Talk:Pat Tillman/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Proper sourcing and verbiage for section "Cover-up surrounding Tillman's death"

In the section "Cover-up surrounding Tillman's death" in the final paragraph, the following statement is made:

The destruction of evidence linked to Tillman's death, including his personal journal, led his mother to speculate that he was assassinated. General Wesley Clark agreed that it was "very possible."

The above wording indicates that Clark thought 'assassination' was possible, whereas in the actual interview, neither he nor Keith Olbermann mention the word or imply assassination... instead they use 'murder' and 'homicide.' The wording used here must be very deliberate, since paraphrasing with the word 'assassination' begets a very specific accusation. I.E. murder simply implies deliberate 'fragging' by one or more members of Tillman's own unit, whereas assassination denotes premeditated conspiratorial involvement at a much higher level. Thus either the word 'murder' or 'homicide' should be used instead, and the mention of this interview with clark should emphasize that Clark believed that a thorough and professional investigation should have specifically ruled murder out.

Additionally, I recommend the following two sources be used for that paragraph instead of the current sources:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19997327/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecTUO3IKebY

You'll notice that the first is the actual transcript of the MSNBC interview, not a second hand news source quoting GEN Clark out of context. The second is a YouTube clip of the actual interview provided because the MSNBC transcript incorrectly begins labeling Clarks answers to Keith Olbermann's questions as: "WOLFFE." The second link clears up this clerical error by MSNBC and demonstrates that Clark, and not Wolffe is responsible for that quote. —Signed by OTS

That top link took me to updated 7/27/2007 12:56:27 PM ET Guests: Will Bunch, J.K. Rowling. Do you have a good link? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

GoergeLouis. The interview in question is on the second page of that transcript. You must click on the above link, then click on 'show more text' at the bottom of the page. The transcript of the applicable interview is roughly 2/3 the way down the page. Signed by OTS

Well, we are getting into Original Research when we have to do all that. You have done a good job in uncovering it, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. See Wikipedia:NOR#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. You might try Wikisource at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page. See if you can find some wp:reliable source that makes the same point you want to make. That's my advice, anyway, though others might disagree. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that transcript would be copyrighted, so it's doubtful that Wiiksource is the place for it either. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not original research, but simply a reputable video news source (MSNBC) in transcript format. It is the actual interview with GEN Clark which is quoted in the end of the 'cover-up' section, but is done so in a misleading way. Using the original transcript of the interview will avoid 2nd or 3rd hand hearsay, but most importantly, it will more accurately depict the spirit and context of the interview from which this quote originates. In essence, it would obviate the necessity to replace 'assassinate' with 'murder.' Signed by OTS

If you feel strongly enough about it, you can add the information yourself and see what happens. It will either be (1) undone by another user or (2) left alone or (3) edited and changed to reflect consensus. In any event, there will be no change until you make it. You should probably register as a user, with a user name, etc., but of course you don't have to. It's just that many people automatically discount material that is added by an unregistered editor: Unfortunate, but true. There is a message for you on your Discussion Page that tells how to do this. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you GeorgeLouis. I am by no means an expert in Wikipedia, and stumbled upon the inaccuracies in this section after reading John Krakauer's book. Though I've tried to register an account name, I was not able to receive one. This is the first Wikipedia contribution, and probably my last.... So I will now change the word assassination to murder, and add the transcript of the General Clark interview. Signed by OTS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.168.127 (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

disputed source/claim

The article incorrectly states that the M249 has a significantly higher rate of fire than the M16, which is not true, besides the fact that the M4 carbine has been standard for quite some time. Efcmagnew (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say that. It says it is capable of greater accuracy during higher rates of fire - not that it is faster, but that it is more accurate at high rates. That's not the same thing.

The statement has what appears to be a reliable source to support it.

If you wish to add clarification or amend it, with an appropriate reliable source, please go ahead - or make a suggestion here. But we do need references.  Chzz  ►  08:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Tackles

There are two sources of stats in the infobox. One say 92 tackles, the other 230. A recent edit has changed the number to 238 which seems unsourced but I'm afraid I don't know enough to decide between these two figures. Please can someone sort this out, perhaps put an inline ref next to the source for the correct figure? Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Synopsis is incorrect

At the very top of the article, it is stated Tillman completed multiple tours before being killed. Later you say he was killed DURING his second tour. One or the other is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenfo 0 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, ref 2 says "Tillman served in several tours of duty, including time in Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom as well as a stay in Afghanistan to serve in Operation Enduring Freedom." The article could perhaps be clearer either in wording or which references it uses to support the content in that respect. Something interesting for you to sort out if you wish... --Mirokado (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Rank

OK so if was posthumously promoted to corporal from specialist, should the pictures of him alive be labelled "corporal" or "specialist"? The DOD reports cited in the article consistently refer to him as "specialist". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Does this alleviate the concern over any confusion that might take place as to his rank and the photograph? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That edit is both simple and elegant; works for me. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Where was he born?

There is an inconsistency in this article, the second paragraph says he was born in San Jose, CA but the sidebar says Fremont, CA. 208.54.5.165 (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah where was he born 65.128.229.224 (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pat Tillman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150715211808/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wygt6L_3L5Y to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wygt6L_3L5Y

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

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)