Talk:Herbert V. Clark

BF109 kill
User:Lightburst I provided this source: prepared by a Dr. Daniel L. Haulman at the Air Force Historical Research Agency in January 2008. Clark isn't listed there as scoring a single aerial victory. Meanwhile you claim that Encyclopedia of Arkansas should be relied on for the claim that Clark scored a BF 109 kill. I don't agree, Air Force records are more reliable than Encyclopedia of Arkansas on this point. Mztourist (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have removed the claim from the lede and added a para setting out the conflicting claims. Mztourist (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You presented a research paper to refute an encyclopedia. It is disingenuous to accept a reference and then discard items from that reference that do not square with your thesis. I am going to keep researching as I have been all day. Arguing is tiresome. We should each be able to say our piece at an AfD and move on. But you keep wanting me to circle back and engage - yes, no, yes, no etc. Remember that the Tuskegee movie Red Tails came out in 2012 and another movie called The Tuskegee Airmen came out in 1995. This guy died in 2003. Nobody gave a damn about a bunch of black pilots from WWII about the turn of the century - recognition from the Gold Medal helped in 2007. (yes approved in 2006, awarded in 2007). So the living and able bodied went on speaking tours - suddenly people were naming post offices for them. Not this guy, he lived in the Jim Crow south. The truth will come out through research. But in your nom you said, this ref says this, but I can't confirm elsewhere so it is dubious, etc. Like this ref you erased. i do not make up the references, I just ferret them out. Lightburst (talk) 04:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This just shows your inability to evaluate sources. The Air Force Historical Research Agency is the USAF's history division, if there is anything known or to be known about the USAAF/USAF, they will have it. The researcher is Dr. Daniel L. Haulman, who is also the source for Clarks' shootdown information (ref 9) and one of the co-authors of The Tuskegee Airmen: An Illustrated History, 1939-1949 (ref 11), but you say he and the AFHRA are unreliable?! Meanwhile the Encyclopedia of Arkansas is a web-based encyclopedia, so like Wikipedia it is subject to false information. Find any other reliable source that Clark scored a single aerial victory. As it is a disputed issue it doesn't belong in the lede. I don't care about the Tuskegee Airmen movies or see what point you are trying to make mentioning them. The Congressional Gold Medal was awarded in 2006, it was presented in 2007. If significant coverage in multiple reliable sources don't exist he's not notable, that's how Wikipedia works. Mztourist (talk) 05:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I will exit. No way am I going to be involved in another S&*^ show. Nearly all of your Tuskegee Airmen nominations are shown to be disruptive because they are kept. Meanwhile there are actually other articles which should be deleted. In the space of just one month all you have managed to do is argue across the project and piss on editors in the backrooms of WP. Instead of research and article creation you refactor edits and present yourself as the WP:OWNER of Military articles. I am sure some other editors will show up soon, and hopefully not the two that seem to rubber stamp your misguided efforts. Lightburst (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If expecting articles to be properly sourced and verifiable is considered rubber-stamping misguided efforts, this place is more of a disaster than I thought. And as far as I'm concerned the reason most of these articles are kept is a slew of drive-by keep votes based on a misconception of notability being derived from unit membership and misrepresentation of sources. If you're so concerned about them, why don't you work on cleaning up the CCI? There's still quite a few in need of work, and most of them also desperately need sourcing improvement (the banned user had a tendency to rely far too heavily on CAF websites, which is rather amusing if you remember CAF's original name and the controversy it spawned). I've worked a few already, and continue to do so as time allows. And as for the Bf 109 discussion, AFHRA is considered authoritative in most cases like this. Granted, there is usually controversy about aerial kill scores in general as they're subject to overclaiming, propaganda manipulation, and so on. Intothatdarkness 14:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Worth a look
Clark's name is contained in the following journal article. Unfortunately my library's JSTOR subscription does not include this article, so I can't see how much is said about him.

-Pete Forsyth (talk) 07:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I gained access to this, Clark is mentioned on the final page. This corroborates at least one point that was otherwise attributed only to the Encyclopedia of Arkansas, so probably worth including. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So? It just confirms information that was already referenced, it doesn't tell us anything new. Mztourist (talk) 10:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. Given the variation between the sources discussed above, this is helpful. NemesisAT (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

A photo
This book has a photo that includes Clark. The photo is attributed to the Associated Press, so likely in copyright. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved from my Talk Page: . Mztourist (talk) 03:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Hi Mztourist, to respond to this: I believe there is value to the photo being noted on the talk page, which (if the article is kept) will persist in a way that is more accessible than the AfD nomination. If you disagree, I guess you could just delete the comment? To me it seems like a strange thing to have an argument about, so I guess you'd win that one by default. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Peteforsyth as I said, your comment indicates that you didn't read my AfD nomination which clearly explained that the photo was from the National Archives completely negating your comment above. Mztourist (talk) 02:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)