Talk:Hatfield–McCoy feud

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Appalachia (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Appalachia, a WikiProject dedicated to developing articles concerning Appalachia and the Appalachian Mountains. If you would like to participate, go to the project page to see a list of related articles needing attention.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject United States / Kentucky / Eastern Mountain Coal Fields / KYOVA Region / West Virginia (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article 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.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Kentucky (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Kentucky - Eastern Mountain Coal Fields task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject KYOVA Region (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject West Virginia (marked as High-importance).

The location of the McCoy home that was burned[edit]

This should be noted that the group finding the location of the McCoy house were the two on the National Geographic show "Diggers". They are metal detecting enthusiast and that should be noted so that archaeologist will know that metal detecting enthusiast are a great resource in finding the past. The two did the right thing by stopping their detecting when they were pretty sure as to the discovery and called the experts in. Maybe their names should be located at the site as discovered by.

According to the laws of most states, including KY, when the diggers find artifacts, they must contact state archeologists. The Univ. ov KY. Archeology Dept spent many days in Pike County digging and recovering artifacts from this site. It should also be noted that the where-abouts of the McCoy cabin has been known since the feud. The diggers were invited there, by the present land owner, to explore the ground surrounding the site in hopes of finding something significant related to the feud. They were back in Pike Co in November, at the same site, filming for a future show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


The article skeet 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)

I'm confused. At the top of the article, the feud is said to start in 1863. Later, it says the first event was in 1865 (the death of Asa Harmon McCoy). Did I miss something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpking (talkcontribs) 12:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Most credible sources substantiate the feud timeline at ; the only discrepancy among historians with regard to the timeline is simply which events were considered the "start" and "end" of the feud. Based on the events, which are generally undisputed, the start/end of the feud would be 1863-1891. However, the start/end years can never be determined with 100% certainty since what is considered the "start" and what is considered the "end" is subjective, not objective. For example, some feel that Asa Harmon McCoy's killing was the start, while others say it was the dispute about the pig. Who's to say? Every person is entitled to his/her opinion on that and to create their own definition. The dpauley timeline of events, though, is one that is validated by many credible historians who are legitimate experts on the Hatfield-McCoy feud. So perhaps the important message to be taken is that one should just appreciate the overall feud and the specific incidents involved in it, instead of focusing on or being overly-concerned about subjective definitions with regard to the starting and ending points of this interesting historical story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Found this Tazewell Republican (VA) article which still referred to the fued as continuing April 9, 1908 Beginning and ending all depend on viewpoint, definitions, etc. Hypercallipygian (talk) 08:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The Tazewell Republican article has a significant credibility issue. It claims that the famous pig incident happened 48 years earlier (the article was written in 1908), which would be 1860. That is not even close. The pig incident was in 1878. So they were off by 18 years regarding perhaps the feud's most widely-known incident. Nevertheless, you will find many people and articles claiming, by their own definitions, that the feud continued long after 1891. Some even insist that it continued into the 20th century. There are no credible historians who concur with the "true" feud (in terms of high level of hostility and violence) continuing beyond 1891 or any significant period thereafter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

How come there is nothing in the article about the 1888 battle of grapevine? It's not even mentioned once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Confederate or Union?[edit]

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)

I worked for months on a group formed to research the feud for a federal grant to restore the feud sites in Pike County, Kentucky in 2005-6. Although some books state that most of the McCoys fought for the South our research had a different conclusion. The one obvious difference between the two groups of fighters was their past affiliations to armies of the war. None of the men, some of who were named McCoy, that sided with Devil Anse fought for the North. None of the men who sided with Randal McCoy have any history of supporting the South. McCoy family tradition does sometimes hold that Randal McCoy himself was possibly involved with the Southern cause, but extensive research of the subject could find no official record of him or anyone else who later supported him ever fighting for the South. If a Southern Army connection to the "McCoy" side participates can be verified please site the record. (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have two documents that show Randolph McCoy was a private in the "Mays Va Batt'n" of the Confederate Army captured either the 7th or 8th of July 1863 (the two documents disagree on the date) and was a prisoner at Camp Douglas, Chicago, Illinois. These are in the Civil War Prisoner of War Records, 1861-1865. I have also found documentation that some Hatfields descended from Ephraim, who lived in Ohio, served in the Union Army, but they were not participants in the feud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genesyz (talkcontribs) 09:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Most of the men who lived in Pike County, KY fought for the Union during the Civil War. Harmon McCoy was not the exception, he was the rule. He lived at Peter Creek in Pike County, and although most of the men from this community fought in Co H 39th KY Volunteer Infantry USA, Harmon joined the 45th KY Infantry USA, late in the war. You'll also find that many Hatfields who were cousins of Devil Anse living in KY, fought in 39th Infantry, either Co. H or Co D. It's true that some of the mountaineers deserted during the war and returned home. Among them was Devil Anse Hatfield who deserted from the CSA (45th VA Cavalry) after serving about 8 months. He formed a militia and led raids on the people of Peter Creek, which was located across the Tug River from his homestead. Harmon McCoy was killed by this group Jan 7th 1865. The 39th KY Infantry was formed by John Dils in 1862 to defend the county against bushwhackers who were wreaking havoc throughout the small communities; stealing, killing,and terrorizing the inhabitants. Vincent Witcher,a VA native had resigned from the CSA and formed a militia, led many raids throughout Pike County and robbed the general store of John Dils. When the 39th was called upon to defend areas far from their native territory (Saltville,VA, Louisa, Mount Sterling), many men deserted and returned home to protect their families and their property. Most of the misinformation concerning North/South allegiance in the Tug Valley during the Civil War, included in the Wiki article was taken from the book, "Feud" by Altina Waller, published in the 1990s. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). "Contested Borderland",Brian D. McKnight, The National Archives,, KDLA (KY Dept.of Libraries & Archives), Frankfort, KY. (talk) 08:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Finding sources.[edit]

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 articleskeet for this feud?? Says that there is no such article but I can start one. I'm confused. Laggard

Is there a source for ANYTHING in this article? It reads like a daytime drama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole page is taken, word for word, in some places, from [[2]] Clegs (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a horribly written article and it also needs a lot of research. It's present state is an embarrassment. Gingermint (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ending of the feud[edit]

I etited the heading, changed to Ending of the fued instead of Beggining of the fued because this section talks nothing of the beggining of the fued. ( etited by Jonny1067) On 09/21 2006 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)
I have a real problem with this "ending the feud" silliness. The feud actually "ended" back around 1930, when the principals were dead, prison terms had been served, and the following generations had better things to do. Which is to say, it just faded away with no formal action on anyone's part. This little shindig in 2003 was just a photo-op. It wasn't even the first "treaty" to be signed. I have a number of news clippings (buried in a research file somewhere, unfortunately) about another agreement to "end the feud" that took place some time in the late 1950s or early '60s. --Michael K. Smith 18:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The individual presiding over the case was Anderson "Preacher Anse" Hatfield. In June 1880, Staton was killed by two McCoy brothers, Sam and Paris, who were later acquitted on the grounds of self-defense. But the court decided later on it was not self-defense; it was murder in the first degree.

I think y'all need an editor here... this paragraph doesn't make sense. How can two different results come out of the same trial or even the same court? I'm guessing it overturned in appeals multiple times? Which "later" happened later? Can we get a citing? (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

i have trouble understanding some of this too. for example:

The feud escalated after Kristin McCoy began an affair with Barry Hatfield (Devil Anse's son), leaving her family to live with the Hatfields in West Virginia. Kristin eventually returned to the McCoys, but when the couple tried to resume their relationship, Barry Hatfield was kidnapped by the McCoys and was saved only when Roseanna made a desperate ride to alert Devil Anse Hatfield, who organized a rescue party. Despite what was seen as a betrayal of her family on his behalf, Johnse thereafter abandoned the pregnant Kristin, marrying instead her cousin Nancy McCoy in 1881.

neither kristen mccoy nor barry hatfield is in the family tree. johnse is, and there's a rose anna with a space. are "barry" and "johnse" are the same guy? barry/johnse hatfield was kidnapped by the mccoys, rescued by devil anse who was alerted by rose anna, who then married the rescued man? DyNama (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

why are only hatfields listed under "major players"? and another confusion of names is bill stanton in Beginning and Deaths, and stanton hatfield in Beginning, i think. DyNama (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Every one knows HATFEILDS are real buttheads!!!! The McCoys for a long time just minded there own buissness. Even when a Hatfeild killes the brother of Randall McCoy, the McCoys didnt retaliate. But the Hatfeilds kept pushing our buttons like the jerks they are andgot us ticked off! Even when we went after the Hatfeilds once and for all, we got deputized! They just went all illigal and Murdered! (i as the user refferes to the McCoys as "we" because i am a McCoy myself. My user name is "Jonny1067") —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC) NO THERE NOT I AM A MCCOY....!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"Harmon was discharged from the Army early because of a broken leg. He returned home to a warning from Vance that Harmon could expect a visit from Devil Anse's Wildcats." All right... who are the Wildcats? Gingermint (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree to disagree[edit]

Does this saying belong in an encyclopedia article? It doesn't sound very formal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 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 penis 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)'

Are you serious? Really, it's a ridiculous and trite statement. In general, the article is poorly written and needs a near complete re-write. Gingermint (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Pop Culture Reference[edit]

The article mentions January 16, 1960 as the airing date of the Flintstones episode "Flintstone Hillbillies". It aired on January 16, 1964. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cancundudley (talkcontribs) 21:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There was a 1960 episode "A Feud is a Feud" of The Andy Griffith Show that featured a feud in Mayberry between The Wakefields and the Carters. Sheriff Andy Taylor determined during the episode that no one had ever actually been shot during the feud and both sides had forgotten the original reason for the feud. The episode ended with a marriage between Josh Wakefield and Hannah Carter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, not that this matters, but I thought I would add to your list of references to the Hatfield and McCoy feud in pop culture. There was an episode of The Flinstones that referenced the fued. It's been a while, so I don't remember the details, I just remember that the names were 'cleverly' changed (I believe one of them was Hatrocks) and that the feud had started because Fred's great great whatever make a crack about painting which depicted the matriarch of the other family. Again, not important and not sure if you care, just thought I would let you know about that one.

Wasn't there an old Porky Pig cartoon based on the feud as well? I think 1930-ish.Demf (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible Older Roots?[edit]

I've been told by a friend who is knowledgeable about the history of the Scottish Borders that both families originally emigrated from that area, and that they to some extent brought the feud with them -- that there was bad blood back in the past. Since I have no source for this, I'm just throwing it out there to see if anyone else has heard it.

It's also possible that I misunderstood and he simply meant that both families brought the feuding culture of the Borders with them (I'll check). That might be a worthwhile comment in any case.

No, the Hatfields were decidedly English in origin, not Scots. There are actually a dozen or so separate Hatfield families in the U.S. with different origins, and only a few of them (those in Massachusetts and elsewhere in New England, mostly) have traceable points of origin in the UK, but all of them appear to have originated below the border. (I'm part of a group, some of us semi-pro, that has been carrying on Hatfield family research for 30+ years.) --Michael K. Smith 18:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the dates in the headline...if the feud started with a murder in 1865, why does the header say 1878? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the feud is much older, but it came to America from England, not Scotland. The bad blood between us and the Hatfields began with the English Revolution when the McCoys supported the King and the Hatfields took the side of Oliver Cromwell and his Roundheads. I just happened upon this entry in Wikipedia and am amused at how much info here is wrong. For example, the "hog trial" was decided not by Bill Staton, but by Selkirk McCoy - whom we considered a Hatfield and who voted as a Hatfield. Since we McCoys have vowed to remain silent on the subject of the feud, I guess its understandable that only the Hatfield side of the story has been told. Perhaps that needs to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Who's the real Ran'l ?[edit]

Is it Randolph or Randall McCoy? Both forms appear in the article. Axel 14:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Both are correct, inasmuch as they are referring to the same individual. His proper name was Randolph, but due to their manner of speaking, the people of Appalachia pronounced this as "Ran'l." This is what has led to the confusion of thinking his name was "Randall." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
If you can document this, then it would be useful to note and cite this fact in the article. - Froid (talk) 06:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

mccoys' photo[edit]

is there a chance to include any of McCoy family photography in this article?

Well, I have some photos of our family from during the feud, but I'm not sure about how to add them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
That'd be great! Since it's from the 1880s or thereabouts, it's safe to assume the photographer died over 100 years ago? they would be in the public domain, so you can upload them to WikiMedia Commons. The Upload Wizard will guide you.
  • On the third step, you must provide a source (say where the photo came from, like "family collection"), and name of the photographer (if known, otherwise "unknown").
  • Under "Now tell us why you are sure you have the right to publish this work:", you can click:
  1. "The Copyright has definitely expired in the USA" – this will release it for use in most (but not all) countries. Better yet:
  2. "Another reason not mentioned above", and enter: {{PD-old-100}} – hit the 'Preview' button to make sure the license shows correctly.
  • Give it a meaningful file name and as good of a description as you can (Click on the "Hatfield Clan" pic to see a great example, but it's ok if you can't identify the individuals).
  • That's it! The final page will show you the text that you can cut/paste into the article, or, if you want help with that, post a note back here with the name of the file.
Thanks! Groll†ech (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Wiki for the Blind[edit]

I am 19 years old and blind. I am interested in adding relevant items to wiki that help the blind "visualize" and grasp the subjects at hand. I love the tradition of oral storytelling. I have added a link to a radio story by The American Storyteller.--Trgwilson (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ellison Hatfield date of attack versus death?[edit]

The part about the Ellison Hatfield attack and death is worded confusingly. I think what is being said is that he was attacked in 1880 but stayed alive until 1882 when he died from effects of the earlier attack? (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This was incorrect, probably stemming from the original post misreading of the source. The source clearly states a specific date of August 7, 1882 for the fight, and August 9, 1882 for the death. Two days, not two years. --87maxima (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Date of photo[edit]

The caption of File:HatfieldClan.jpg says "The Hatfield clan in 1897", according to the image description at Commons: "The picture was taken in 1897 and appeared in the Iowa State Press dated February 11, 1889" - what exactly does this mean? Was the picture indeed taken in 1897 and the Iowa State Press (in an issue of 1897 or later) dated it wrongly as taken eight years earlier? Or is "appeared in the Iowa State Press dated February 11, 1889" supposed to mean that it appeared in an issue dated February 11, 1889 of the Iowa State Press? If the latter should be the case, was the issue dated wrongly? Or is "1897" wrong and it should read e.g. 1887? Gestumblindi (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


This article is not written at all like a wikipedia article. Too much slang or informal language written in quotes. Too many lists. Bad. --Pisharov (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

  • The subject material brings that out in the editors, I guess. Resurr Section (talk) 06:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Truly, though, it is a horribly written article. It needs an almost complete re-write. Gingermint (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup June 09[edit]

I tagged this for cleanup: 1) the family trees are way too big- they run well past the right margin. I can't make any sense of the coding used to create them. 2) the sources for these sections need moved so they don't appear in the TOC. 3) there is no key explaining the green numbers in the "deaths" section; I found out that they match the family trees by finding the original creator's edit summary. (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Page move?[edit]

Which of the following is correct?

Hatfield-McCoy feud
Hatfield–McCoy feud

Michael Hardy (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's important enough to justify a page move. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Pages do get moved every day for the purpose of doing that particular correction. WP:MOS exists for good reasons. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, I can't tell what kind of dash you're using. In the Edit field, they look identical. Reading MOS, it looks like an En dash is preferred for page names (though I have no idea why... it doesn't serve a distinct purpose that I can determine). — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not preferred for page names; it's preferred for certain kinds of usages, whether in page names or elsewhere, and the hyphen is preferred for other kinds of usages, also regardless of whether they're in page names or elsewhere. Moment-generating function uses a hyphen, not an endash, in a page name, and it would be incorrect if it used an endash; whereas Gauss–Markov theorem uses an endash in a page name and would be incorrect if it used a hyphen.

It would never in a million years have occurred to me that that's not obvious. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Even though my major in college was English, punctuation was never a focus for me. Hyphens were hyphens. Of course, I was used to typewriters back then!
Again, I really don't see the point in differentiating between hypens and En dashes; the En dash is just a slightly longer hyphen. Still, if that's what the MOS proscribes, a move won't hurt. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, a case in the US Supreme Court turned upon the placement of a comma in a Constitutional amendment, so punctuation can matter. Hyphens are sometimes a magnificently efficient way of disambiguating. Longer dashes are used for parenthetical offsets, and therefore bear upon the structure of sentences, and one professor whose name I can think of will tell you that that means they bear upon the structure of thoughts, and that you can't think clearly without understanding that. I suppose similar comments would apply to disambiguating. To be continued....... Michael Hardy (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Rather than generalities, I would like to hear how one usage is distinguished from the other in this particular case. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The difference between a man eating shark and a man-eating shark is that the former is a customer in a restaurant that serves seafood and the latter scares bathers away from beaches. That's a hyphen.
  • The Gauss–Markov theorem was named after Carl Gauss and Andrey Markov. That's an en dash.

The title of this present article seems to parallel the second bullet point above and not the first. That's why an en dash seems right in the present case.

(For the benefit of English majors: Carl Gauss was by far the most famous person to live on Earth in the 19th century (except among those who did not work in the physical and mathematical sciences).) Michael Hardy (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That's all very nice. Now try answering my question. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I think he's saying (in a roundabout way) that, because this involves two proper names (Hatfields & McCoys), the endash is the proper way to hyphenate it. I just want to know who came up with the rule that a normal hyphen was not sufficient and throttle them! Awesome FaceThe Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
sigh....... No I was not saying that it's because it involves proper names. The hyphen was used for joining things into a compound word. In the phrase "man-eating", the two words perform different functions. In Hatfield–McCoy they don't. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe I answered it. To repeat: "The title of this present article seems to parallel the second bullet point above and not the first." Michael Hardy (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

... that doesn't really clarify it for him, though. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to know what the deal is on the longer dash. Now I understand what the theoretical issue is. In effect, you're using it as an alternative to an ampersand. As a practical matter, changing those things is needless busy work. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Per wp:endash, the correct title is Hatfield–McCoy, not Hatfield-McCoy. "Hatfield-McCoy" would suggest a double surname whereas "Hatfield–McCoy" indicates two separate entities connected in some way, in this case a conflict. I changed all occurrences of the hyphen to en dash but I could not rename the page. I submitted a request here on July 26, 2010. Scwlong (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the page and fixed the double redirects. The links to the "single" redirects that use a hyphen rather than an en-dash or that are otherwise non-printable (e.g. "Mccoy" with two lower-case "c"s) should also be fixed. The links to "printable" redirects should be left as they are in case future new articles are created with other names. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Police chief?[edit]

I dont understand in the descendents section how that assasinated police chief is related then on the chief's page it says he just claimed it.. which 1 is it?! - Vital Component 7 40 am est may 18, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


Quote from the article:

"The male members of the family may have belonged to Y chromosome haplogroup E1b1b /.../"

Can somebody provide a source for this please? Jonas Liljeström (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

More, please...[edit]

Under the heading of "McCoy clan" is simply states: "Randolph McCoy along with his family and cousins."

Really? That's it? We need more. Oh, and I took the trouble to put a period at the end and fixed the names and the first word of the sentence. Previously it was all lower case. Gingermint (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC) samantha leeth married johnse in the end also then murdered nancy and ro — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Where is the family tree?[edit]

The article keeps saying to look at the family tree. Well where is it so we can consult it? (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

To paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy, try to picture a tree "that does not fork." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
It's there in a gray box, toward the bottom. You have to click on "Show". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, the McCoy family tree had been vandalized over a year ago. Now, don't start fightin', I restored it. Groll†ech (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Eigth or nine[edit]

Currently the text says "In 1888, Wall Hatfield and eight others" but then "all were found guilty. Seven received life imprisonment, while the eighth". How many people, eight or nine?  Randall Bart   Talk  01:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


SBA should be spelled out on the page, most non-Americans and many Americans don't know what SBA stands for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 May 2012[edit]


The 1923 Buster Keaton comedy Our Hospitality centers around the "Canfield–McKay feud," a thinly disguised fictional version of the Hatfield–McCoy feud.


The 1923 Buster Keaton comedy Our Hospitality centers on the "Canfield–McKay feud," a thinly disguised fictional version of the Hatfield–McCoy feud.

Rationale: It is impossible to center one thing "around" another thing. This confusion comes from mixing two metaphors -

  • "revolves around"


  • "centers on"

For example, a record "centers on the spindle", while a planet "revolves around the sun". (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 May 2012[edit]

Adjutant General (Sam Hill)

Digidoc664 (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. - I've got no idea what edit you're requesting. Salvidrim! 03:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

More people to be put in the McCoy family tree[edit]

I just got a Wikipedia account, and I don't want to wait 4 days and edit 10 articles to be able to edit the Hatfield-McCoy one. So I was hoping one of you could put this information in there for me. I'm a descendant of the McCoy clan and decided to search about my ancestors using Google. So, this information may not be exactly correct, but it seems legit to me since I know the names of my parents, grandparents, great-grandparents. In the McCoy family tree: Lorenzo Dow and Phoebe McCoy had a son named Arthur McCoy (born August 27, 1877 in Logan, West Virginia, USA and died in 1931 in North Dakota, USA). Arthur married Rachel Abigail Bailey in 1906 (born in 1880 in West Virginia). They had a son named Noah E. McCoy (born in Logan County, West Virginia in about 1902 [birth certificate allegedly burned in a fire]). Noah married Lillian Melam. They had two children named Arva Dell and Noel. Arva Dell married Elmo Tahran (I have more info on the Tahran's as Arva Dell is my great aunt, but I don't have enough time today to go through that family tree). Noel married Carol Grosz. They had two children named Neal and Carmen. Neal McCoy married Colleen McCann, and together they had two children named Nicholas and Erica. Lorenzo(Phoebe) and Arthur(Rachel) may have had more children, but I was just searching for my family specifically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericamccoy26 (talkcontribs) 03:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  • It's important NOT to add the above genealogy to the McCoy tree. The two trees should display only the immediate family of the two main protagonists (Devil Anse Hatfield and Randolph McCoy) - ie. their parents, their siblings and their children - with the only other additional names being those of close relatives (eg. aunts/uncles, nephews/neices, cousins) who were actually involved in the feud. This is not the place for recording a complete family tree from the 1800s down to the present day! is the place for that! The genealogy posted above lists several generations of descendents of "Lorenzo Dow and Phoebe McCoy" - interesting (I'm a genealogist) but not relevant to an article about the feud. It has just ONE bit of information that may be useful, in that it gives the surname "McCoy" to Phoebe. But the tree states that Lorenzo Dow is the son of Selkirk McCoy and Louisa Williamson (which doesn't make sense, given Lorenzo's stated surname) and does not give the surname of Lorenzo's wife Phoebe (the only Phoebe on the tree). Given the above posting (there's no reason to doubt its authenticity) I suspect that the tree-setter might have got the names the wrong way round, and that perhaps Phoebe McCoy (m. Lorenzo Dow) was the daughter of Selkirk McCoy rather than daughter-in-law! This should be checked via (and I can't do this - I can only access UK records). It's worth chasing to clarify, because the article DOES MENTION that Devil Anse Hatfield "employed many non-Hatfields, and even hired McCoy family members Albert McCoy, Lorenzo Dow McCoy, and Selkirk McCoy" in his timber operation. But that's a further statement that needs checking, because Selkirk McCoy's wife was a Williamson (ie. not a Dow!) - did the article contributor mean to say "even hired McCoy family members Albert McCoy, Selkirk McCoy and Lorenzo Dow (who married Selkirk's daughter)" as I suspect? Pete Hobbs (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 May 2012[edit]

Under the section discussing media related to the feud, there should be the addition of The Hatfield-McCoy Dinner Theatre in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee. The theatre features a musical show loosely based on the events of the feud. Dinner patrons are seated at tables either in a Hatfield section or McCoy section. More details about the theatre are located at

Huntsvillewriter (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 May 2012[edit]

"WHERE IS THIS UNCLE JIM HATFIELD ? (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Done Changed to "area". Salvidrim! 03:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


  • It seems that Devil Anse Hatfield's "Uncle Jim", Jim Vance, was a maternal uncle. In other words, he was presumably the brother of Anse Hatfield's mother Nancy Vance. I've added a note that he's her brother in the family tree box of Ephraim Hatfield & Nancy Vance, to assist other readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete Hobbs (talkcontribs) 14:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 June 2012[edit]

I just want it added to the media section as a "Spoof" of the feud

in the MEDIA section... The Bowery Boys movie, Feudin Fools, 1952. Feud between the Smiths and Joneses, a take off of Hatfield and Mccoys. From my collection and WIKIPEDIA on Bowery Boys Rayrobin05 (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Mdann52 (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 June 2012[edit]

In the "Media" section:

Please change:

Huckleberry Hound in "Hillbilly Huck" (broadcast October 30, 1960) in which the Huckleberrys and the Doodleberrys do a take on the Hatfield–McCoy feud. The Andy Griffith Show also featured the rivalry in an episode called a "Feud is a Feud" the feud is between the Wakefield and Carters,"


In the "Hillbilly Huck" (broadcast October 30, 1960)episode of the tv cartoon, Huckleberry Hound, the Huckleberrys and the Doodleberrys do a take on the Hatfield–McCoy feud.

The Andy Griffith Show also featured the rivalry in an episode called a "Feud is a Feud," in which the feud is between the Wakefield and Carters.

Edits requested because, as is, formatting, syntax, and punctuation is incorrect. (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done No problem. Egg Centric 14:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Should be Wakefields (plural). "The Wakefield" is improper usage. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


I found a reference for the assertion that Dr. Leonard McCoy of Star Trek was supposed to be a fictional descendant, but I still have some reservations about using an article on about the Hatfields and McCoys miniseries as a reference for this assertion. I would feel much more comfortable using, for instance, Leonard McCoy's biography page on[3], but it makes no mention of any such connection. Does anyone know of a reliable, Star Trek-related source that makes the connection. If not, I still may remove the entry as unreliable. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 17:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I remember this being mentioned, that Dr. McCoy was a descendant, in one of the old episodes of the original TV series. But I can't tell you which one.--Patriarchs Press (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I saw every one of those episodes and I don't recall it ever coming up. I bet if you were to ask on a fan page, you would get a solid answer pretty fast. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I recall a Star Trek novel where McCoy told an antagonist not to mess with him, "Just ask the Hatsfields." Can't remember what novel. However, his page on Memory Alpha, a Star Trek wiki, says he was born in the "Old South" and went to school at the University of Mississippi. The actor himself was from Georgia. Where the novels fit in Star Trek canon versus on-screen information, my guess would be that Dr. McCoy's not a descendant. Though, anything can happen in the next Star Trek movies.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Since no more reliable sources have turned up, I went ahead and removed it from the article. Feel free to put it back in if a more reliable, Star Trek-related source can be found. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 19:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 June 2012[edit]

In the first paragraph, there shouldn't be a "the" before Tug Fork, it's a place. (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Mdann52 (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, "the" is appropriate. It is a waterway, not a precise location, so "the Tug Fork" is more like "the Hudson" than "the Manhattan". (talk) 05:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

First, it is correct that there should be a "the" before Tug Fork. It is a tributary. Therefore, referring to it as "the Tug Fork" is correct. See the Tug Fork article. Second, someone made an edit and now it reads "alongTug Fork" (no space between "along" and "Tug"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


Suggest disambiguation from Hatfield McCoy Law Firm of New York City, est. in 1905. See: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

"each was shot numerous times with a total of 5 shots fired"[edit]

At the Pawpaw trees:

"each was shot numerous times with a total of 5 shots fired"

Is it "numerous" (meaning an unknown but large number) or is it "5 shots"?

I wonder if it means "numerous shots in five volleys" (where volley is a number of shots fired at the same time)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead section does not meet requirement[edit]

Lead section merely provides a summary of the very beginning of the feud, not "a summary of its most important aspects", as requested by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Azurfrog (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Von Hippel Lindau (VHL)[edit]

The Von_Hippel–Lindau_disease article links here, but there is no mention of this in the article. While I don't support attributing historical events to disease jest because they fit, suggesting it contributed may be appropriate. Millionmice (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)