Talk:Hatfield-McCoy feud
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Hatfield-McCoy feud is within the scope of WikiProject Kentucky, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Kentucky and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Template Usage] [Watch Project Articles] [Project Talk] | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. | |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale. | |
 |
Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page. | |
The article states that Devil Anse Hatfield was killed, but also states "both family leaders" survived. This is contradictory.
- Devil Anse died well after the feud. You can visit his gravesite; on the tombstone it states it says 1921. I am a descendant of Preacher Anse Hatfield so the stories were told to me all the time. My mother's family still owns the Alley Cemetery that has some of the individuals of the feud. My mother took me to Devil Anses gravesite a few years ago. It is in another cemetery though. --Wer2chosen 18:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Confederate or Union?
This article claims that both families fought for the Confederacy, but the linked CBS article: [1] claims that the McCoys fought on the Union side. Which is correct? SmartGuy 18:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- All the Hatfields and nearly all the McCoys fought for (and deserted) the Confederate Army. Asa Harmon McCoy did fight for the Union, and when he returned to Tug Creek he was killed by a group of local militia headed by Anse Hatfield. The fact that Asa was not avenged by his family and that no one was ever charged with the crime indicates that Asa's decision was extremely unpopular with his neighbors. Elle121 02:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
This article needs to be expanded greatly, sigh I am lazy though. --Thenormalyears 19:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Finding sources.
This article is so well written, so articulate, that it seems a shame to tamper with it. Nevertheless, Wikipedians have been asked to find sources for the material in this article, so let us begin at the top.
Is there any source for the statement that the feud has become "a metaphor for bitterly feuding rival parties in general"?
Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 16:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
So, where is the article for this feud?? Says that there is no such article but I can start one. I'm confused. Laggard
[edit] Beginning of the feud
On 09/21 2006 64.4.112.84 appended the following paragraph at the end of the section "Beginning of the feud":
The feud ended by the hand of Reo B. Hatfield II of Waynesboro, Virginia. He wrote the truce signed by him at the Hatfields and McCoys reunion and was held on National TV CBS Early Show on June 14, 2003. Both Governors of Kentucky and West Virginia credit Reo Hatfield for ending the feud. Reo Hatfield along with Bo McCoy and Ron McCoy signed the truce in support of the President by showing even the famous feuding family come together as Americans to fight together against a common foe outside the United States.
Due to the unfortunate choice of subsection, I deleted and hastily qualified it as vandalism (on the history page), for which I apologize.
However, the actual information (belonging maybe to a new subsection "End of the feud" subsequent to "Escalation") doesn't seem - at least not to me - truly relevant to the historical events, but rather the descendants trying to get exposure, and possibly some political manipulation. IMHO, the 2003 act has no relevance and shouldn't be included in this article.MerryXIV 17:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think if we move that quote to a new subsection, and take out that last line, which is POV, I think it would work to show the actual official end of the feud.Soldan 13:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Agree to disagree
Does this saying belong in an encyclopedia article? It doesn't sound very formal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.31.99.218 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
Agreeing to diagree is a very formal sounding statement. All people, at some time or another, agree to disagree with someone about something. If not, we would all be in fueds. It's all part of getting along and LIVING with one another. This is what they should have did in the 1800's. A lot of lives would have been saved if they would have just killed the hog, had a bar-b-que, and agreed to disagree on where the property line was. Then, settle on a permanant bondry line. Hopefully, the world can learn from other people's mistakes.Wills 66 03:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)wills_66Wills 66 03:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
