenly down to three teams compared to five in the West, the league moved the Blue Bombers (who had been the easternmost team in the West) into the East Division, to balance the league.

Under Riley, the Blue Bombers quickly made an impact in the East, winning Grey Cups over their former division rivals B.C. and Edmonton in 1988 and 1990 respectively, and garnering Riley the coach of the year award in both championship seasons. After Riley left, Darryl Rogers and Urban Bowman each led the team for a season until 1993, when Cal Murphy took over head-coaching duties again. Murphy went on to lead the team to a total of five Grey Cup appearances, winning as a coach in 1984, and as GM in 1988 and 1990. He left the club after the 1996 season, having spent 14 years with the team. Later, he coached the Saskatchewan Roughriders in 1999.

Winnipeg played a total of eight consecutive seasons in the East before moving to the newly created North Division in 1995 during the CFL's expansion to the United States. When the CFL's American experiment ended a year later, and the Alouettes were re-established, the Blue Bombers returned to the re-constituted West Division. This arrangement also lasted only one season, as Winnipeg returned to the East again for the 1997 season after the Ottawa Rough Riders ceased operations.

Milt Stegall era
In November 1996, Cal Murphy left the Blue Bombers' organization after 14 years. This was partly due to a 68–7 playoff thumping by the Edmonton Eskimos, and partly because the team had not had a winning record the previous two years, winning only seven games in 1995, and nine in 1996.

Jeff Reinebold was hired to replace Murphy as the team coach, and despite a huge amount of hype, and championship promises going into the 1997 season, he proved to be one of the least successful head coaches in team history. The Bombers won four games in 1997, and just three in 1998.

The few notable highlights from that era include:
 * Milt Stegall became an all-star in 1997, his first full year with the team, and scored what seemed like at least one long touchdown in every game.
 * A 43–12 drubbing of the eventual Western Division champion Saskatchewan Roughriders in the 1997 Labour Day Classic
 * In a dramatic win over the Roughriders at home in 1998, forgotten backup QB Troy Kopp led the second-half over-20-point comeback. This was the "Guaranteed Win day" that the club had been promoting all week, as well as the first win of the season, in week 11.

The few memorable players on the team during that time included linebacker K.D. Williams, safety Tom Europe, running back/returner Eric Blount, and Milt Stegall.

Milt Stegall joined the Bombers in 1995 after a three-year career returning kicks and seeing spot duty at receiver with the Cincinnati Bengals. He played in the Bombers' final six games of the 1995 season, racking up 469 receiving yards. In 1997, Stegall set a new league record that still stands today for average gain per reception with 26.5 yards on 61 catches for 1616 yards, including 14 touchdowns. Following a brief return to the NFL, that saw him on the verge of making the New Orleans Saints if not for a serious knee injury at the end of training camp, Stegall remained the team's primary receiver.

In 1999, the Bombers acquired Khari Jones from the BC Lions. Together, Stegall and Jones brought the Bombers back to prominence, with Jones being the CFL's most outstanding player in 2001, and Stegall getting the honour in 2002. During the 2006 Grey Cup, Khari Jones and Milt Stegall were voted and honoured as the best QB/WR combo in CFL history. Charles Roberts joined them in 2001, a year which the Bombers went to the Grey Cup, which they eventually lost to the Calgary Stampeders. The following season, Winnipeg returned to the West Division following the establishment of the Ottawa Renegades. The team was a powerhouse during this period, being one of the best teams in the league from 2001 until 2003.

Midway through the 2004 season, Jones was traded to the Calgary Stampeders, with backup QB Kevin Glenn taking over the starting duties. Glenn led the team to two mediocre seasons after the trade. Prior to the 2006 season, the Renegades suspended operations and Winnipeg once again returned to the East Division.

With the offensive core of Stegall and Roberts still intact, Glenn led the Bombers back to respectability in 2006. The season included many highlights, but none as exciting at what is simply known as "The Play". On July 20, 2006, trailing the Edmonton Eskimos on the road 22–19, and facing third and long on their own 10-yard line with 4 seconds left in the game, Milt Stegall caught a 100-yard TD pass from Kevin Glenn as time expired to win the game 25–22. It is considered by many as the greatest play in CFL history. Aided by the "miracle" catch, the Bombers ended up making their first playoff appearance in two years. Despite losing in the first round, optimism going into the 2007 was higher than ever.

The 2007 CFL season was in some ways the year of Milt Stegall: he broke the career CFL touchdown record and fell just short of overtaking the career receiving yards record held by Allen Pitts. The 2007 season was rumoured to be Stegall's last, as he was 37 years old and had been contemplating retirement for the previous two seasons.

The 2007 Grey Cup game was played between the Winnipeg Blue Bombers and the Saskatchewan Roughriders, the first time the two teams met for the championship. Winnipeg was defeated by the Saskatchewan Roughriders 23–19 in the Rogers Centre in Toronto. During the East division final win over the Toronto Argonauts, quarterback Kevin Glenn broke his arm and Winnipeg was left with an inexperienced rookie to take his place for the championship game. Back-up quarterback Ryan Dinwiddie — in his first CFL start — did not fare well and threw one touchdown pass, fumbled once and threw three interceptions to Saskatchewan cornerback James Johnson. Johnson was later declared the game MVP.

One of the picks was shown in the instant replay to have hit the ground before it was caught. Despite his rookie mistakes, Dinwiddie showed promise going into the 2008 season. He was released prior to the 2009 season.

It was announced on January 31, 2008, that Milt Stegall would return for one more year for the 2008 season. He signed a one-year contract for $200,000 on the basis of the fact his wife wanted to have their next child in Winnipeg, and the fact that they were in line to be a contender for the Grey Cup. He took a $50,000 pay cut, and started the season 159 yards away from breaking Allen Pitts' all-time receiving yards record.

Other returning players who were free agents going into the 2008 season, including star DE Tom Canada, OL's Dan Goodspeed, and Matt Sheridan, signed for less money from the Bombers than other teams were prepared to pay them, in hopes of a Grey Cup run in '08. Tom Canada, in particular, reportedly turned down a much higher contract offer from the Montreal Alouettes, to come back to Winnipeg.

The Bombers made a surprise trade when they sent all-star running back Charles Roberts to B.C. for Joe Smith on September 2, 2008. Then on September 8, 2008, they traded all-star DE Tom Canada to Hamilton for Zeke Moreno. But on September 9, 2008, the trade was cancelled because Canada was injured and could not play for at least 10 weeks. So, since they could not trade Canada, they sent over Corey Mace and a first-round pick for Moreno.

Following the 2008 season in which the Bombers were defeated in the division semifinals, Doug Berry (the head coach) was fired. Mike Kelly was chosen to replace him. At the end of the Cal Murphy era, Mike Kelly was the offensive coordinator and was passed over for the top job in favour of Jeff Reinebold. With Milt Stegall's early-season knee surgery and drop in production, it was once again speculated that Milt Stegall would retire.

The departure of Brendan Taman on January 13, 2009, was another sign that this era was coming to an end and a new one was beginning. On February 18, 2009, Milt Stegall did retire from the CFL which formally ended the Milt Stegall era.

The Revolving Door era
The return of Mike Kelly opened a new Cal Murphy era, and the board hoped to bring back Murphy's success. However, Kelly was fired by the Winnipeg Blue Bombers Board of Directors on December 17, 2009, after one year of employment.

Paul LaPolice was introduced as the 28th head coach in Blue Bombers history on February 5, 2010. The new coach emphasized the idea of "team" and playing for the uniform. He also made it a point to talk about fixing problems rather than making excuses. The new paradigm was tested in the 2010 season in which the team finished 4–14 and missed the playoffs for the second straight year. Nine of those games were lost by four points or fewer, while 10 were lost by a touchdown or less.

The 2011 season featured an almost completely unchanged team (save for a few losses to the NFL and a few gains from the draft). The Blue Bombers reversed their standings from last place in the east in 2010 to finishing in first place in the East division with a 10–8 record. The team success hinged on a league-leading defence dubbed Swaggerville, which led them to their first division title in 10 years. The team advanced to the 99th Grey Cup after defeating Hamilton in the Eastern Final. However, they lost to the favoured BC Lions by a score of 34–23.

On August 9, 2013, the Winnipeg Blue Bombers announced that CEO Garth Buchko stepped down and General Manager Joe Mack was fired.

The CFL returned to Ottawa in 2014 with the establishment of the Redblacks. Initially, the league planned to keep Winnipeg in the East, at least for the short term, due in part to the ongoing competitive dominance of the West. Despite this, Blue Bombers management lobbied heavily to return to the West Division immediately (for historical reasons), and eventually the league relented. The Blue Bombers finished last place in their first season back in the West, with a 7–11 record.

O'Shea and the end of the drought
After being named the acting CEO in August 2013 Wade Miller was announced as the CEO and president of the club on November 12, 2013. The shake-up of the top brass in 2013 also led to Kyle Walters having to take over the acting GM duties, which were made officially his on November 26, when he was named the general manager.

Mike O'Shea was hired by the Winnipeg Blue Bombers on December 4, 2013, to become the team's 30th head coach. O'Shea helped the team return to the playoffs when he made the switch to Matt Nichols as the starting quarterback. The team still failed to advance to a Grey Cup despite the rise in success. During the 2019 season, an injury to Matt Nichols and a suspension to Andrew Harris seemed to end their season. The Bombers traded for Zach Collaros right before the trade deadline, who joined his third team for the year. Collaros formed a quarterback pairing with Chris Streveler. The two quarterbacks' play, behind the dominant performance of the defence saw the team win their 11th championship at the 107th Grey Cup, breaking a 28-year drought. Hometown player Harris became the first player ever to win the Grey Cup MVP and Grey Cup Most Valuable Canadian.

After the CFL cancelled its 2020 season, the league returned in 2021, and the Bombers finished atop the West with an 11–3 record, claiming their first first-place West Division finish since 1972. The team outlasted their arch-rival Saskatchewan Roughriders in the West Final 21–17, setting up a rematch of the 2019 Grey Cup game against the Hamilton Tiger-Cats. The Bombers won the 2021 Grey Cup in overtime 33–25, the first back-to-back Grey Cup champions since the Montreal Alouettes won the 97th and 98th Grey Cup, and the first West Division team to win them since the Edmonton Eskimos' 1978–1982 run of five straight. In 2022, the team finished atop the West again with a 15–3 record, reaching the Grey Cup Final for the third straight season, but the team's hopes of a three-peat were dashed on a last-minute blocked field goal at the hands of the Toronto Argonauts, 24–23. They reached the Grey Cup yet again in 2023, winning the West Division with a 14–4 record, but this time, they were upset by the Alouettes courtesy of a touchdown with 13 seconds left in the game to make it 28–24.

Head coaches

 * Jack Millidge (1930)
 * Pete Barnes (1931)
 * Carl Cronin (1932–1933)
 * Greg Kabat (1934)
 * Bob Fritz (1935–1937)
 * Reg Threlfall (1938–1944)
 * Bert Warwick (1945)
 * Jack West (1946–1948)
 * Frank Larson (1949–1950)
 * George Trafton (1951–1953)
 * Allie Sherman (1954–1956)
 * Bud Grant (1957–1966)
 * Joe Zaleski (1967–1969)
 * Jim Spavital (1970–1973)
 * Bud Riley (1974–1977)
 * Ray Jauch (1978–1982)
 * Cal Murphy (1983–1986, 1993–1996)
 * Mike Riley (1987–1990)
 * Darryl Rogers (1991)
 * Urban Bowman (1992)
 * Jeff Reinebold (1997–1998)
 * Dave Ritchie (1999–2004)
 * Jim Daley (2004–2005)
 * Doug Berry (2006–2008)
 * Mike Kelly (2009)
 * Paul LaPolice (2010–2012)
 * Tim Burke (2012–2013)
 * Mike O'Shea (2014–Present)

General managers

 * Joe Ryan (1931–1941)
 * Lou Adelman (1945)
 * Gord Bieber (1946–1947)
 * Bill Boivin (1955–1957)
 * Jim Ausley (1958–1964)
 * Bud Grant (1965–1966)
 * Joe Zaleski (1967)
 * Earl Lunsford (1968–1982)
 * Paul Robson (1983–1986)
 * Cal Murphy (1987–1996)
 * Jeff Reinebold (1997–1998)
 * Ken Bishop (1999)
 * Lyle Bauer (2000–2001)
 * Dave Ritchie (2002–2003)
 * Brendan Taman (2004–2008)
 * Mike Kelly (2009)
 * Joe Mack (2010–2013)
 * Kyle Walters (2013–present)

Stadium
During the Blue Bombers' early years, the team played at Osborne Stadium, a small stadium near the Manitoba Legislative Buildings. The fast, passing-dominated play of Bombers quarterback Jack Jacobs dramatically increased attendance at games and precipitated the need for a new, larger stadium. Winnipeg Stadium was built in the West End of the city near Polo Park, and the Blue Bombers began play there in 1953. The stadium experienced significant changes throughout its existence, including a renaming to Canad Inns Stadium in 2001.

Over the years, various plans were proposed to relocate the stadium. In 2008, a plan was proposed to build a new stadium at the University of Manitoba, with both private and public funding. On April 2, 2009, David Asper (a media mogul located out of Winnipeg associated with Canwest and Creswin Properties) struck a deal with all levels of governments to build a new 33,422-seat (expandable to 45,000) stadium at the University of Manitoba in southwest Winnipeg. This would serve as the home for the Blue Bombers, as well as the U of M Bisons. The deal included refurbishing the existing Bison Stadium for practice and training, as well as upgrading, expanding, and building new sports and fitness facilities. This project, once completed, would be the premiere sports training facility in Canada. The project would have received ongoing funding from a retail development that Asper planned to build on the former CanadInns stadium site. As part of the deal, Creswin properties would take over ownership of the team in 2010. The new stadium and facilities would have been completed for the 2012 CFL season, with the retail development finished in 2013. On December 13, 2013, it was reported that Asper and Creswin Properties would no longer be included in the stadium project, which would continue with funding from the City of Winnipeg, Province of Manitoba, and Winnipeg Blue Bombers.

On May 2, 2012, the Blue Bombers announced that because of construction delays, the stadium would not be ready until September, thus forcing the team to play four or five home games at Canad Inns Stadium to start the season. In June 2012, it was announced that the stadium would not open until the 2013 season.

The Blue Bombers played their first home game at Princess Auto Stadium (then known as Investor's Group Field) on June 27, 2013, losing 38–33 to the Montreal Alouettes.

Canadian Football Hall of Famers

 * Paul Bennett – inducted as a player in 2002
 * John Bonk – inducted as a player in 2008
 * Ralph "Dieter" Brock – inducted as a player in 1995
 * Less Browne – inducted as a player in 2002
 * Bob Cameron – inducted as a player in 2010
 * Tom "Citation" Casey – inducted as a player in 1964
 * Arthur Chipman – inducted as a builder in 1969
 * Tom Clements – inducted as a player in 1994
 * Carl Cronin – inducted as a player in 1967
 * Andrew Currie – inducted as a builder in 1974
 * Matt Dunigan – inducted as a player in 2006
 * Bill Frank – inducted as a player in 2001
 * Harry Peter "Bud" Grant – inducted as a builder in 1983
 * Tommy Grant – inducted as a player in 1995
 * G. Sydney Halter – inducted as a builder in 1966
 * Frank Hannibal – inducted as a builder in 1963
 * Fritz Hanson – inducted as a player in 1963
 * John Helton – inducted as a player in 1985
 * Dick Huffman – inducted as a player in 1987
 * W.P. "Billy" Hughes – inducted as a builder in 1974
 * Jack Jacobs – inducted as a player in 1963
 * Eddie James – inducted as a player in 1963
 * Gerry James – inducted as a player in 1981
 * Greg Kabat – inducted as a player in 1996
 * Les Lear – inducted as a player in 1974
 * Leo "Lincoln Locomotive" Lewis – inducted as a player in 1973
 * Earl Lunsford – inducted as a player in 1983
 * Chester "Ches" McCance – inducted as a player in 1976
 * Cal Murphy – inducted as a builder in 2004
 * James Murphy – inducted as a player in 2000
 * Ken Ploen – inducted as a player in 1975
 * Joe Poplawski – inducted as a player in 1998
 * Russ "The Wisconsin Wraith" Rebholz – inducted as a player in 1963
 * Frank Rigney – inducted as a player in 1984
 * Joseph B. Ryan – inducted as a builder in 1968
 * Karl Slocomb – inducted as a builder in 1989
 * Milt Stegall – inducted as a player in 2012
 * Art Stevenson – inducted as a player in 1969
 * Robert Porter "Buddy" Tinsley – inducted as a player in 1982
 * Chris Walby – inducted as a player in 2003
 * Bert Warwick – inducted as a builder in 1964

All-time 75th-Anniversary team

 * Greg Battle
 * Ralph "Dieter" Brock
 * Tom Clements
 * Herb Gray
 * Bob Cameron
 * Tom Casey
 * Fritz Hanson
 * Rick House
 * Jack Jacobs
 * Gerry James
 * Trevor Kennerd
 * Leo Lewis
 * James Murphy
 * Ken Ploen
 * Frank Rigney
 * Charles Roberts
 * Joe Poplawski
 * Willard Reaves
 * Milt Stegall
 * Chris Walby

Team members notable elsewhere

 * Ed Schultz, talk show host
 * Ben Hatskin, Winnipeg Jets owner; World Hockey Association chairman
 * Tom Europe, The Last 10 Pounds Bootcamp host

All-time 90th-Anniversary team
Presented June 19, 2020, on TSN
 * Bud Grant
 * Ken Ploen
 * Chris Walby
 * John Bonk
 * Buddy Tinsley
 * Bill Frank
 * Stanley Bryant
 * Charles Roberts
 * Leo Lewis
 * Milt Stegall
 * Joe Poplawski
 * James Murphy
 * Rick House
 * Trevor Kennerd
 * Wade Miller
 * Doug Brown
 * Tony Norman
 * Herb Gray
 * Bob Cameron
 * Willie Jefferson
 * Tyrone Jones
 * James West
 * Rod Hill
 * Greg Battle
 * Less Browne
 * Jovon Johnson
 * Ernie Pitts
 * Paul Bennett
 * Fritz Hanson
 * Gerry James
 * Tom Casey

Winnipeg Blue Bombers Ring of Honour
On June 24, 2016, the Blue Bombers unveiled a Ring of Honour at Investors Group Field on the 200 level just above the suites. As sponsored by the Insurance Brokers Association of Manitoba, the club had announced on June 9 that nine players would be selected for the 2016 season for each regular season home game (through online voting along with guidance from the Bomber history and recognition committee), with Chris Walby being the first to be honored. In each season since, Winnipeg has added to the Ring of Honour once a year, which has included several players and one broadcaster.

title: Winnipeg Blue Bombers


text:
Talk:Great Chicago Fire

The TV drama series Chicago Fire
Does this deserve a reference here? The name clearly directly comes from the football team, but the Great Fire is the ultimate link (both ahve been alluded to in the show's scripts)--MartinUK (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

old talk
Was one third of the city destroyed? how much of it was destroyed?

Is it just me or does this contradict itself? It says that the legend of O'Leary's farm isn't true, then says that it did start at O'Leary's farm. Huh? --Jodan

 * I think it's just you. It says that the fire at O'Leary's farm was started (in legend) by a cow, but (in reality) by the man who first reported it. -- Someone else 22:12, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Then it goes on to say "The Great Chicago Fire did start in Kate O'Leary's barn around 9:00 p.m. on October 8, 1871." after that. Should it be clear that this is indeed a legend? --Jodan

The fire did start in Mrs. O'Learys barn. The legend is that a cow kicked over the lantern, and that's how the fire happened. -- Lena

I've heard a theory that the Chicago fire was caused by an asteroid impact, apparently this is not a quack theory but is supported by some evidence, such as areas of forest land being flattened in the surrounding area which is consistent with a large explosion. Has anyone else heard this theory? I'll see if I can find out more. G-Man 00:45, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * There is a theory about this, which claims the meteorite landed in Lake Michigan. Some of the evidence is the near-simultaneous fires in Peshtigo, Wisconsin and Saugatuk, Michigan.  The comet theory was first espoused in 1883 but was popularized by Robert Wood who believes it was caused by the breakup of Comet Biela. shsilver

 * The evidence supporting the comet theory is much stronger than this article suggests. For instance, many of the people and animals killed in the simultaneous Peshtigo fire died of neither burns nor smoke inhalation, but rather of asphyxiation; this is a very unusual type of death from fire but is consistent with the sublimation of a large amount of frozen methane or carbon dioxide.  Eyewitnesses to the fires reported seeing "fire baloons" falling from the sky.  There were a large number of simultaneous fires in and around Michigan, which formed a parabolic shape on the ground consistent with how comet debris would likely fall across the earth's surface; within the past few years a sizable (> 50lb) piece of carbonaceous chondrite meteorite was found on the ground at the apex of this region.  Additionally, the periodic Comet Biela had broken apart in 1846 and, though its fragments returned several times, they were never seen again after 1866; recent calculations suggest that they passed close enough to Jupiter to have been further shattered and to be diverted so that the debris would have crossed earth's orbit at within a day or so of the time of the fires.  One year after the fire, as the earth again passed through the debris, there was a spectacularly intense meteor storm.

 * The article sensibly says that causation by weather is the simplest explanation but does not mention that, while such weather is common, it has never produced another comparable spate of firestorms. It also does not mention that the winds in the area were negligible that day; a fire would be unable to so quickly engulf a large area (even one covered in dry foliage) without strong wind to spread the embers.  For this phenomenon to happen simultaneously in several places in the same general vicinity is hard to explain by conventional means.

There was also a Great Wisconsin fire on that date destroying 1,500,000 acres  see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshtigo_Fire  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.15.34 (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes, The Great Peshtigo Fire was one of several fires the night of October 8th and the ensuing day. However, during the days before The Great Peshtigo Fire, several fires ravages both the areas around Peshtigo and great areas west and south-west of Peshtigo, e.g. in Minnesota and Iowa. The methane explosions may be caused by methane emissions from dried swamps. At Peshtigo, such methane emissions occurred several days before the great fire.

Pål Jensen (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Rebuilding after the fire
Many years ago I saw a documentary on architectural history that mentioned the rebuilding of Chicago after the fire: there had been a sum of money raised by the people of Glasgow, Scotland, to help the citizens of Chicago rebuild, and in memory of this there was a square built in Chicago that resembles George Square in Glasgow - does anyone know if this is actually true or was it just an urban myth?

Iroqouis Theatre Fire
The number of casualties given in this article is lower than in the article about the incident itself. CalJW 06:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Buildings that survived
How many buildings survived the fire, I know that St. Michael's in Old Town survived, and St. Ignatius School survived, these shoud be noted here.. Someone want to make a list that shows what structures survived the blaze? also not what survived, but was never in the blaze.

 * I just finished researching a walking tour of Chicago's historic sites, and kept count of surviving buildings as they surfaced. Most of the so-called survivors in fact missed being in the burnt district by a fortuitous shift of the wind.  But by my count, six buildings in the slightly more than three square miles of burnt district did survive.

 * One, the Lind Block, was an industrial building that was supposedly “fire-proof” that had the luck to be isolated, surrounded by vacant land, therefore protected from the full firestorm. It has since been pulled down and replaced.

 * One, the Nixon Building, was a stone building under construction—apparently because it had not yet had a roof put on or its interior finished with flammable materials, it came through mostly unscathed and was finished shortly afterwards. It has since been pulled down and replaced.

 * One was the Ogden Mansion (home of Chicago's first mayor), apparently saved from burning with its neighbors by a large yard providing some isolation and judicious application of soaked carpets. It has since been pulled down and replaced.

 * Two were filled with water—the Water Tank at LaSalle and Adams that afterwards became the city’s first library and has since been pulled down and replaced, and the Waterworks on Michigan Avenue that still survives today.

 * And one was an ordinary wooden bungalow owned by a Chicago firefighter named Bellinger, in the northwestern-most area burnt. The owner had a day’s notice of what was coming, and an expert’s knowledge of what would be needed.  Assisted by his brother-in-law, he removed all the leaves around his home and tore up the nearby wooden sidewalk and fence. He remained there and snuffed any sparks as soon as they landed with tubs of water and soaked blankets he had put on his roof.  It deservedly continues to survive in well-restored condition.

 * I am new to the Wiki community. How do I add this to the article?

 * User:Janet Jaguar 05:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

 * You add to the article the same way you added to this talk page. Just click on the article and then click "Edit this page." Shsilver 11:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Three comments about Janet Jaguar's list of structures that survived:
 * 1) The first mayor of Chicago was William B. Ogden, but the Ogden House that survived the fire is that of Mahlon D. Ogden, not William B.
 * 2) St. Ignatius school predates the fire, but is located 1/2 mile from the fire limit, and thus is not really a survivor. St. Ignatius is just one building from the 2/3 of the city unaffected by the fire.  I have therefore removed it from the list of survivors in the article.
 * 3) E.B. McCagg's greenhouse (though not his residence) also survived the fire. AT Andreas's History of Chicago, Vol. 2 (1885) on p 752 has a photo of it.  It has since been torn down.
 * Icebox93 05:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

 * That section looks ridiculous right now. Am I to believe only three structures survived at all?  lolz 76.75.118.190 (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what you are to believe. The city was built of wood, including sidewalks and streets back then. The fire was very hot. It burned the water pumping station, so the fire fighters quickly ran out of water to fight the fire. People ran from the fire, so they survived but their properties were lost. It created a huge area for the city to rebuild in steel and other fireproof materials, and skyscrapers had a place to grow. Rebuilding was rapid. --Prairieplant (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Redirection
Why are references to SF writer Patrick O'Leary being redirected here? I see mention of "O'Leary" but not a single "Patrick".
 * At one time there was an article on Patrick O'Leary, who was married to Catherine O'Leary, but someone deleted that article and made it redirect to this page.Shsilver 14:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Origins of the Fire
Any serious researcher concerned with the likely start of the Chicago Fire needs to read Chicago Tribune reporter Anthony DeBartolo's 2 feature stories on the subject. There's good evidence that the fire started when a craps game, often held in the O'Leary barn, got out of hand. The stories concern a man named Louis M. Cohn who admitted to being there. You'll find DeBartolo's research here: www.hydeparkmedia.com/cohn.html

 * Just because DiBartolo has some evidence which has convinced you, doesn't mean it is definite and other versions of the origin should be included, along with caveats about them. You have claimed only Cohn has confessed, which is patently false (his confession, if it exists, is lost and Sullivan also confessed).  Please stop blanking the information in this article. Shsilver 13:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, the reporter's name is spelled - DeBartolo. I know, I'm the reporter. If such carelessness is any indication of your research skills, your comments above begin to make some sense. Second of all, there is no credible record that Sullivan ever confessed anything. The only credible confession we have on record concerning the start of the Great Chicago Fire came from Louis M. Cohn -- this confession was documented when his $35,000 estate was given to Northwestern University after his death in 1942, and has been confirmed by Cohn's attorney, Stan Feinberg, in the late 1990s...Those are the facts as I know them - if you have others, please make them public...Lastly, I suggest you read Richard Bales' original research on Peg Leg Sullivan published in the Spring 1997 Illinois Historical Journal -- you'll discover Bales' basis for his theory -- Sullivan must have lied about where he was standing (Peg Leg said he saw the "fire" while standing across the street), because land records suggest a house would have blocked his clear view of the O'Leary barn. Given the gale force winds at the time(and other fire-prone conditions), it would have been perfectly possible for Sullivan to have seen flames shooting above the roof line, or out from the barn's side. At the least, smoke would surely have been visable, if not the glow of the flames. In brief, the only historian who takes Sullivan seriously as a suspect is Bales.

 * I'm aware you're the reporter and, in general, I respect your work. I'm sorry I misspelled your name and please note that Wikipedia does have a policy regarding personal attacks (I could just as easily claim that your misspelling of the word visible has some importance, which, of course, it doesn't).  Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a place for either original research (which you provide in your articles which you've linked to multiple times in multiple places).  If you look through the history of the page, you'll note that nowhere do I claim that Sullivan started the fire, merely that he is considered as a possible source.  And yes, I have read Bales's work. Once you brought up Cohn, again, if you look at the history, you'll see that I incorporated that claim in with other possible culprits (Sullivan, the silly cow story) and even added a stub-article about Cohn to wikipedia.  Wikipedia is also not a place for advocacy, your forthcoming book, newspaper or historical journal articles are the place for that.  Finally, you can sign your posts on a talk page with four tildes.Shsilver 13:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The only thing I've tried to advocate here, dear sir, is good reporting. Unfortunately, in order to do so, I've needed to pull down your misstatements of fact. On more than one occasion. For example, you've claimed “many” historians now think Sullivan might be the culprit -- this is simply not true. Bales is the only 'historian' who holds this position. If you know of others cite them or their work, please. You’ve also claimed there’s a deathbed confession by Sullivan. What’s your source here?

I’m new here at Wikipedia and I’m not too sure of your rules, but I assume you’re looking for fair and intelligent reporting. Unfortunately, I must say I’ve found it lacking.

What is true, however, is the fact I don’t spell too well without my morning coffee. [DeBartolo]

 * And your reason for continuously pulling down information about the Chicago City Council's activities, which did happen, even if you personally disagree with their conclusions? Similarly, you have a long history of removing all references to Sullivan's possible involvement, even though there is argument for it (despite your own views).  Finally,  since you refer to Mr. Bales as an amateur historian, I presume we should include the same appelation for you.Shsilver 16:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * NPOV and all that, is it a workable solution to cover both sides and cite sources? --Kizor 00:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you can just call me a reporter...As for the city council "activities" - they passed a resolution on 10/28/97. Since you asked, I just pulled a copy from my file ...here's the only line that mentions Peg Leg -- "WHEREAS, A neighbor, Daniel 'Peg Leg' Sullivan, was a man who some historians now suspect may have been the true culprit behind the fire; and..."

That's all they say about Peg Leg. You can't call it a conclusion. They're just citing Bale's research. The city carried out no "activites." They researched nothing. You reference the city council resolution like it actually means something...As for me removing your Sullivan copy early on - same story - when I first came across your work, you didn't simply suggest Sullivan was a possibility - rather, you presented him as the leading suspect...
 * * Smacks head* Apologies for re-adding the city council reference. Repeatedly. Lacking access to the resolution, I fact-checked from some secondary sources that apparently were faulty. Should've cited, now that I think about it... Incidentally, --~ can be used to sign comments on talk pages like this one has been. There's a bit less reason without a registered username, but it at least lets others easily know who's speaking. --Kizor 00:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Correct warning – but two fires?
I’ve seen several versions of the initial fire warning which implies that Mathias Schaffer, the watchman in the courthouse, sent the firefighters in a wrong direction. According to Gess & Lutz (Firestorm at Peshtigo, p. 114), “Mathias Schaffer looked through his spyglass to the flames on the west side of the city and immediately sent a message to the voice box…”Strike box 342”, etc. But now Schaffer was “…instantly confused. He had mislocated the fire about a mile or so. Either that – or this did not seem possible – the fire was coming from two directions at once…” Schaffer told Brown to strike box 319 instead, “but Brown did not do it, thinking it would confuse everyone more.” The distance between the courthouse and O¨Leary’s barn was about two miles, so a one mile deviation is relatively much. If Mathias Schaffer thought the fire was a mile west of O’Leary’s barn, it could barely be mistaken for the old Saturday Night Fire, which (seen from the courthouse) was in about the same direction as the barn. Therefore, Mathias Schaffer must have been misoriented. Or not? I don’t know whether or not Schaffer had a compass, a sextant, a street map and/or other equipment for computing the distance to and the direction of a fire. But I think the two warnings may have another cause than a mistake of Schaffer. If so, it’s time to exonerate Schaffer for erronous warning.

The events may have been like this:
 * 1) Schaeffer did see a flame a mile west of O’Learys barn – so he messaged, perfectly correct, Brown to strike Box 342. With his spyglass, he could see the smallest fire in the dark if it was not concealed by a building. Perhaps he was espcially aware for fires in the city’s southwestern section because of the high wind from southwest. Probably it was a small fire, e.g. some dry leaves which caught fire because of sparks from a pipe or a steam locomotive, or a chimney fire. Small, albeit potentially very dangerous in the tinder-dry city chock-full of combustibles, and in the windy and superheated air (October 8. was extremely warm ).
 * 2) Chimney fire or not; the small fire was immedieately put out with e.g. a bucket of water (which is very useful to put out a small fire), or it died by itself as most of chimney fires do. So when the firefighters – some exhausted men and horses after 16-17 hours fighting against the Saturday Night Fire – reached the area, they did not find any fire. Perhaps it was a short-lived chimney fire which wasn’t mentioned neither by the house owner nor by any others. In the meantime, Shaffer had discovered the fire in O’Learys barn and ordered Brown to strike the corresponding box, Box 319 – which he didn’t do.

According to Gess & Lutz, Chicago had 30 fires during the week before the disaster – i.e. more than four fires a day, and a new fire about each 6. hours at average. If this is correct, we should expect about four fires during the 22 or 23 hours from the Saturday Night Fire broke out till O’Leary’s barn cought fire. I don’t know the distribution of fires in Chicago during the week, but I think almost 24 hours without a new fire is unprobable – if not the Saturday Night Fire made the people extremely careful. I think this conclusion is true even if other sources are true in claiming “only” 20 fires the last week before the disaster.

Redirect Suggestion
How about setting a redirect page at Great Fire of Chicago? When I looked for the article originally, I typed that in and it came back with no results. 24.50.211.226 16:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Done. GilliamJF 18:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The passage in the 10/6/2006 Chicago Tribune allegedly dictated from Anthony DeBartolo reads without bracketed words, as follows:

"At that time, Cohn's estate was handed over to Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism, and the [Northwestern] [U]niversity press release obtained by Wykes included an interesting paragraph about the "origin" of the fire:

"[Louis M. Cohn] asserted that he and Mrs. O'Leary's son, in the company of several other boys, were shooting dice in the hayloft ... by the light of a lantern, when one of the boys accidently overturned the lantern, thus setting the barn afire. Mr. Cohn never denied that when the other boys fled, he stopped long enough to scoop up the money."

FROM LAFEW:

The article has a cute reference about Cohn grabbing the money from the crap session. Yet, the reference in this Discussion attributed to DeBartolo contradicts the 10/6/2006 Tribune article. The Chicago Tribune states the basis of DeBartolo's assumption is the Northwestern University Press Release and the physical appearance of Stanley Feinberg to questioning by DeBartolo. The discussion with the "son of the executor Stanley Fineberg" is DeBartolo's basis for speculation.

The DeBartolo assessment of the credibility and veracity of the son of the executor is a bit removed from the source, Louis M. Cohn. Feinberg is asked about the Cohn will, which he never drafted nor was a part. There is no admission as a matter of civil law, just third or fourth hand speculation. The hearsay and speculation on the part of theorist Anthony DeBartolo in the recent Tribune Article is quoted:

From 10/6/2006 Chicago Tribune Article:

"Still, DeBartolo tracked down a son of one of the will's executors in La Jolla, Calif. Stanley Feinberg confirmed that Cohn had told the story about the dice game. Feinberg told the Tribune in 1998 that Cohn never admitted to him that he knocked over the lantern.

"The only time I thought Feinberg wasn't telling me the truth was when I asked him about Cohn's will--he stopped looking me in the eye." DeBartolo said.""

FROM Lafew:

This suggests to me discomfort on the part of Stanley Feinberg. It is innappropriate to question a non-attorney about an attorney-client privilege. If Mr. Feinberg's father is an attorney, Mr. Feinberg could not tell his son much or face disbarment. The idea that Anthony DeBartolo may have had access to a will was presented to Feinberg. This had to be uncomfortable for someone who is simply the son of an executor, who was likely not told even by his father about what was stated. Furthermore, an executor is not often the attorney who drafted the will, nor even one with knowledge of the origin of each passage in a will.

Stanley Feinberg is the recipient of hearsay from Northwestern University, the news media at the time, and what his father had to say about someone else, even if false. What was allegedly disclosed from the will does not implicate Louis M. Cohn anymore than it implicates James O'Leary or anyone at the crap shoot.

The "executor's son," Stanley Feinberg, did not witness the fire or even any conceivable statement made to his father, the executor, not necessarily the attorney of record. There were allegedly individuals with both Catholic and Jewish surnames at the site of the dice game in the O'Leary Barn (if the account is true). If you are confronted with someone who has a Catholic surname, like DeBartolo, but Stanley Feinberg and Louis M. Cohn, the alleged witness have Jewish surnames, how do you react? Stanley Feinberg's bit of discomfort, is rational and eye movement may be awkward and less than direct in this sort of situation. Such action may have no bearing on credibility or veracity.

If the NU report of the Louis M. Cohn Will is to be believed, then a group of Catholic and Jewish kids went into a barn, played craps, may have been drinking, and caused a fire by accident, nothing more. Apparently, someone had either the guts or simply wanted headlines, take your pick. The alleged actors are deceased and some remain unknown; all allegations demonstrate an accident with catastrophic results.

What was the exact admission by someone twice or thrice removed from the event? Why should we believe that Northwestern University would not report the truth. NU could simply abstain from reporting anything in the Louis M. Cohn will, correct? The Chicago Tribune article does not present a DeBartolo conclusion, but a DeBartolo allusion to second hand hearsay.

Of course, now that the alleged executor Feinberg has passed away, where does DeBartolo go from here? Was Feinberg the executor or a relative of the executor? The use of the material presented in the Tribune article of 10/6/2006 needs to be verbatim unless DeBartolo has a true admission, not just a decision by an "executor" to look in a different direction.

The Wikipedia reference is sensationalistic and without a basis in fact. Louis M. Cohn is simply an alleged observer of a possible event that took place in the O'Leary Barn. There is no evidence to document Cohn's relationship, if any, with James O'Leary. There is no evidence that confirms that Cohn caused the fire, merely that he was among a group of gamblers that may have triggered the fire, if the Will is located and the relationship verifiable. The fact that the NU Press Release passage takes place during World War II is also interesting due to the anti-semitism of that era.

Spread of the blaze
These sentences seem a bit odd:
 * "The fire department was alerted when the fire was still small. When the blaze got bigger, the guard realized that there actually was a new fire and sent firefighters, but in the wrong direction."

This implies, but does not state, that firefighters were initially not sent. It also implies there were other fires at the same time, but that is not mentioned elsewhere in this article.

I don't know the actual facts, so I can't improve the wording. Benthatsme (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?
A number of comments are obviously spam (tip: do a search for 'aids')

Which template does one use to flag the article as containing individual nonsense sentences while not condemning the article as a whole? I read the vandalism guide, but it only suggested reverting and warning the user. I have neither time nor interest to do this, and want to flag the article for others to take action only.

For lack of a clear instruction I included the test2 tag. It's probably not the appropriate one, but there you go for not providing immediately accessible guidelines for infrequent Wiki contributors like me... ;-) 213.112.249.100 21:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Fire code jurisdiction
From Humboldt Park, Chicago: ''Most of the neighborhood was annexed into the city in 1869, the year the park was laid out. The fact that this area stood just beyond the city's fire code jurisdiction as set out after the 1871 fire made inexpensively built housing possible.''

Where exactly are the borders of this? Have they changed over the years? --Kalmia 05:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

 * The borders appear to have been set at 12th Street and Halsted Street after the 1871 fire (see this article); I have to guess that city limits formed the other two boundaries but haven't found any information on that in the ten minutes I've been searching.

 * That same article indicates that the fire limits were expanded in 1874 (after a second major fire) to cover the whole city. That may contradict the Humboldt Park article, but I'm not sure. In any case, the fire limits survive on as chapter 13-116 of the current Chicago Municipal Code: they cover "all zoning districts within the corporate limits classified B1-1 through B7-7 and C1-1 through C-4, as defined in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of May 29, 1957, as amended, together with an additional 200 feet in all directions from the outer limits of each area or areas so classified." This appears to mean that most business and commercial districts in Chicago are governed by the fire limits regulations, but it's hard to tell. The 1957 zoning ordinance has been superseded and the City's online zoning map doesn't have the fire limits noted on it. --Morrand (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Image Request
Can anyone find a larger sample of this image? It would really be neat to see the exact borders of the fire area, but this map is so small it's kinda hard to tell. DirectorStratton 20:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Jews and the Fire
I'm deleting this. The exact quote supporting this section is from Irving Cutler's book, The Jews of Chicago (1996), on p.28: "That night happened to be the Jewish holiday of Simchat torah, the festival of the rejoicing of the law, a celebration of merriment in which the congragants dance in their synagogues with the Torah scrolls. This is probably one of the reasons that some of the scrolls were saved from the fire." Cutler is a fine historian of the city, but the holiday explanation is plainly speculation on his part, and likely not the case. The main reason is that even in orthodox synagogues today, the Simchat Torah service will usually end before 10PM, as it does at the orthodox synagogue I attend. In 1871, most synagogues were not strictly orthodox, so they likely would have ended earlier. The fire started at about 9PM, so by the time the fire advanced to where the synagogues were, the services would have been over and the happy congregants home. The fire didn't get across the river until midnight. So a more probable reason why any torahs were saved is that the rabbi or another syngagoue official lived close enough to the synagogue to get in and grab the torahs before the fire destroyed the building. Many people tried to save physical property in the path of the fire, some successful, others not. There's no real need to highlight this, especially when there's no clear reference to contemporary testimony to support it. Icebox93 (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

St. Ignatius Prep
Please stop trying to add St. Ignatius College Preparatory School to the list of existing buildings that survived the fire. Yes, St. Ignatius predates the fire, but as noted above, it was not actually threatened by the fire. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Old St. Patrick's Church
Old St. Pat's, at the northwest corner of Adams and Des Plaines, was built before the fire, but was not threatened by it. Hence it should not be listed as a "survivor" of the fire. See for a detailed map and chronology of the fire. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In popular culture
I have removed the "In popular culture" section. As stated in the essay on pop culture sections:
 * "In popular culture" sections should be carefully maintained and contain sourced examples demonstrating a subject's cultural significance.
 * Passing references to the article subject are discouraged.
 * Not one of these examples is sourced. The most direct example, In Old Chicago, is redundant to a "See also" link below (and contradicts the date of the film). The rest are, at best, passing references or minor examples of fictional alternate histories. While the fire has great historical significance (particularly for Chicagoans), its relatively minor cultural impact is already covered elsewhere in the article (e.g. the star on the municipal flag, the sculpture at DeKoven Street). Kevin Forsyth (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I deleted some items from In popular culture, added a reference for one, and marked many with citation needed. All those television episodes need a citation, otherwise they are simply original research. If no sources can be found to support those items, they should be deleted. --Prairieplant (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement of Catherine O'Leary
Reading Eagle, Saturday, Dec 26, 1936, pg 5, Last of Chicago’s O’Leary Family Dies, Chicago, Dec. 26 (AP)--- Mrs. Catherine O’Leary Ledwell, 70, last member of the O’Leary family, whose cow some say started the Chicago fire, died of heart disease last night at her home. Mrs. Ledwell always denied the legend that the O’Leary cow kicked over a lamp in their barn and touched off the great blaze of 1871. She declared they first learned of the fire at 8 o’clock (2000 hrs) when Denis Sullivan, the one-legged draymen from next door,” discovered it in the barn. “That’s the first we knew of the fire.” She always said. “No one had been up. I know mother didn’t milk the cow after 5 o’clock.” (1700 hrs) Mrs. Ledwell theorized that young bloods of the neighborhood who sometimes drank beer in the loft of the O’Leary barn had left a cigar butt smouldering in the hay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerB34 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Map
I had to enlarge the map two or three times to be able to find the red dot indicating Mrs. O'Leary's barn - and then I had to scroll through the map to find it. How about adding an arrow that is large enough to be seen on the Wikipedia page at normalmagnification?Kdammers (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Great Chicago Fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090504194842/http://www.cityofchicago.org/Landmarks/S/SiteChicagoFire.html to http://www.cityofchicago.org/Landmarks/S/SiteChicagoFire.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051124132959/http://www.hydeparkmedia.com/cohn.html to http://www.hydeparkmedia.com/cohn.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051124132959/http://www.hydeparkmedia.com/cohn.html to http://www.hydeparkmedia.com/cohn.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050711004730/http://www.chicagohs.org/fire/intro/gcf-index.html to http://www.chicagohs.org/fire/intro/gcf-index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Chicago Fire of 1871
The Great Chicago Fire began on October 8, 1871. It happened on DeKoven Street at 9:00pm. It started in the O'Leary's barn. Nearly one-third of the city was destroyed. The fire lasted for three days. Some of the areas that were destroyed in this great fire were the O'Leary's house, a courthouse, a Tribune building, the Chamber of Commerce building, Bruno Goll's drugstore, Claire Innes neighborhood, and Horace White's house. the fire spread throughout the north and eat of Chicago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.192.4 (talk) April 24, 2018
 * O'Leary's house (cottage) was spared. Pål Jensen (talk) 11:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Map
The "red dot" showing the location of O'Leary's barn on a map is nearly impossible to see. Would it be possible to do something like this example.→ 107.15.157.44 (talk) 06:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Great Chicago Fire, Great Michigan Fire and the Wisconsin Fire.
A couple of years ago I read an article about the Great Chicago Fire and how it was started. I'm not sure it was true or have been able to verify. It stated that a comet broke up into 3 pieces, one landed in Chicago, the second landed in Holland Michigan and the third in Wisconsin. True? Not sure but all three fires started on the same date or within a day of two. 2600:6C4E:1B00:3400:1C74:61C:8AE8:BA12 (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is covered in Great_Chicago_Fire. It's unlikely a comet started the three fires you mention. Jessintime (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Great Chicago Fire


text:
Talk:Lawrence v. Texas

Owens v. State
does anyone have reference to this "Owens v. State" ? I see the opinion but I don't see how it's related to the quote below..

Owens v. State, 352 Md. 663, which held that "a person has no constitutional right to engage in sexual intercourse, at least outside of marriage."

Jkister (talk) 06:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The LGBT movement didn't start until the '90's
The article says:

> An organized American LGBT-rights movement emerged in the initial decades after the Second World War

But if you follow the LGBT link is says right off that the LGBT movement didn't start until the '90's.

It was called the gay rights movement before then. It was a much smaller tent back then.

I think we should call the movement by what it was called back then -- not what it has evolved into.

[Just as, when we talk about certain people during the Civil War we refer to them as abolitionists -- not civil rights protesters.]

So I propose we change it to say gay-rights not LGBT-rights 05:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.52.23 (talk)

 * Does anyone object if I change LGBT to gay in the above referenced sentence? Hoping To Help (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I've read, lesbians were involved as early as the 1950s. But the point is still correct: nobody called it "LGBT rights" until more recently. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the organized gay rights movement in the US started as early as the 1900s, check LGBT rights in the United States for the citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.94.146 (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Holding section
I initially reverted this poor attempt to remove content as it was improperly done and I had no idea if the intended change was appropriate e.g. if the holding section comes from the actual ruling. However after looking around, I've foind nothing similar and it does seem sort of out of place to me so removed it properly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lawrence_v._Texas&diff=253603600&oldid=253599682 ]. However I'm not voicing an opinion on whether it should stay or go Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Grammatical editing needed
The following sentence needs some semi-colons or may need to be broken into several shorter sentences:

Sexual liberty proponents believe that Lawrence explicitly analogized same-sex sodomy and mixed-sex sodomy, and that Lawrence severed the link between constitutional protection of sexual conduct and whether the activity is procreative or takes place within the marital relationship or is traditionally protected by society, the logic of Lawrence casts considerable doubt on laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, notwithstanding the not-so-subtle suggestions in both the majority opinion and in Justice O'Connor's concurrence that the court is not willing to listen to this argument, and that some of the justices (Kennedy and O'Connor specifically) would switch sides to vote with the dissenters in this case if the issue of gay marriage came before them. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (O'Connor, J. concurring). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.221.223 (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I'm proposing that John Geddes Lawrence be merged into this article. There's little evidence that Mr Lawrence is notable apart from the lawsuit, and his article has been flagged for non-notability since December 2008. In fact, I would not object to a simple redirect, with none of the (very limited) content of Mr Lawrence's article being copied to here. Tevildo (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I think the redirect is a good idea. Motorneuron (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I would go with the simple re-direct. There is so little in that article, I would hardly call it a merger. TechBear (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't you find this too ... homophobic?
Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that purport to criminalize sodomy between consenting same-sex adults acting in private.

Why wouldn't one write "...to criminalize same-sex sexual intercourse between consenting..."??? Or something else. I find this part to be offensive and change it. Hope you don't mind. Այնշախոր (talk) 11:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Most of the state laws at the time of Lawrence specifically targeted "sodomy", so using anything else amounts to original research. Further, the vagueness of "sodomy" under state law was one of the reasons why the Supreme Court ruled as it did: same-sex activity was being prosecuted while different-sex activity that fell under the different statutory definitions of "sodomy" were not. The use of that word is correct. TechBear  | Talk | Contributions 12:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Texas law used to ban same-sex and man-woman sodomy but it was amended in 1989 to ban only same-sex sodomy(Page 11). Believe it or not, bestiality was legalized in 1989(see page 261) but same-sex relations were not. The article needs to describe the history of the law under which they were being prosecuted. The Court was told by Texas counsel that the law was unchanged for 2000 years but Justice Kennedy et al knew that the law had been narrowed to just target gays and it was relatively new.

Here is a reference: --Javaweb (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
 * I'd agree that we should be more precise on the Texas law. I'd also say the article gives to much weight to the dissenting opinion and contains to much commentary. Thanks for the link to the Carpenter book, hopefully it will be a good source. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Edits
I came here to add some material from Carpenter's book and was surprised by the state of this entry, especially the casual tone of some sections and what appears to be a lot of personal, unattributed speculation, some of it seriously out-of-date in addition to being inappropriate. Also irrelevant material related to levels of scrutiny or state decision sthat did not reference Lawrence, etc. I see no reason not to be bold about editing this, saving what can be saved. Also surprised not to find a list of the states whose sodomy laws this decision made unenforceable. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Wolfenden report
The article says that the majority opinion cites the "Wolfenden Report of 1963", which it does. However, according to Wolfenden Report and its sources, this report was published in 1957. In fact, the opinion confusingly says:

So is 1963 just a typo in the opinion, or is there some reason for them (and us) to cite this date? 81.98.43.107 (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In 1963, it was apparently reprinted with a different name, which is the name Kennedy uses, although he uses the American spelling "Offenses" instead of "Offences".--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

 * So while we are precise in terms of what Kennedy cited, we mislead the reader who doesn't follow the link to the Wolfenden Report. We're not trying to document Kennedy's citations here. The point is the range and variety of the materials he referenced. And Kennedy is making the point that these sources were all available when Bowers was decided. So both geography and dates matter. We should be underscoring the fact that the Wolfenden Report is not a US source. And the ref to the Model Penal Code is odd in that what is key is not its recommendations (plural) since 1955 but its recommendation (singular) in 1955 (or as long ago as 1955). And not everyone knows what a Model Penal Code is. I don't know much myself, but I wonder that Kennedy cites it as of 1955 while the Wikipedia entry says "The Model Penal Code (MPC) is a statutory text which was developed by the American Law Institute (ALI) in 1962." (emphasis added.)

 * We say:
 * "He cited the Model Penal Code's recommendations since 1955, the Wolfenden Report of 1963, and a 1981 decision of the European Court of Human Rights."

 * How about:

 * "He cited opposition to the criminalization of private consensual sex in the Model Penal Code issued by the American Law Institute in 1955, in the British government's Wolfenden Report in 1957, and in a decision of the European Court of Human Rights in 1981."

 * Less than crisp, I know, but the progression from US to Britain to European is clearer, I think. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

 * If you look here, you'll see the ALI history of the MPC. As I read it, the 1955 date was a combination of tentative drafts, and the "official" version was released in 1962. So, in terms of your proposed text, I would just change the phrase to "in the draft of the Model ...". If you want, we could cite to ALI website to make it clearer. Otherwise, I understand and agree with your point that the substance matters more than capturing the precise dates used by Kennedy. These kinds of citations are no doubt written by law clerks who obsess over the "edition" dates of things they cite.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy
The statement that "Lawrence invalidated similar laws throughout the United States that criminalized sodomy between consenting adults acting in private, whatever the sex of the participants" and a subsequent statement that all anti-sodomy statutes were invalidated need a more authorities source(s). While this interpretation of Lawrence appears in related articles and is a common interpretation, Lawrence expressly declined to consider the matter of statues with equal effect on homosexuals and heterosexuals. Wolf4NK (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you provide the language in the decision in which the court "expressly declined" to consider statutes that treat homosexuals and heterosexuals the same? I don't think it's there.
 * The statute at issue was one that criminalized same-sex activity only. But the court ignored that issue entirely and didn't discuss the fact that the statute treated couples differently based on whether they were of the same sex or different sexes. Instead, the court focused on the fundamental issue of liberty and autonomy. Thus we read in the decision: "We conclude the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution." Note that free as adults. Nothing about same-sex or opposite sex, nothing about equally free as other couples. Just free as adults. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

'Five-justice majority'
Wouldn'T it be better to write this along the lines of 'a 6-3 decision'? I feel like it could eliminate any confusion, since the majority opinion was written by 5 justices, with one concurrence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.152.99 (talk) 12:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lawrence v. Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100407072727/http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/2004Term/02-0944.htm to http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/2004Term/02-0944.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100525185749/http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/2004Term/03-0433.htm to http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/2004Term/03-0433.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect Citation
This page reflects incorrect information in that the name of the case was NOT "Lawrence V. Texas" But rather was Lawrence et al. V. Texas. This is due to the fact that Tyron Garner was also a named plaintiff to the case. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZO.html. Where more than one party is named per side of the V. it is the rule of standard citation to include et al. after the first party name unless you name all parties. SlushPuppy (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't use et al. in the name of a case article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lawrence v. Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120109064321/http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/12/john-geddes-lawrence-of-lawren.html to http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/12/john-geddes-lawrence-of-lawren.html
 * Added tag to http://articles.cnn.com/2005-01-25/justice/grossman.oldlaws_1_criminal-ban-fornication-virginia-court

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Bestiality
I note that a section on bestiality was added added by, and in recent days has been removed by , re-added by , re-removed by , re-re-added by Antinoos69, and that addition further edited (sequentially) by Teammm and Antinoos69. Before we have any more editing / reverting, I thought that a touch of discussion might be nice. A few observations: Some relevant references:
 * the comment from Leighann Lassiter that "Cases have been turned over on appeal because of unclear language in the law, and often times no charges are brought at all" has zero examples / evidence offered in support of it. If it does relate to the Lawrence decision, I think it is wrong... but I also think it actually relates to problems prosecuting bestiality under animal cruelty laws.
 * the form of words in the current version, stating that the Lawrence ruling that struck down all statutes in the United States prohibiting consensual human sexual conduct can also block prosecution of bestiality. Issues stem from several states that include human sexual conduct and bestiality in the same "anti-sodomy" statute is simply wrong. Some states had "crimes against nature" statutes that made both sodomy and bestiality crimes, and the Lawrence ruling makes the sodomy part of those statutes unconstitutional, but this does not alter the status of the legal prohibition on bestiality.  The problem arises when states chose to repeal these statutes but not enact a replacement prohibition on bestiality.
 * absent specific prohibitions on bestiality, prosecutors are left trying to use animal cruelty statutes which are not well suited to prosecutions of bestiality as these statutes build crimes on the deliberate infliction of physical harm / injury to the animal. It is this problem that fits with the quote from Lassiter.
 * politics complicates the situation – in Louisiana, efforts to pass a bestiality statute to replace the residue left from the crimes against nature statute are being treated as a stealthy approach to repealing the unconstitutional-but-still-on-the-books prohibition on sodomy.
 * on the situation in Louisiana: April 24, 2018 - usnews.com, May 1, 2018 - religious liberty project, Harvard
 * on one of the replacement laws (from Cleveland, Ohio): ".. without the new law, investigators' only option was to try and charge an offender under the existing animal cruelty laws. But that proved difficult because prosecutors must prove the animal suffered cruelness." - 22 September 2017 - cleveland.com
 * on the non-replacement of bestiality prohibitions when crimes against nature laws are repealed: "States where bestiality is illegal do have animal cruelty laws, Lassiter said, but these are often inadequate when it comes to people sexually abusing animals. A person sexually abusing an animal might only be prosecuted if the animal is injured, while livestock or wild animals may be exempt from existing law. ... Lassiter said some states are lacking specific bestiality laws because animal sex abuse was covered under historic laws that also banned gay sex. In some cases when those laws were repealed bestiality was not reintroduced as an offense." - 8 December 2016 - The Guardian
 * I'm sure plenty of other references can be found. Can we work together to include some suitable text?  EdChem (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

It is truly astonishing that this would require explanation, but here we are. Source 4 in the proposed text, currently cited in the article, clearly states:

 * Several states also include bestiality as a part of general “anti-sodomy” laws, historical holdovers from homophobic legislators who considered gayness and attraction to animals as the same notion of perversion. The Supreme Court has struck down such laws as being unconstitutional, which can also block prosecution of sex with animals, Lassiter notes.

Source 2 in the proposed text clearly states:

 * State Sen. J.P. Morrell, who proposed the bill, said the state’s current law—which bundles bestiality and sodomy together as illegal “crimes against nature”—is unenforceable and thus needs to be updated.

 * While Morrell’s interest in separating bestiality from sodomy in order to make an enforceable and comprehensive law against bestiality ….

 * Morrell expressed his hopes that the bill, which will now go on to the state House of Representatives for a vote, will give bestiality its own clear law and allow law enforcement “to prosecute individuals that do this under the fullest extent of the law.”

 * “Our current bestiality law is in an unconstitutional statute, literally tied to the sodomy law struck down by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas,” Morrell told the committee.

Source 6 in the proposed text clearly states:

 * For Sen. J.P. Morrell, what has been frustrating is that opposition to his bill is rooted in fear that games are afoot to remove the state's unenforceable statute against "unnatural" sex in Louisiana.

Note that Louisiana is not a state that has repealed its anti-sodomy law. So the assertion that “[t]he problem arises when states chose to repeal these statutes but not enact a replacement prohibition on bestiality” is simply false as any complete statement of the problem. This aspect of the problem must be included, per the reliable sources.

The issue isn’t merely what Lawrence and the laws require and permit, but what the real-world effects are. It hardly requires a great intellect to realize that, when one part of a law banning multiple acts is declared unconstitutional and unenforceable, confusion and uncertainty will arise among and between law enforcement, legislators, and prosecutors as to the constitutionality and enforceability of the other banned acts. This is common sense, predictable, and quite thoroughly obvious. Moreover, and much more to the point here, it’s part of what the sources say. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Antinoos69, some of what Lassiter is suggesting (and also what you are arguing) reflects a weak understanding of how constitutional law actually works. Where a statute is facially unconstitutional in parts, applying the severability doctrine results in the remainder of the statute being preserved so long as its intent is preserved.  Any suggestion that bestiality provisions are not preserved in this way in crimes against nature statutes that include specific and separate mention of sodomy and bestiality is wrong.  This point is explicitly made in the judgement in MacDonald v. Moose, for example, where the issue of the effect of Lawrence on a crimes against nature statute was considered directly.  If you look at the controversy in Louisiana, you'll find that the State Senators opposing the bill make this very point, that the bestiality prohibition is very much still in place following the Lawrence decision.  Now, there can be edge cases where the exact reach of the Lawrence judgement is unclear, as was the case in MacDonald v. Moose (which was wrongly decided, in my view), and covering those edge cases is necessary and appropriate for this article... but bestiality is not an edge case and whatever you (or Lassiter) may think is obvious or common sense does not alter the fact that absolutely standard legal processes apply and that there is zero ambiguity about whether the Lawrence judgement, dealing with an adult's right to engage in private consensual sexual acts with another adult, has any influence on the constitutionality of a prohibition on bestiality.  Lawrence may pose a problem in one very arrow situation: if a crimes against nature statute outlaws sodomy and uses a very old fashioned meaning which implicitly included penetration of non-human animals and did not provide a clear definition of the term.  Even in such a case, the implicit anti-bestiality provision may survive if a Court recognised that the statute had been previously interpreted as covering both consensual acts between adults and the non-consensual-by definition act of sexual penetrating or being penetrated by a non-human animal, as only the former is constitutionally protected by Lawrence.

 * To forestall an argument, anything added to or in the article needs the support of reliable sources, etc. Also, just because a reliable source said it doesn't make it true, and politicians and lobbyists have been known to make incorrect / inaccurate statements, to offer distortions to advance their agendas, and even to lie (Shocking, I know).  What is needed here is to restructure to focus on the effect of the Lawrence judgement on crimes against nature statutes outside of Texas, because SCOTUS only decides the issues before it and so issued no direct ruling on the constitutionality of any law beyond the one in Texas.  EdChem (talk) 06:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Astonishing! It’s as though you never read my post. (Start with the last two paragraphs.) Can you comprehend that there is a very profound difference between legal theory, on the one hand, and what individual law enforcement officers, prosecutors, legislators, and even judges do or believe, on the other? Both matter here, not just the one. If Lawrence has actually in the real world caused some cop, prosecutor, or judge to scratch his or her head long enough to affect how bestiality is handled at least some of the time in the criminal justice system, then that is relevant to the article, no matter how contrary to proper legal theory that effect may be. Also, for our purposes here, there is a profound difference between editors’ theories, babble, and original research, on the one hand, and what reliable sources are actually saying, on the other. It is not editors’ job to edit out the parts they don’t personally like or that offend their conceptions of legal theory as that theory exists in some pristine mental universe entirely devoid of actual human actors, or actors of any sort. Do condescend to come down to earth and its messy practicalities for a moment or two, then you may become able to understand all that actual sources (plural!) are saying.

 * Btw, I happen to posses some formal legal training myself, so you can stop wasting your time “explaining” the law to me. That’s not the particular point at issue. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Specific Proposal
Present text: According to Leighann Lassiter, director of animal abuse for the Humane Society of the United States, the Lawrence ruling that struck down all statutes in the United States prohibiting consensual human sexual conduct can also block prosecution of bestiality. Issues stem from several states that include human sexual conduct and bestiality in the same "anti-sodomy" statute. "Cases have been turned over on appeal because of unclear language in the law, and often times no charges are brought at all," said Leighann.[66] As of 2018, 45 states have direct prohibitions on bestiality, while others may prohibit it under broader animal cruelty laws, according to the Animal Legal and Historical Center (Michigan State University College of Law).[67]

Proposal: In some states, sodomy was classified as a crime against nature and prohibited in laws that also outlawed bestiality.[1][2] With the anti-sodomy portions of these statutes invalidated by the Lawrence ruling, some were repealed without passing any separate law covering bestiality. Consequently, bestiality is not specifically outlawed in some jurisdictions, and is only covered by laws covering animal cruelty in others.[1] According to the Animal Legal and Historical Center in the Michigan State University College of Law, 45 US states have prohibitions on bestiality and/or broader animal cruelty laws.[3]  Where there is not a direct prohibition, prosecution is more difficult according to Leighann Lassiter, animal cruelty policy director for the United States Humane Society, as it may require proof that the animal suffered a physical injury and as livestock are sometimes excluded from anti-cruelty laws.[1][4]  The Society has been advocating for specific anti-bestiality laws, successfully in some jurisdictions such as Ohio where it has been shown to make prosecution easier.[5]  However, untangling the sodomy and bestiality portions of pre-Lawrence crimes against nature laws has been controversial in Louisiana, with lawmakers opposing a more comprehensive anti-bestiality bill because they fear repealing the unconstitutional and unenforceable anti-sodomy law might follow.[2][6]  State Senator Ryan Gatti described the anti-bestiality bill as a "Trojan horse" that "was written because the far left wants to undermine our other laws that protect family and traditional values that the people of Louisiana hold dear."[6]

 * 1) Guardian ref, 8 December 2016
 * 2) Harvard Religious Liberty Project ref, May 1, 2018
 * 3) Current ref 67 from MSU Law School
 * 4) Current ref 66 from MEL Magazine
 * 5) Cleveland ref, 22 September 2017 - cleveland.com
 * 6) Louisiana ref April 24, 2018 - usnews.com

Thoughts / Comments? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Any version that gives a better understanding of reality is supported by me. Lawrence cannot be seen and isn't seen as an inhibitor to prosecuting bestiality, that's a fact in understanding among the legal arena. It applies to private, consensual human sexual activity, nothing more, as evidenced in case law since the ruling. Like EdChem said, it's only when states repeal the complete statute that there can be issues. State lawmakers can choose to delete the unconstitutional portion of the anti-sodomy laws or re-write them completely, which some have done. It's pretty simple. If it was up to me, this wouldn't be in the article as I can find no other reliably accurate examples of claims that Lawrence somehow makes prosecuting bestiality a problem, and Leighann Lassiter herself provides no specific cases I can look at to support her notion that bestiality prosecutions have faced problems due to the Lawrence ruling itself. Teammm  $talk email$ 16:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I oppose the current text per my comment in the previous section. The original matter must be prominently included. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but notably, states are shifting to prosecuting bestiality as a form of animal abuse, as opposed to obscenity doctrine or the laws against nature scheme of things. In his dissenting opinion in Lawrence, the late Justice Scalia argued that state laws against bestiality – among other types of sexual conduct – might be difficult to sustain in light of the Court’s protection of sexual behavior. Moreover, because bestiality has been historically connected with the practice of many polytheistic and rarely monotheistic religons, the free exercise clause also comes into play. To me it would seem to violate WP:NPOV to only cover the majority opinion of the court without also covering the points of the dissent. 98.178.179.240 (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed Text
Fixed text to read Lawrence et al. v. Texas, because there were multiple plaintiffs, and this is the proper caption of the case. The use of "Lawerence v. Texas" without the et al. signifies that Lawrence would be the only Plaintiff to the action. This is a matter of meaningful legal terminology. 98.178.179.240 (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your proposal violates standard, Bluebook citation practices. Will be un-fixing. Antinoos69 (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Correct categorization
this article should not be in both Category:LGBT rights case law and Category:United States LGBT rights case law. This violates the basic principles of Wikipedia categorization, that an article should not be in both a category and one of its subcategories, unless the first category is non-diffusing. See Categorization for how it's supposed to work. (t · c)  buidhe  01:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The logical solution, quite obviously, would be to remove the category that comprises a subcategory of the other—rather than the broader category, as you have been attempting to do. Antinoos69 (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the linked guideline makes it clear that for correct categorization, "Each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs." (t · c)  buidhe  01:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I could not disagree more, and am astonished to read an actual living person make such an absurd argument. In a case such as this, where both categories are very much on point and relevant, there can be no logical justification for removing pertinent information. Many readers will want such info provided at their fingertips. I cannot acquiesce to the removal of info in this case. Antinoos69 (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with the categorization rules, take that up on WT:Categorization and try to get it changed. In the meantime, the article should follow the rules that are in effect and not perpetuate category clutter. (t · c)  buidhe  01:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You reverted the article while the discussion was ongoing and you had as yet failed to gain consensus for your desired change. That is doubly improper. I will give you one opportunity to undo your revision and gain consensus before escalating this matter further. This is not how Wikipedia works. You are not the final arbiter of Wikipedia.
 * As for “the rule,” it obviously envisions a situation where a subcategory is on point with regard to a particular subject but the broader category is not. That is not the case here. You are merely keeping info from readers for the sake of keeping info from readers. That won’t do. If you think otherwise, form a consensus for your view. Antinoos69 (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a good reason not to include the category. It will help readers find what they are looking for. Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Bestiality
While it is difficult to argue with edits made by @Tyhbvf, their edit removed reliable sources and inserted opposite reasonning in their place with no reliable sources to back it up. That's textbook WP:OR. Elizium23 (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

 * @Cardbuff, I am not sure why you claimed the sources were unavailable, because I just clicked through them and they are live on the Internet. @Tyhbvf damaged one of the URLs and I've repaired it. Elizium23 (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lawrence v. Texas