The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Reading the article and the sources, I'm fairly convinced that Lembcke is right in his assesment that there might have been no single historical figure that was this Apache. However, as the article stands, his minority position is noted, and the majority of sources all concur with Hathcocks account. That I (or other editors) believe differently is all well and good, but we should edit articles to what the sources are saying. Even if there was no historical sniper Apache, but as Carrite puts it " A story about an urban legend among American troops", then its certainly a notable legend. In the end, finding the truth is not up to us. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apache (Viet Cong soldier)[edit]

Apache (Viet Cong soldier) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm a Vietnamese. I have been studying about Vietnam war all my life. This is the first time i hear about this name. I have studied about Vietnam war on both USA and Vietnam sources. I'm currently live in America. Anyone with enough knowledge about Vietnam war can tell it's pretty much fake. Perhaps the person who written the book, which is the source used in the article, is someone who really hates Communist so he made up terrible stories to defame something the Communist didn't do. This conversation is not about Communist is bad or not. All i'm saying is this article contains FAKE information. Trongphu (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plus another stupid mistake the author made, which make anyone with any knowledge about Vietnam can point it out. If that person indeed Vietnamese why she doesn't has a Vietnamese name? Which confirms strongly that this article is a big lie.Trongphu (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably the nickname "Apache" came from U.S. soldiers who didn't know her real name. That makes the subject difficult to verify, which is quite different from being a big lie. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The story itself doesn't make sense. There is not a single crazy woman working alone herself torturing Americans. Where are her friends? Where are other Viet cong? It said in the article "she was torturing US Marines and ARVN troops and letting them bleed to death." Sounds like she has captured a lot of US soldiers to me. Plus in the artile "Apache was a female Viet Cong sniper, platoon commander, and interrogator". After read that i can assume that she is some kind of high rank officer in Viet cong. For the sources (the sources themselves made me doubt on their reliable) i have read so far, there is no mention of any other Viet cong except her. Is there an expert about Vietnam war here in English Wikipedia? Or someone knows a lot about Vietnam war. For the expert, it is easy to tell that the story itself has too much contradiction to be true. References 7 to 9 are from the interview of Carlos Hathcock, who is suppose to be the one that killed her. You can listen to it to confirm. And the The Ultimate Sniper book, which was used in the article as reference. I doubt that Apache is even in the book. It's extremely easy to make things up in this internet era world. You made a website and started to post thing on it and make some random references, knowing that not many people are going to confirm it. And then when people started to read and then got tricked into it and then it got spread around. There are plenty of people out there who really hate the Vietnamese because of whatever happen in the Vietnam war. Propaganda stories, usually FAKE, are common. This article needs to be delete if not then it must have a notable source. Perhaps from NBC news as an example.Trongphu (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article, she lead a platoon. Nobody said she was crazy, just a sadist.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NBC News? That would be pretty low on the reliablity totem pole in my book. The article has reliable, verifiable sources. This doesn't come from "the Internet", it comes from multiple published sources from major publishing houses. I'd point you to WP:VNT. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By using your logic. I can use some random books as my references to write articles on here in Wikipedia. How are people going to find out if i'm lying or not without reading the book? Tell you what with all the my knowledge i have i can proudly say it's fake. Well perhaps it can trick people for a while but not forever. One day, this article will be delete. I don't care if it's a year from now or 10 years from now. Just something as my opinion. HAAA.Trongphu (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not require the use of online sources. And that is a good thing. These are not self-published sources. And the article will only be deleted if it fails on merits - not because you are determined to delete it. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not determined nor do i care. My policy of life is just to eliminate lie when i see them. I have no problem with if it happens otherwise. Does it affect me if people are reading fake stuffs?01:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't accuse people of being communist when you don't know a single thing about me. And don't talking off topic. Are we talking about communist here? It has nothing to do with this discussion.
You were the one going on about a persecution complex about the commies and the North and calling people, liars. Your comment appeared like you were saying I hated communists, I misread it, apologies.
9 verifiable sources? What make you think they are verifiable? Show me some famous sources that i can trust, can you? I can't and won't believe this due to the fact that it's easy to make things up in this time period. Anyone can write books, websites... Do that mean they are right?Trongphu (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see...Penguin Books, Simon and Schuster, Pocket Books, Berkley Books, University of Massachusetts Press...oh, yeah, they're all penny-ante publishers with a reputation for hoax creation, aren't they? Not hardly. Your statement above beggars belief. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what Bushranger says. These are reliable sources.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteAs what i said above and this is an obvious propaganda against Vietnam. It's all fake!Trongphu (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You only get 1 vote, old kid.
So what? Stop acting like i care. Who will get the bad reputation for allowing fake articles eventually? And don't be too quick to say you're winning. There are still many more days until the final result. The tide may turn whenever it wants. HAAA.Trongphu (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
???? This is my first vote here? What are you talking about? I did not double vote.Trongphu (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your nomination is your vote,phu.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another falsely accusation. WP:IDONTLIKEIT???? I like it or not has nothing to do with me thinking it's FAKE. Don't mix things up together. Plus "multiple reliable sources", oh sound pretty good huh? Do you bother to check if they reliable or not ? Or is it just all make up by some random websites? Anyone can write books, websites these days!Trongphu (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above: Penguin Books, Simon and Schuster, Pocket Books, Berkley Books, University of Massachusetts Press. Are you saying these are unreliable Internet sources? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You got messed up the idea. Let say i wrote the book about Vietnam war. And in my book i wrote Nixon is a bastard, who raped all Vietnamese women. In the references all of them except for three, are information from the books. How can we so sure that Apache is really being mentioned in the books? The other three are the interview in youtube, which i don't think he talks about anyone named Apache. This is kind of like a circle reference, created by someone who hates Vietnam, with purpose to trick many people. A lot of people got tricked as i can see.Trongphu (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you wrote anything that was ever published in the English language, I would be very impressed. However, you are not a published writer. When you write for outlets such as these, they have these people called editors and fact checkers. A publisher of non-fiction will not remain in business for very long if they publish lies or sloppy facts. For example, there was an author who made a career of that and published things he made up to suit his point of view. He even won a prize for it. However, it was proven within a year that he was a fraud and his work was discredited, he was fired, etc. That has not happened with any of these authors. I have met three of the authors, including Hathcock and see no reason why they would have made up such a story. I was hesitant to work on the article as we do not know her real name, as we do not know most of the names of the 94 viets that Hathcock killed. However, multiple reliable sources talked about this woman's existence, so I helped out. I even added one source that doubts the story to offer balance for folks in denial such as yourself.
I'm not saying i will. I probably won't. I'm not a writer nor do i even think about being a writer. Just made it as an example. Let clear things up, the books were written by people who made them up was just one of many possibilities that could happen. I didn't certainly say that is the case but i said or and perhaps it is. I also listed other possibilities. Ok let me ask you this, have you read the books? To this point, what i'm concerned about is do the authors actually mention Apache in the books? Let say author A wrote a book named B. And then someone else used his book to be a reference on something that is not even in the book.Trongphu (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not require the use of online sources. And that is a good thing. These are not self-published sources. You are showing an alarming lack of good faith, and a distinctly non-neutral point-of-view. What are your sources that the article is untrue? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My source is me. I have grown up in Vietnam and currently live in America. Not to brag but i have to say i'm one of the people who have the most neutral view about Vietnam war. I have been exposed to both Vietnam and USA sources and their teaching about Vietnam war ALL MY LIFE. In other word, Well i don't want to call me an expert yet but perhaps i'm an expert on this stuff And as i said above, you're welcome to invite any of experts in Vietnam war to confirm it.Trongphu (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you are not a reliable source. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your additions, phu, would be original research, based on your POV.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't act like you know more about Vietnam war than me. Both my grandparents fount in the Vietnam war, one of them fought for America, the other one is fought for the Communist, believe it or not up to you. I'm proudly to say that i'm the most neutral guy you can get out there about Vietnam war. With my more diversity knowledge than you i can say that you have been brainwashed by the America government and the people who bias toward the North. I bet you have never been in Vietnam. I can bet anything including my life you don't have more neutral view than me. Nice try but this i was born for this.Trongphu (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you are not a reliable source. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are not either.Trongphu (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And by the same logic, what make you guarantee that the books are references in the articles do mention about the Apache woman? We both are on the same road here dude except i have better knowledge about this particular topic.Trongphu (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The same way we assume any offline source refers to the subject sourced - by assuming good faith. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then there are chances that you got tricked and according to me, you indeed got tricked.Trongphu (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: Don't think i'm stupid. It's not even close to be a coincidence that you choose this article to keep. You participated in article for deletion once per day. It has about 100 articles everyday. So the chance of you randomly choose this article to participate in is 1%. You banned me once for a stupid reason and yep you still have some kind hatred toward me. I believe you have been "watchlist" me and patiently waiting for a chance to interfere me again. What shall we call this? Discrimination toward your own victim? Perhaps you can win the conversation but so what? It's not like i care. I just take a chance to destroy any lie that i saw. But i have no problem if people don't see them as a lie. Not my business. It's your own English Wikipedia reputation one day will be ruin by allowing fake articles. No matter what you do, you have no effect on me. Enjoy wasting your time. To me victory is mines in the long run. I have fun doing this, thanks for the entertainment. And also thanks for the reason that you opened my eye for me to see what Wikipedia is really like.Trongphu (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no, I don't sit around watching people ready to pounce like a hawk. I saw the article listed on WP:DELMIL, looked over the data, and entered the debate. I participate in AfD discussions that are added to WP:DELMIL and WP:DELAV. Whatever you wish to believe, however, is, of course, your own choice. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry perhaps you do. You can trick others but not me. HAAA. Yep i'm believing in it.Trongphu (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown according to the article. They just simply called her Apache. I agreed with you on this perhaps an urban legend among American troops, pretty much fiction.Trongphu (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What was Jack the Ripper's real name?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not relevant to compare. Jack the Ripper is the whole lot different than this. I would rather believe Jack incident than this.Trongphu (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is this: there are contemporary newspaper accounts indicating that Jack the Ripper actually existed. There is a vast published literature dealing with the serial killer whom we remember by this name and his crimes. There is no such documentary evidence indicating that this "Apache" ever even existed, outside of the war stories of a sniper and his partner, as published in the commercial press. Carrite (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! There are no historical figures to confirm = pretty much fake. Perhaps it's not really the book authors who wrote it but the person who wrote this article, has embellished the story to make it more favorable toward Americans. This is the same thing as killing any random woman in the war then made up some cool stories associate with it. Pretty good tools for propaganda.Trongphu (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it is to keep then it should states clear in the article that this account is mostly fictional or embellished by the article author.Trongphu (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unproductive and rude debate collapsed Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: I'm certainly sure that you involved to this just because of The Bushranger. You guys both were the admins that have some conflict with me before and indeed did show some kind of hatred toward me. I'm strongly urge the English community to invalid their votes for conspiracy against individual like me. You guys can check their history of contribution and my talk page to confirm my thoughts. (they both participate in article deletion about average once a day, there are about 100 everyday. By using logic there are .1% that both of them choosing the same one to participate in. The chance is even lower if the article for deletion associate with me, their banned victim before) It is not a coincidence that suddenly they both came here to vote against their victim before.Trongphu (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, dude, I got one word...meds....take them.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Took! Anything else?Trongphu (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good one! Seriously, though, there's no reason to act asshurt over the article. I was against its creation, because we never got her real name, vitals, etc. However there were enough sources that I contributed what was ut there, even the one spurious accusation by an unknown sociologist who doesn't believe it. Still, you should stop accusing me of making it up. I write articles based on reliable sources. Thanks.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to be an ass nor do i want to be an ass. I want it fair and spare. Personally i don't really care much but here is the thing. If this is a big lie then it would be a big punch on the face to Asians people = really badly insult them. Asians people take pride and honor in stuffs they do. This is a big dishonor to Asians people if it's a lie. In Asia, there are people who rather die than being dishonor (see Seppuku as an example). In America, it is not a serious issue but in Asia, we have tough discipline. We valued honor than everything. This would be a big insult to China and Vietnam, where communists still in charge. Wikipedia reputation would be ruin badly if they found out this article is a lie. And again this is my opinion that it is a lie. Anyone else with different opinion are welcome. I'm disagreeing with other opinion is one thing but I also respect other people opinion with reasonable reasons. I believe everyone should have a freedom. What do you want me to do? Shut up and let it go? It's natural of life that there are sometimes argument and to me majority = win. So even if majority doesn't favor me then i will live with it. But before that i will fight until the end for my own belief. Giving up is not my Asian style.Trongphu (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's insane. This article is not an insult to anyone. What is an insult is calling people liars with no proof of your accusations.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IT IS INSULTING BILLIONS OF ASIANS AND 90 MILLIONS OF VIETNAMESE IN PARTICULARLY RIGHT NOW. Can you see it?Trongphu (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And i didn't know you are an author of this article? I thought someone else is. So you are the one who respond for most of the material in the article? And answer my concern i wrote above after your sentence "However, multiple reliable sources talked about this woman's existence, so I helped out. I even added one source that doubts the story to offer balance for folks in denial such as yourself.".Trongphu (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then why were you babblingasking about it on my talk page?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just think you are involve in it. I thought there are other users who play the main role in it. And clearly you didn't create the article.Trongphu (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what make it worse is it's about a woman. In Vietnam, for thousands of years according our tradition and culture. There are some rules Vietnamese women must follow. They describe the women as... (something i don't know how to translate to English but well it's about something good, so basically women must remain good in general) This is the first time ever i heard a Vietnamese woman that did this kind of brutal level. In Vietnam, for a woman to punch someone else is already a "big thing" not even talking about killing and torturing many people. This is shocking me. This brought me up another strong evidence The Viet cong would rather die than let a woman doing this kind of stuffs. And remember as the fact that the Viet cong got more support from common people than America and its ally. Man you got know idea how this is going to a profound effect on Asians people, particularly Vietnamese. I just realized now this is a serious issue, not even kidden.Trongphu (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear God!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go up and answer my question above, will you?Trongphu (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which one, mein fuhrher?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said it is after your sentence, which is after this: "However, multiple reliable sources talked about this woman's existence, so I helped out. I even added one source that doubts the story to offer balance for folks in denial such as yourself." sentence. The one right below it lol. Alright i will copy it to your talk page to end the confusion.Trongphu (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To the first point: Is there a single scholarly source independent of the shooter and his partner which indicates that any such person ever existed? A journal article??? A general history or monograph by an academic??? An official military history??? A Vietnamese historical source??? Contemporary journalism from Stars and Stripes or any other publication of the American armed forces??? Show me ONE. Here's what User:Berean Hunter had to say on the talk page of the piece: "Henderson's account may be highly fictionalized because he is producing a huge amount of quoted dialog including supposed dialog on the enemy's side. What do the other sources say?" (17 August 2011). Here's what User:My Public Account had to say on the article's talk page: "What year was the earliest mention of her in books, newspaper, or TV? I have not yet been able to reference my assumption, that she was mentioned in book, before newspaper and TV." (18 August 2011). Here is what User:Into That Darkness had to say on the article's talk page: "I'm very wary of this whole issue simply because she doesn't seem to have been mentioned before Hathcock. Given the volume of Vietnam writing (memoir and historical) I find this odd, especially if she was as infamous as Hathcock makes her sound. Honestly, I think we need something solid prior to 1984." (19 August 2011). User Ønography asked: "Have any first-hand accounts by other persons (than Hathcock) been published? Have any ethnic Vietnamese first-hand accounts about her been published?" to which Into That Darkness answered: "In English, I haven't seen any that don't track back to Hathcock's original story. Can't speak to Vietnamese accounts, though. Sorry." (19 August 2011) So again: this is a sourcing failure and should be deleted on those grounds, in accord with WP:GNG. (more)
Stars & Stripes never published anything on US Sniping until the 1990's, they definitely would not have published anything during Vietnam as it was not a popular war. Do you really expect liberal American campuses to give treatment to such a topic, too?
The following is the preface from Henderson's biography on Hathcock:
"This book is based upon the personal recollections of the participants and upon the official Marine Corps records kept at the Marine Corps Historical Center in Washington, D.C. Operational orders, situation reports, and after action reports provide the historical framework for the story Marine Sniper tells. As for the actions of the enemy, whatever was not observed by American eyes was reconstructed from the evidence found after battle. And in specific instances spectacular windfalls came my way: the notebook of the "Apache woman," in which she kept a record of her day-to-day movements and observations and in which she reports on her encounters with the American enemy, was recovered after her death and lent me by a Marine who was on Hill 55. In a few places I have taken the liberty of inventing dialogue for Hathcock's North Vietnamese and Viet Cong opponents. Those are the only elements in the book that cannot be fully justified by a careful examination of the evidence. Everything else has been made factually accurate to the best of my ability."--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear: Henderson was the spotter and Hathcock was the shooter, yes? This alleged "Apache woman" (sic.) never appeared in any literature before this book, correct? This purported notebook resides where? Who translated it? Carrite (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Henderson was the author of 2 bios on Hathcock. Hathcock was the shooter, Jim Burke was his Spotter and Jim Land, then a Captain, was the spotter and signatory on the kill sheet. I do not know the current whereabouts of the notebook nor the translator. I can try to find out via an email to Henderson if you wish. I will be seeing Marcinko next week, possibly Plaster and Sasser as well.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an email I just received from Mr Henderson: "The notebook in question was loaned to me by a fellow Marine Chief Warrant Officer, Jim Geralds, who was on the Parris Island shooting team when I competed in the Marine Corps Matches at Camp Lejeune. I was competing with rifle and pistol on the Quantico team. We had the Interservice Matches at Quantico that year. At any rate, CWO Geralds was an enlisted Marine based at Hill 55 in Vietnam during the period in which the Apache ran her platoon. He had personally seen some of her handiwork, as had Major Jim Land and others in the 1st Marine Division Scout Sniper School based there then too. Geralds was on patrol and discovered the notebook, dropped near the wire. He pocketed the notebook, wanting a war relic, rather than turning it into the S2 for translation. He did not consider it that important. Then, when some of the words were translated for him, he realized it was the platoon leader’s notebook, and probably belonged to the Apache. The handwriting was feminine. He loaned me the notebook and I had a man named Mr. Nguyen, who worked for the Marine Corps Exchange Services Headquarters at Quantico translate the book. Not a lot of earth-shattering information, mostly notations and locations of troop movements and helicopter sortes. But it did establish with a document that Apache was watching Hill 55 and taking advantage of her opportunities as she saw them. After I retired from the Marine Corps, I took an assignment from LIFE Magazine to go to Saigon and write an article about the 20th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War. Dirck Halstead was my photographer on the job. After we completed work on the assignment for LIFE, we remained in Vietnam and retraced all the major battle sites from the final days of the Vietnam War. This took us from Saigon, overland, zigzagging across Vietnam, from coast to borders with Cambodia and Laos, up to Da Nang and then to Hanoi. While In Saigon, I had two occasions to interview in depth General Tran Van Tra, the Commander in Chief of the Viet Cong and second in command of the North Vietnamese Army. I also interviewed a Colonel Vo Dong Giang, who was a long-time cohort of General Tran. During my interviews with them, which was mostly about the fall of South Vietnam and the NVA victory, in which they were both key players (see my book Goodnight Saigon), I also interviewed them about Carlos Hathcock, Jim Land and others at Hill 55 and the Da Nang area. Colonel Giang had commanded forces there, and the Apache was under his command. Likewise, General Tran was Colonel Giang’s senior commander. Both recalled the Apache to me and offered me their perspectives of her. The name, Apache, was not one with which they were familiar, since it was a name given to the woman by the Marines at 7th Marines and 1st MarDiv. However, they knew her well by the stories that I told them from Marine Sniper. A good deal of the interviews were recorded on Hi-8 video tape that Dirck Halstead has stored and remains unpublished to this day, as well as audio tapes that I have stored and are unpublished. Since they are unpublished, raw tapes, as are my interviews of Carlos Hathcock and others, I do not release those to anyone. I did use the interviews as information resources for the Marine Sniper sequel, Silent Warrior, and I cite the interviews in that book."--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


To the second point, this is a fringe theory. There is a copious literature on the treatment and interrogation of prisoners of the Vietnamese civil war, by both sides. There is nothing of which I am aware which indicates that NLF platoons incorporated "interrogators" at the unit level. That, in fact, flies in the face of logic. Contending otherwise, as this article does, is a violation of WP:FRINGE — it is a crackpot theory unsubstantiated by evidence. Show me ONE scholarly or official American military or Vietnamese source which contends otherwise. (more)
No, it is a first-hand observation from the point of view of an Infantryman. Who is to say tht the "fringe" is not the naysayers who are denying this?Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To the third point, that this entire individual is either fictional or mythologized — riddle me this: Why don't we know her name if we know she was "31 years old" (per the info box on the article)? How would the face of a guerilla be identifiable as a specific person through a spotting scope given the technology of 1966, bearing in mind that NLF fighters did not wear insignia? Why would we have not heard propaganda stories of this Most Evil Interrogator who flayed her victims alive and copied a fictional gross out story in George Orwell's 1984 by putting rats in a bag over there heads and letting them chew, chew, chew? What year did this story about this purported interrogator first emerge again? 1984.... That's almost comical in its obviousness — that book had healthy sales in that year, for obvious reasons, those of us who were around then will recall. By presenting a lurid and self-justifying and commercially fruitful war story as factual, Wikipedia does its readers a disservice. Carrite (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]
When you are a Sniper in the Marine Cotps and you log a kill as confirmed; confirmation must be signed off by an Officer who witnesses the kill. In this case that was Land. Furthermore, confirmation of a kill includes a visual inspection of the body. It is for this reason that Sniper's are unofficially a part of the S-2 Shop in addition to HQ. Simply put, she wasn't just shot, they had to get up close to the body write a detailed description and log her in as bagged and tagged. They determined she was VC and her approximate age, among other things.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edit to add, 1984 was actually published in 1948. It is not outside the realm of possibility that "Apache" could have read the book and got the idea from there in the 1960s.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was there a Vietnamese edition that I don't know about? Are you seriously arguing that some NLF combination platoon leader and interrogator (!!!) in the hills of Vietnam read a translation of a gruesome fictional passage from George Orwell and said to herself, "Bwaa, haa haa — that is a splendid idea! We will put rats on the face of the American imperialist aggressors like the torturer O'Brien did to Winston Smith in Chapter 5 of the anti-totalitarian novel 1984 — that will bring about the desired result of gaining troop strength and movement information!" Is it not about 100,000 times more likely that a hack writer (who acknowledges having fabricated dialog in this book) ripped off a scene from Orwell's 1984 in the year 1984, when that book was extensively reprinted? Show me a serious source, ONE SERIOUS SOURCE, outside of this two-decades-after-the-fact war tale, that supports that there was ever any such person. This is the historical equivalent of a cold fusion article... Carrite (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That, I do not know, sir, but I am sure there was a French edition and Indochina was a French colony. [possible over-the-top comment by me redacted.]--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I subscribe to the principle that Wikipedians should be logical and not add obviously false information to articles as fact just because it appears in print somewhere... The editing process should involve a winnowing of chaff from wheat, which has been sadly lacking in this article, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're on target there. This is a pretty clear failure of GNG for lack of reliable sources, which is what we're debating here. After that it's a matter of getting a formal ruling on the suitability of using a book in which the author freely admits having inserted fictional dialog as a means of spicing up the book and claims possession of a mythical notebook, of the suitability of using a primary source in the form of a video of the tall tale teller, etc. and then — in the event those sources are tossed out, which they should be given an aggressive pursuit of this process — removing all the material based upon those heavily tainted sources. AT THAT POINT, the gutted article can be dragged back here for another look. This assumes a short-sighted closing administrator that closes this one as a Keep here. The best and simplest thing is for a Delete result to shorten the process. Carrite (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article currently has a variety of different sources, the so-called hack writersm if you will:
  • Charles Henderson, a retired Marine Warant Officer and author of 2 biographies on Hathcock, Marine Sniper and Silent Warrior. He had exclusive access to Hathcock, access to Apache's notebook, and I received an email from him yesterday on this very subject.
  • Craig Roberts and Charles Sasser two Vietnam Veterans who operated in the area, both of whom have authored numerous pieces on Vietnam, the USMC, and Sniping. Two of their books are used as sources. Charles W. Sasser has been a full-time freelance writer/journalist/photographer since 1979. He is a veteran of both the U.S. Navy (journalist) and U.S. Army (Special Forces, the Green Berets). He served fourteen years as a police officer (in Miami, Florida, and in Tulsa, Oklahoma, where he was a homicide detective). He has taught at universities and lectured nationwide. Roberts was a Marine enlisted man in Vietnam and later became a Lt Colonel in the Army Reserve and was a police officer for 37 years.
  • John Plaster retired Army Major and SOG Veteran. Longtime author and authority on Sniping. His video interview with Hathcock is used.
  • Richard Marcinko founder of SEAL Team 6, Naval Officer, Vietnam Veteran
  • The History Channel made a documentary about this incident.
  • Toby Hamden and Joe Nawroski both mentioned Apache in mainstream news articles.
  • Jerry Lembcke a sociology professor who demonstrated against the War. He says it is made up, and cites movies that came out after the story was reported as the source.
  • HE Jasper used Apache as a basis for a character in a novel.
Would your vote be different if the article had no sourcing at all, Edison? With all due respect, sir, if you think it is "fiction", who exactly are you accusing of making it up? These authors listed above? Hathcock, himself? Then he in turn duped all of these college educated people, including military veterans who served during the same time period, some of whom went on to become policemen. Not bad for an uneducated country boy from Arkansas who was suffering from MS.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seem to be a personal acquaintance with the author of the fictionalized book (invented dialog) upon which this whole article is based, please ask him if he was successful in attempting to option movie rights. That would be interesting to learn. Carrite (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The book is not fictionalized, for whatever reason the author chose to create dialouge on the opposing side. As a personal note, it is something I would not do as an author, but I can see why he did it. Mr Henderson has never written any scripts and never sought to make any movies from his works that I know of. I am not a personal acquaintance of Mr Henderson, I have read his books and we both served as Marines, albeit he served a little earlier than I did. I simply knew his email address and asked him a question making him aware of this debate. Hathcock, himself has been the basis for several snipers in movies and television, but nothing has ever been adapted directly from Marine Sniper or Silent Warrior.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I just saw that "The History Channel made a documentary about this purported incident." That's actually the FIRST source towards notability, if true. I'll investigate this further. Carrite (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look it up.[over-the-top comment by me redacted.]--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[over-the-top comment by me redacted.] Carrite (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. "Hoax" implies intent, though, and I don't think that's exactly right. I think instead that this is more apt to be a grossly exaggerated war story which was then puffed up further by an author wanting to "spice things up". It's actually looking to me like a textbook case of myth-creation. Honest people may differ with this assessment. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, for the most part, just to add my own "introspection/original research" to the discussion(not the article): I think this person was an interrogator/intel type as most of the reports claim. My "opinion" is that she was not a sniper. I think she was only called a sniper because when she was killed she was carrying a Mosin-Nagant M91/20 with a 4X PU scope. It would follow that they would document her as a sniper (much the same way the Germans would consider anyone with a "trench knife" as a commando in WW2). My opinion based on small details is she had the rifle and used the scope for "observing". Despite media portrayals of all VC or NVA armed with Kalashnikovs (motion picyure armories have more of those on hand and adapted for firing blanks), in reality most VC used SKS's, Mosins, and older arms left behind by the French (MAS 36's and 49's). After you pointed out about the rat incident found in Orwell, I removed it (it is attributable to Land, as told to him by Military Intelligence but the focus is more on Hathcock's POV through the various authors). Bottom line, I don't believe that to be an invention by Henderson or even Land; if it was fictional, I would say it's what MI passed on. One of the things in combat is to get into a mindset to hate your enemy and I could see Intelligence spicing that up a bit to persuade a man to put a bullet into a woman. We're probably getting off base here with regard to AFD, so I'll stop, but at least the discussion turned more civil.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More