Talk:Pat Tillman

Forced Fumbles and Tackles

The forced fumbles in the article and in the stats box do not match up and the article says 3 but the stats box says 1 and 1 is correct according to NFL.com. Also the hyperlink to NFL.com shows him having 184 careers tackles, not 238.JMOUNT28 (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMOUNT28 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Friendly fire

@Konli: Four times now (1, 2, 3, 4) you have changed the description and link in the lead from the friendly fire article to the fratricide article. Your last edit summary stated "The DOD can call it [friendly fire], but that assertion isn't backed up by what we know of events." What do you mean by that comment? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence of friendly fire states: "Friendly fire is an euphemism for a failed or misguided attack by a military force on friendly or neutral troops while attempting to attack the enemy." There's a suspicion that Tillman was deliberately targeted, which means we can't be reasonably certain his death was truly a result of friendly fire. But whatever way things went down, there's no doubting it was fratricide. If there was a section in the friendly fire article that covered deliberate or suspected deliberate fratricide, I'd happily link to there, but there isn't. Konli17 (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I read through the article just now, and saw deeper in the body the speculation by Chris Matthews in 2007 that Tillman was actually murdered based on the autopsy saying he was shot by .556 rounds from 30 feet away, followed by speculation from some FOIA requests, and then a quote to a self-web-published opinion piece by Michael I. Niman, claiming that Tillman was about to go public with anti-Bush administration views then suddenly got dead on a patrol in Afghanistan, insinuating that he was killed to silence him. Not a lot of quality RS content to go on there (some of it happens to have COPYVIO problems as well as RS and DUE issues). Even if it were well sourced and substantial from the point of DUE, however, "fratricide" is still the wrong term. The right term in that instance would be alleged killing, murder, or assassination (the latter especially in the context of politics). When used in regard to the battlefield, "fratricide" is still an accidental killing just like friendly fire, not a deliberate killing (like the way "fragging" is used in colloquial military parlance). The Army defines fratricide as “the employment of friendly weapons and munitions with the intent to kill the enemy or destroy his equipment or facilities, which results in unforeseen and unintentional death or injury to friendly personnel” (1992). Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not my intention to have the article assert that Tillman was deliberately killed by a colleague; rather, I'd prefer not to use language that definitively rules that out. Whatever about the US Army definition, linking to friendly fire with its current content gives the strong impression that the killing was accidental, which is in doubt. Konli17 (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

After reading the sourcing again this morning, I don't think there's any reasonable doubt in this scenario. Sure, there are some people who believe that Tillman was deliberately killed by his fellow soldiers in a viewpoint best described as fringe speculation, but not enough substance to justify putting "friendly fire" in doubt for the reader. There was a short but interesting piece from NPR a number of years back that you might want to read, from one of Tillman's platoon members, talking about what happened the night of the killing; you can read it here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree there isn't enough substance. That website's not accessible for me, is the interview available anywhere else? Konli17 (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why that NPR piece won't load for you, it shouldn't be behind a paywall. Unfortunately I'm not aware of it being available at other locations. With regard to disagreement over whether or not there is sufficient RS substance to call into doubt Wikipedia stating it was friendly fire, you could start an RfC. It would attract the attention of other editors, with the possibility that consensus could develop in support of your contention that maybe it wasn't friendly fire. Are you familiar with the RfC process? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I want to emphasise, it's not my contention that Tillman was deliberately killed. But I do contend that there's sufficient doubt about events to preclude us giving the impression that it was definitely an accident. Konli17 (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment on description of Tillman's killing

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Attribute per Aquillion.DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Some simple facts

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)

Results?

"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)