Talk:Killing Patton

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Military history: Historiography / World War II Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military historiography task force
	World War II task force

First section

I think it needs to be established that this is a work of fiction about actual events. In no way can it be non-fiction because of the diliberate use of facts out of context. The book also uses real facts, but then attributes false or misleading motives to the actors to elicit a point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.157.160.12 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

How absurd that a section I added about General Donovan was removed for not being a "neutral point of view." As if O'Reilly's views are "neutral." Who edits this Wikipedia page? Bill O'Reilly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.123.164 (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevance

Please explain how providing a link to a report showing unequivocally that General Patton's death was caused by an automobile accident and not the result of paranoid conspiracy theory is "irrelevant to the article"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.123.164 (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's about the book. But I doubt you got unequivocal proof for 'no assassination'. 105.0.3.177 (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevance

Let's remember this is an article about the book, not about Patton. The point of this article is not to dispute or approve O'Reilly's hypothesis (to which, incidentally, he has a right), it's simply to present and describe the book and its contents. All you O'Reilly haters can sit and stew over a beer at the nearest pub, but this article ABOUT A BOOK, is not the place to spew your hatred of conservatives, Fox News, or any theory of Patton's death that does not hew to the current received wisdom.2600:100D:B10D:6E30:8868:986B:D032:548A (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There has been controversy around the book, and referencing that controversy here is appropriate. -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sales

It appears that this was the best-selling non-fiction book of 2014 and even Wiktionary describes a tome as "A large or scholarly book" which obviously doesn't apply to the 4 novels with more sales. 65.130.207.193 (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]