Talk:Harry Whittington

Untitled

Uh, why are all links to "Quail" the bird being automatically redirected to this page? That seems a little, well evil.

Is the 78-year-old Harry Whittington that Dick Cheney shot on 2/11/06 the same person as Harry Whittington the author?

- I don't see any indication either way, so we should assume not. - Eric 21:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

- Author born 1915, no match (link) --Cascademiles 21:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hamilton & Whittington

I removed the following paragraph, as it incorrectly (and irrelevantly) states that Aaron Burr was not in office during his duel. The duel took place in July 1804, and he left office in March 1805, so he was a sitting vice president when he shot Hamilton. "Aaron Burr was not, though, the vice president during the duel. It was during Jefferson's Second term and Jefferson chose to not run with Burr as his vice president. Burr tried to plot a New England succession and then plotted a southern succession both of which failed." Tooptoo 21:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If a trivia section is added, we could say Whittington is the second person in US history to be shot by a US Vice President. Of course, this shooting wasn't a duel (just an accident), and the outcome non-tragic. GoodDay 23:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Considering that numerous U.S. vice presidents served in the military and saw armed conflict, I would guess that Whittington is by far not only the second man to have been shot by a VP. It's probably safe to assume that John C. Breckinridge shot someone during either the Mexican-American War or the American Civil War, that Theodore Roosevelt shot someone at the Battle of San Juan Hill, and Lyndon B. Johnson may have shot someone during WWII. - Eric 00:25, 13 February 20 SALAK ADAM DEDİĞİ TEK KİŞİ VARDIR

combatants during military service. KSchwartz 00:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Another way to qualify this is to say "second shot by a sitting vice president". Then we can clarify that other Vice Presidents served in combat prior to assuming the office of the Vice Presidency. Johntex\^talk 04:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

All good comments, but if it becomes more than one line in a 'trivia' section, it would become more appropriate to get into long details of VP shooting on Cheney's article. Note that in the Aaron Burr article, this has already been done. I'd also like to know more about what other topics would go in a 'trivia' section. If it's just this one item, it may not be enough to warrant it. Nhprman 05:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr Whittington does not apear on this list

No Whittington

Controversy

Is the "Controversy" section really necessary? It seems a bit extraneous. KSchwartz 03:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I say "no" since Mr. Whittington is not the subject of the controversy. I think it's political piling on, and perhaps a bit of zealousness, and of course, POV. Nhprman 04:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

not necessary in this article. Leinart 12:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I expanded the subhead to read "Controversy surrounding shooting" but its inclusion here is still a bit iffy, since this is not HIS controversy. Nhprman 22:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Folks, we need to tread a fine line here re: the shooting. This is NOT the Cheney article, nor is it an article about the incident. Both have their own articles. Unless Whittington was drunk, or having an affair, that clearly does NOT pertain to him. Nhprman 21:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

With the addition of the possibly libelous accusations of marital infidelity and, um, "helpful" explanation of how it would be advantageous for Cheney to avoid prompt chemical tests if he were drunk, this has gone way beyond the bounds of anything even vaguely resembling neutral and unbiased. I thought the section was useless when created, now it's merely a pedestal for partisan grandstanding.KSchwartz 06:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Secret Service prevented sheriff from interviewing Cheney?

I've removed the assertion that the Secret Service prevented the sheriff from interviewing Cheney. The wikilink pointed to a blog, which in turn pointed to CBS News story. Problem is that the news story does not support the claim that the Secret Service kept the sheriff from interviewing Cheney. If someone can find a reliable source stating that this is true, I'd be happy to see the line put back in. Brandon39 12:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This is quite irrelevant in this article, so i would say leave it as deleted. But anyway, a reference is here [1] the information is from a secret service spokesman who said: " deputy showed up ... was turned away by the Secret Service" He refered to this to a miscommunication as an interview was already scheduled the next morning. --Leinart 12:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This might be the reason:

• Was Cheney Drunk? Who knows.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tequendamia (talk • contribs) .

That guy's a clown, and not even a particularly creative one. If he's going to just start making stuff up in order to demonize Cheney, why doesn't he make it really good? Why doesn't he say that Cheney had just dropped a sheet of acid and actually DID think Whittington was a quail? Why doesn't he conjecture that Whittington was Cheney's gay boy toy and he shot him in a PCP-induced lover's spat? Either of those "theories" have at least as much support as the crap he's spouting.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by KSchwartz (talk • contribs) .

Someone watched the failed partisan sports announcer on TV last night and dutifully regurgitated his nonsense ("sourced" here, from a blog) that Cheney was 18 feet away. NO MORE PARTISAN SPECULATION, people! Nhprman 21:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Religion

Whittington is of partial Jewish ancestry (however was raised Christian) and has attended services at Congregation Agudas Achim a conservative synagogue in Austin. Does this really qualify as notable information? Even if it was printed in a congregation bulletin? (As indicated in the history, but not cited on the page?) Obviously, the members of the congregation might think it significant, but I'm not convinced that it's relevant to this bio. Now, if Whittington self-identified in this way publicly, that would be another story. (Also, we should get more information on sources for this. When this article was started a couple of days ago, every bit of information in it was cited either inline or in the External links section, but that has started to slip...) JRP 15:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoa. Jewish? This article, published July 17, 2005 in the American-Statesman says he's a member of the Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd in Austin. - Eric 23:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Being of partial Jewish ancestry is always notable because it helps us identify members of the Vast Jewish Conspiracy. I'm only half joking. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

CNN image

I think claiming that the CNN image meets "fair use" guidelines is extremely questionable. We can't simply use copyrighted images without permission just because we don't have a free image instead. I'm removing it from the article for now until someone can come up with a better fair use rationale. —Cleared as filed. 02:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Harry Whittington

Does anyone know if the NRA Wittington Center in New Mexico is named after this person, or one of his relatives?

I love the part where he appologises to the Vice President for getting shot. "oops! you shot me! my bad!" 65.93.163.128 06:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Funeralgate?

He was involved - so why no link? And why no mention that the ladies were the men's mistresses? - Sparky 16:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I am highly skeptical about the claims of Jewish corpses being desecrated and eaten by wild pigs. If this is true, this should be sourced. Transientseeker (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Harry Whittington. 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/20060302185341/http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/01/28harry.html to http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/01/28harry.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060221231826/http://newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?last=Whittington&first=Harry to http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?last=Whittington&first=Harry

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)