Talk:Carlos Hathcock
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Carlos Hathcock article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Carlos Hathcock. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Carlos Hathcock at the Reference desk. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
General who? Who? Who? WHO!?
edit@DHN: I don't know. Perhaps he will be identified at some point. That said, if you're not satisfied with source(s) supporting any content, on any article, then RSN is right →here←. - wolf 08:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Thewolfchild: It's been 50 years. At this point still nobody knows who the "general" is. A general being killed in action by a sniper would be recorded by history, don't ya think? DHN (talk) 08:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- No, not necessarily. Just look at the Nazis and how much info they destroyed at the end of war. A lot of info that is now lost to history. Maybe the North Vietnamese were the same. Maybe they don't want to acknowledge that their personel were so useless and incompetent that they allowed an enemy sniper to crawl right into their front yard, blow a general's head off, and then waltz right out. Maybe this officer was just made a general days before or maybe it was just an acting rank. That could explain the limited info and perhaps even the odd rank insignia. But really, I don't know. And it wouldn't matter if I did. Unless I had proof that I could provide as a reliable source. What I do know is that content in WP is added when its supported by a source, like this content is. Content that, by the way, you have been complaining about for over 5 years now. Perhaps it's time to let this go? (As opposed to adding all those needless, WP:POINTy tags...?)
I've read all the talk page discussions, including your questionable and very POV-ish comments about Hathcock. And of course, being a crat & sysop on the vi.WP, and speaking Vietnamese, do you have COI to declare? Your userpage states you're in California, where several IPs have posted anti-Hathcock comments. Do have any instances of editing while logged out to declare? It happens from time to time to many editors; you forget to log in, you make a few edits, but then log in and claim responsibility for them... usually not a big deal. But you've gone beyond that, (eg; instances noted above, along with harrassing me on my talk page). You have this ridiculous grievance you've been whinging about for years now... years! This is tendentious. Why not find something more constructive to do with your time? I'm really not interested in getting into an lengthy dispute with you about this. So, have a nice day. - wolf 09:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Why is it whoever I raise this issue to on this page becomes defensive and resorts to personal attacks? In case you haven't noticed, California has about 40 million people, so accusing me of sock-puppetry will get you nowhere. If I have a point to make, I have no need to pretend to be someone else. Why do you think I have a COI? Sounds like somebody thinking that just because someone speaks a certain language or is of a certain ethnicity, they automatically have a certain POV. I've been raising this issue for year because it's still unresolved. Now your conjecture is getting more and more outlandish. If this "general" is lost to history, how did some sniper know about it? DHN (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oh relax, there's no personal attacks here. If you're saying you have no COI and have only ever edited with the one account than I accept that. Now, moving on... it seems the reason you're disputing this content is because of the source. Have you been to RSN yet? - wolf 19:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm going to go through the sources given to make sure that they claim what the article is claiming and will make my case to RSN when necessary. DHN (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oh relax, there's no personal attacks here. If you're saying you have no COI and have only ever edited with the one account than I accept that. Now, moving on... it seems the reason you're disputing this content is because of the source. Have you been to RSN yet? - wolf 19:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Why is it whoever I raise this issue to on this page becomes defensive and resorts to personal attacks? In case you haven't noticed, California has about 40 million people, so accusing me of sock-puppetry will get you nowhere. If I have a point to make, I have no need to pretend to be someone else. Why do you think I have a COI? Sounds like somebody thinking that just because someone speaks a certain language or is of a certain ethnicity, they automatically have a certain POV. I've been raising this issue for year because it's still unresolved. Now your conjecture is getting more and more outlandish. If this "general" is lost to history, how did some sniper know about it? DHN (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- No, not necessarily. Just look at the Nazis and how much info they destroyed at the end of war. A lot of info that is now lost to history. Maybe the North Vietnamese were the same. Maybe they don't want to acknowledge that their personel were so useless and incompetent that they allowed an enemy sniper to crawl right into their front yard, blow a general's head off, and then waltz right out. Maybe this officer was just made a general days before or maybe it was just an acting rank. That could explain the limited info and perhaps even the odd rank insignia. But really, I don't know. And it wouldn't matter if I did. Unless I had proof that I could provide as a reliable source. What I do know is that content in WP is added when its supported by a source, like this content is. Content that, by the way, you have been complaining about for over 5 years now. Perhaps it's time to let this go? (As opposed to adding all those needless, WP:POINTy tags...?)
I don't know how to edit this, but you have sentences like: " During this depression, his wife Jo nearly left him but decided to stay." that are in SERIOUS need of revision for clarity. 2601:246:5680:E670:C526:AEDC:DF5F:9123 (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm highly curious now what you believe to be unclear about that particular sentence. He fell into depression, he had a wife called Jo, she nearly ended their relationship but then - she didn't. Yeah, that's a real head-scratcher. What could that possibly mean... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.214.45 (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Removals from the Popular Culture section
editI've removed a number of pop culture references from the above-mentioned section, specifically because they do not explicitly tie to the source of this article. An editor, noting a similarity in kill-shots, is not enough for inclusion. It must be a secondary reliable source that specifically connects both Hathcock to a character within the movie/tv/show/anime. the failure to do so is Original Research, something we are prohibited from doing.
As Hathcock's shot is so iconic, it should be relatively easy for those with interest in the article to find the connecting point between the shot and the medium in question. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)