Jump to content

Talk:Pat Tillman: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Dear Rhobite
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
7,278,687 edits
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 5 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject College football}}, {{WikiProject National Football League}}, {{WikiProject United States}}.
 
(359 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{authoronlinesource2004|section=September
{{Talk header}}
{{ITN talk|24 April|2004}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|living=no|listas=Tillman, Pat|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|military-work-group=yes|military-priority=Low|sports-work-group=yes|sports-priority=Low}}
{{WikiProject College football|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject National Football League|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|B-Class-1=yes|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=yes|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes|Biography=yes|US-task-force=yes}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|AZ=Yes|AZ-importance=High}}
}}
{{Online source
| year=2004
|section=September
|author=Jon Scott
|author=Jon Scott
|title=Week 2: Patriots Head To The Desert
|title=Week 2: Patriots Head To The Desert
|org=Patriots Insider
|org=Patriots Insider
|date=September 18, 2004
|date=[[September 18]], [[2004]]
|url=http://patriots.theinsiders.com/2/296002.html}}
|url=http://patriots.theinsiders.com/2/296002.html
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 2
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Pat Tillman/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Archives |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months }}


Shouldn't there be some mention of Tillman's conviction and imprisonment for assault, when he was a juvenile? [[User:Manormadman|Manormadman]] ([[User talk:Manormadman|talk]]) 13:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
==San Jose native?==
In its headline for covering the AP story, the San Jose Mercury News calls Tillman a "[[San Jose, California|San Jose]] native", but doesn't cite any evidence (birthplate etc.). Anyone know? -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter | Talk]] 01:36, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)


== Prof Michael I. Niman ==
:Looks like he was born in San Jose [http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/scorecard/nflnews.asp?articleID=100631] [[User:ElBenevolente|ElBenevolente]] 02:05, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Who is Prof. Michael I. Niman and why is he quoted in this article? It would make sense for the article to explain why he has authority in this subject.
Does anyone else find it really freakish that the article was started a week before Tilman died? Eek. [[User:Isomorphic|Isomorphic]] 02:16, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Mosquitoer2|Mosquitoer2]] ([[User talk:Mosquitoer2|talk]]) 11:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


:I started the article last week after I saw [[Pat Tillman]] was on [[Requested articles]]. I was a bit freaked out when I saw the news this morning. -- [[User:ElBenevolente|ElBenevolente]] 02:46, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)


== Request for comment on description of Tillman's killing ==
:That is indeed freakish! [[User:ChessPlayer|ChessPlayer]]


The circumstances of Tillman's killing are disputed, with indications towards both manslaughter and accident. The current description of the cause of death as [[friendly fire]] gives (in my opinion) too strong an impression of the latter. I believe we ought to find a more neutral way to describe it. [[User:Konli17|Konli17]] ([[User talk:Konli17|talk]]) 13:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
== Links in the Article ==
*'''Support''' Although I personally believe that he was killed in friendly fire, that bit in the lede should be made more neutral. ~ [[User:HAL333|<span style="background:red; color:white; padding:2px; border:1px solid red;">'''HAL'''</span>]][[User talk:HAL333|<span style="background:black; color:white; padding:2px; border:1px solid red;">'''333'''</span>]] 22:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I delinked "killed in action" as it linked to a page which was for defining KIA as "killed in action". "KIA" wasn't used in the article, so the link was linking to a page which had no useful information. [[User:ChessPlayer|ChessPlayer]] 22:13, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
*'''Attribute''' in the lead (note that we already attribute it in the body.) Most of the sources, especially higher-quality ones, are carefully-worded and say that eg. his death was eventually ruled to be friendly fire by congressional investigations or by the investigation by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command; our article reflects that, so the lead should as well. I would be skeptical about ''replacing'' the word because almost any other word would carry implications that aren't well-backed-up by the sources, but given that the circumstances of his death were at least clearly disputed ''at the time'', if for different reasons than this RFC is focused on, I don't think it weakens things too much to note the source of the final legal determinations. This is comparable to how we word coverage of crimes (stating X was found guilty by Y rather than overtly stating guilt in the article voice); while this wasn't strictly a criminal investigation it was in many respects similar. Note that this might require a degree of rewording and restructuring to the lead (I would personally prefer to avoid wording like {{tq|were the subject of national attention when he was killed in action as a result of what a congressional investigation determined was friendly fire}}, since wedging it in there sort of implies doubt; whereas it would be better if we could split and rearrange stuff so we can say something like {{tq|Investigations by the Department of Defense and U.S. Congress eventually concluded that Tillman's death was the result of [[friendly fire]]}}, which seems like neutral wording to me when dealing with a legal determination that was at a bare minimum controversial or shocking at the time.) --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 22:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Attribute''' per [[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]].[[User:DonkeyPunchResin|DonkeyPunchResin]] ([[User talk:DonkeyPunchResin|talk]]) 18:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


== Some simple facts ==
: Yes, that's true now. But in a few years time that may not necessily be so. It's quite reasonable, for example, to imagine the KIA article being updated with various militaries' rules for calling someone "KIA" as opposed to "missing presumed killed", MIA, etc., links to some future memorial wiki, or other stuff one can't imagine now. Equally (I'm stretching things for this case, but not for others) someone could go to [[KIA]] and hit "what links here" and get a list of those people so designated (yeah, it'll be very far from comprehensive, but it's a start). So, in general, I don't think that because an article is useless now (you right in saying that for the purposes of the Tillman article, the KIA one mostly is useless) doesn't mean it will always be so, and so that isn't a great criterion as to whether one should link to it. This particular case, I'll grant, is marginal. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter | Talk]] 00:05, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Some things may be in dispute, but some shouldn't be.
:: Well, when the KIA article says something relevant to this article, no doubt someone will link it again :-)....but for now, it just added clutter. Linking too many words is not good style, it makes text hard to read. [[User:ChessPlayer|ChessPlayer]]
:What was his precise rank (E-4, E-5, or whatever) at his death? What was his function in his unit, and how many soldiers if any were under his command? Was he commanding Serial 1? Was the incident in daylight or night? What were Tillman's wounds? Were there other casualties during the incident?[[User:CountMacula|CountMacula]] ([[User talk:CountMacula|talk]]) 02:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


== Article Introduction ==
== Results? ==


"According to AP analysis, three lower-level officers are expected to be punished, and Kauzlarich may be one of the three." And...? [[Special:Contributions/104.153.40.58|104.153.40.58]] ([[User talk:104.153.40.58|talk]]) 03:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it is right to ''first'' include Tillman's posthumous rank in the Army along with his name in the intro. In biography pages on Wikipedia, if I am not mistaken, simply the person's name is listed. See for example, [[George Patton]], [[John Pershing]], [[Ulysses S. Grant]], and [[Erwin Rommel]]. None of these articles state the person's military rank, just the name, and then later give the rank. [[User:ChessPlayer|ChessPlayer]] 22:52, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

== Media coverage of his brother's eulogy and blog coverage in general ==

Supposedly they pulled their coverage of the funeral because of what his brother said about Pat not being religious, or the way he said it.

If someone would like to spend 20 minutes summarizing the blog coverage of all this, I think it would really add to this page.

Here's a good starting point: [http://www.google.com/search?q=pat+tillman+blog Google Search for pat+tillman+blog]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/05/04/SPG5K6FD091.DTL

== Gonzalez article hostile to Tillman ==

I moved the in-text link to the "External links" section. The Gonzalez article is part of the story. Reporting it and linking to it are NPOV. If we remove that link because it, standing alone, is POV, then we'd have to remove pretty much all the other links, which are laudatory. I also de-wikified Gonzalez's name; at one point there was a stub for him, but I think there was a consensus that he didn't merit his own article. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 00:16, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

== Ted Rall's cartoon ==

I changed the word "genocidal" to "misled." The cartoon makes no mention of genocide; it suggests that Tillman was foolish to belief in the "War on Terror" (which Rall openly mocks) and blames the administration for deceiving Tillman. Regardless of whether Ted Rall is right or wrong in those assertions, "genocidal" has nothing to do with the cartoon and to use that word is decidedly POV. --[[User:Feitclub|Feitclub]] 01:10, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

:Um...Rall's cartoon depicts Tillman signing up to "kill Arabs". Sounds like an accusation of genocide to me. - [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 01:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

::The point is he believes Tillman was being duped. And there's a big difference between wanting someone dead and being genocidal. --[[User:Feitclub|Feitclub]] 02:17, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
:::There's not a ''big'' difference between wanting someone dead because they're Arab and being genocidal....to me, anyway. your mileage may differ - [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 03:40, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
::Having said that, I think your edit is appropriate. --[[User:Feitclub|Feitclub]] 02:19, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

==Photo Caption Incorrect?==

I'm pretty sure that this is a photo of Tillman graduating from Ranger School, not from Army Basic.

== ASOC assertion of enemy forces ==

In the Biography section, there are the following assertions, which are unaccompanied by any corroboration.

''Army Special Operations Command, however, claims an exchange with hostile forces. They are correct.''

Rather than just deleting this, I offer an interval for discussion and clarification.

== use this info. ==

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/25/MNGD7ETMNM1.DTL

== Is it my imagination or did this happen? ==

Pat Tillman dies. The right wing make him into a Jesus 2.0 and the left had a "mixed" reaction to his death.

Then when we find out he:
*got killed by friendly fire,
*oposed the war in Iraq,
*was a Democrat,
*was going to vote for Kerry,
*was into Noam Chomsky.

Suddenly the left hails him as a martyr and the right either drops him faster than a burning dog turd or distances themselves from him and tries to suppress any mention of him ASAP.

== stuff ==

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121262,00.html
http://www.tfp.org/TFPForum/Tendential_Revolution/tillmanstower.html
http://www.theadventuresofchester.com/archives/2004/12/blogs_of_war_de.html

== To Grazon ==

Look, you can't say things like "the right wing made Pat Tillman into a [[Martyr]]". Plenty of people on the left praised Tillman too, don't forget that. The word "martyr" is exaggerative and there's no reason to use it. You can't use phrases like "republican agenda". You can't claim that the right wing is trying to "promote ... Christianity" in an article - that is all your opinion. The rest of your addition is a bunch of random out of context quotes from some articles and message board posts. Why do the readers care what someone said on Free Republic? Last, you claim that "These people assumned that Tillman was conservative, right wing, a Republican, a Christian, a supporter of the Iraq war, a supporter of George Bush, and that he had been killed by enemy fire." It's your belief that they assumed these things - however, the columns you link to don't speculate about Tillman's political beliefs. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 03:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

:How people feel about this is very important to portray in an article. We just need to find an encyclopedic way to portray those feelings. The editor's opinion cannot be assumed to represent the feelings of the whole world. At the very least, the opinion cited needs to be authoritative and include alternate views. In a best case scenario, we can cite a source that everyone agrees is NPOV. It isn't that we don't want your opinion represented, Grazon, its just that it needs to be done in an encyclopedic way. --[[User:Zephram Stark|Zephram Stark]] 14:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok I'll also give it a temperary title

grazon 20:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

:Could you please justify the inclusion of the section? If you won't discuss why you believe the article should have a bunch of random contextless quotes, the section will just be removed again. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 20:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

::I'm DEFINITELY not a Republican/right-winger, but that section is hardly encyclopaedic or NPOV, and the formatting is awful. I'd suggest NPOVing the mention of those quotes by at least putting them in some informative context (who said the quotes and when) and integrating them into the "Hostility towards Tillman" section, since those are responses to that hostility. [[User:Liontamer|Liontamer]] 21:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

:Calling a set of actions an Iconization is a conclusion that not everyone would agree with. If you are willing to take the time to edit this like an encyclopedia, you will succeed in getting your point across, but I'm sure you realize that an NPOV article can't have a conclusion as a title. --[[User:Zephram Stark|Zephram Stark]] 20:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

::I'm puzzled - how is "iconization" any better than "martyrdom"? They express the same POV, that the right wing embraced Tillman excessively. It's an equally poor section title. As Zephram says, it's expressing a conclusion as if it was a fact. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 20:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was better.

my bad.

grazon 21:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

== RfC ==

I waded in here in response to the RFC for this article, and tried to make some improvements w.r.t. NPOV; also added important fact that a new investigation has been started.
[[User:FRS|FRS]] 22:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

== Dear Rhobite ==

The "Controversial critisisms" section of the Pat Tillman article is incredibly unbalanced. It takes three swipes at the left wing, with nothing to balance them out. The third paragraph remarkably uses the word "responded" despite being the third blatant attack on the left. That's why I've been removing part of it. If you want to add some of Frank Rich's article, at http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/110605Z.shtml, that would bring balance to the section.

Latest revision as of 01:12, 28 February 2024

Shouldn't there be some mention of Tillman's conviction and imprisonment for assault, when he was a juvenile? Manormadman (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prof Michael I. Niman

[edit]

Who is Prof. Michael I. Niman and why is he quoted in this article? It would make sense for the article to explain why he has authority in this subject. Mosquitoer2 (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Request for comment on description of Tillman's killing

[edit]

The circumstances of Tillman's killing are disputed, with indications towards both manslaughter and accident. The current description of the cause of death as friendly fire gives (in my opinion) too strong an impression of the latter. I believe we ought to find a more neutral way to describe it. Konli17 (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Although I personally believe that he was killed in friendly fire, that bit in the lede should be made more neutral. ~ HAL333 22:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attribute in the lead (note that we already attribute it in the body.) Most of the sources, especially higher-quality ones, are carefully-worded and say that eg. his death was eventually ruled to be friendly fire by congressional investigations or by the investigation by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command; our article reflects that, so the lead should as well. I would be skeptical about replacing the word because almost any other word would carry implications that aren't well-backed-up by the sources, but given that the circumstances of his death were at least clearly disputed at the time, if for different reasons than this RFC is focused on, I don't think it weakens things too much to note the source of the final legal determinations. This is comparable to how we word coverage of crimes (stating X was found guilty by Y rather than overtly stating guilt in the article voice); while this wasn't strictly a criminal investigation it was in many respects similar. Note that this might require a degree of rewording and restructuring to the lead (I would personally prefer to avoid wording like were the subject of national attention when he was killed in action as a result of what a congressional investigation determined was friendly fire, since wedging it in there sort of implies doubt; whereas it would be better if we could split and rearrange stuff so we can say something like Investigations by the Department of Defense and U.S. Congress eventually concluded that Tillman's death was the result of friendly fire, which seems like neutral wording to me when dealing with a legal determination that was at a bare minimum controversial or shocking at the time.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attribute per Aquillion.DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some simple facts

[edit]

Some things may be in dispute, but some shouldn't be.

What was his precise rank (E-4, E-5, or whatever) at his death? What was his function in his unit, and how many soldiers if any were under his command? Was he commanding Serial 1? Was the incident in daylight or night? What were Tillman's wounds? Were there other casualties during the incident?CountMacula (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Results?

[edit]

"According to AP analysis, three lower-level officers are expected to be punished, and Kauzlarich may be one of the three." And...? 104.153.40.58 (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pat_Tillman&oldid=1210719908"