Talk:Carlos Hathcock

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

@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)

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)

I'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)

This article is far from neutral. No one really believes those stories about the "Apache" and that nameless general. Much if not most of the information is made up, sometimes years after the fact. https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/1gs8f7d/carlos_hathcocks_achievements_appear_to_be/

Others have mentioned this, see the talkpage archives. Polygnotus (talk) 07:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

We don't edit articles based on reddit discussions. - \\'cLf 22:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a pretty perfunctory dismissal. Just because it is on Reddit and being discussed there does not mean the whole idea of a false service record needs to be thrown out. It seems like it was concluded that much of his record was fabricated all the back in 2014 and not much has been changed about this article since.

The article appears to give undue weight to claims that are not supported by high-quality reliable sources. Several of the cited references either don’t verify the stated record or discuss events that are logically impossible. Continuing to include this information despite repeated verification concerns implies tendentious editing, which is not in line with WP:NPOV, something you seem to be accusing other people of in the above discussion from 2019.

Can we please get some fresh eyes on this article and sources? SinisterOcean (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

• I do not see any reddit.com ref on the page. So I am not sure what you are writting about?Telecine Guy (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, hey. I wrote the Reddit post mentioned. Any remotely serious look at period records quickly debunks every single claim in the book. I've never seen a book cite so many sources that don't support what the book claims.MandolinMagi (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Office_for_South_Vietnam
Senior General Nguyễn Chí Thanh, also known as Nguyen Chi Thanh, a top North Vietnamese (PAVN) commander and strategist for the southern front (COSVN), died in July 1967.
While his CLAIMED death occurred while visiting Hanoi, he was the primary leader managing operations in South Vietnam and Cambodia during this period, frequently directing forces that utilized Cambodia for command and logistical support. He was a Politburo member and commander of the Central Office for South Vietnam (COSVN).
Significance: He was the leading strategist for the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces in the south, overseeing the expansion of the Ho Chi Minh trail through Cambodia. He was in Cambodia until shortly before his death.

Claimed Death: He died of a heart attack in July 1967 in Hanoi while visiting from the southern front.
Likely Death: He died of a rifle shot by the USMC sniper Carlos Norman Hathcock II aka "White Feather."

Can this be proved by records found on line and in books? No.
However, those who are familiar with the incident has shown no real doubts. Mission still classified. However there is now some hint (4 March 2026) that due to removal of Iranian leadership that the file may have portions declassified. We may even learn who "Apache" was.
PS: Communists lie and never tell the truth of when their top soldier "suddenly" dies despite being claimed in excellent health months prior.  :-) Jrcrin001 (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

There is zero evidence outside a badly written novel that Carlos Hathcock did anything. Apache never existed, actual Marine records from the time do not support her existence, no marines were captured/killed in the supposed time frame. Do some actual research and check Marine records from the time. Propaganda isn't exclusive to the "bad guys". MandolinMagi (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

You need to provide evidence aside from vague statements to actually prove that the claim that Apache never existed. An Female Snipers did exist in the NVA and the Vietcong. CombatWombat2534 (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Not how that works. You have to prove she existed. And the NVA/VC didn't have snipers. Any contemporary report of "sniper activity" is actually referring to random VC taking potshots. Even if they somehow have a scoped Mosin, they're still not some trained sniper or anything.MandolinMagi (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

"Any contemporary report of "sniper activity" is actually referring to random VC taking potshots." That is not correct. The NVA and VC did in fact have trained Marksman but the term used to describe them was a Sniper. While I do have to prove that she existed you also need to prove that she didnt exist as lack of evidence is not evidence. CombatWombat2534 (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing to support Apache's existence outside a badly written novel whose sources disagree with it. Burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You don't get to invent stuff without actual sources. Even if she did exist, there is no record of any POWs or deaths resembling those described in the bookMandolinMagi (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC)