Talk:Pat Tillman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pat Tillman article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.


News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

Contents

[edit] "far-left" Rall

calling Rall "far-left" is just one more piece of sensationalism among all this other nonsense. as Rall's wiki says, he wanted clinton impeached, opposes practically all gun control, and has (pretty pointedly) ridiculed john kerry, among other democrat campaigners. and most of his war-related cartoons aren't coherent enough to be partisan. apparently for the fools around here, saying bad things about the military makes a person "far-left." it's a dangerous and idiotic premise.

I'm going to change it to "controversial", which I think is a more neutral description, and more consistent with the Ted Rall article. 59.167.22.191 13:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] San Jose native?

In its headline for covering the AP story, the San Jose Mercury News calls Tillman a "San Jose native", but doesn't cite any evidence (birthplate etc.). Anyone know? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:36, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Looks like he was born in San Jose [1] ElBenevolente 02:05, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it really freakish that the article was started a week before Tilman died? Eek. Isomorphic 02:16, 24 Apr 2004 (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. -- ElBenevolente 02:46, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
That is indeed freakish! ChessPlayer

[edit] Links in the Article

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. ChessPlayer 22:13, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:05, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
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. ChessPlayer

[edit] Article Introduction

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. ChessPlayer 22:52, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 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: Google Search for pat+tillman+blog

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

[edit] 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. JamesMLane 00:16, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 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. --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. - 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. --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 - Nunh-huh 03:40, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Having said that, I think your edit is appropriate. --Feitclub 02:19, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Wait, why is this section in here at all? Why does anyone care what Ted Rall thinks? I mean, if it generated controversy, sure, but I don't see any relevance. -LtNOWIS 11:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Because Rall's cartoon was part of the brouhaha about the circumstances of Tillman's life and death, and reflects a contemporary attitude towards Tillman.--Wehwalt 13:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo Caption Incorrect?

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

  • The photo is indeed of Specialist Tillman's Basic Training graduation. Ranger School graduation is conducted wearing the army BDU uniform, not the Class "A" dress uniform. Also, if you look at the marching soldiers in the background, no "black and gold" Ranger tabs are visible on the upper left shoulders. Tillman's left shoulder is not clear in this photo, but the new tab would be saftey-pinned on at a grad ceremony, not yet sewn flush to the fabric, and therefore likely to be seen even from this view. JG 12:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] use this info.

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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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

[edit] 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. 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. --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. 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. 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. --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. Rhobite 20:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was better.

my bad.

grazon 21:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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. FRS 22:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

Not everything has to be balanced. There was a massive backlash to Rall's comic and Gonzalez's column.. we shouldn't pretend that these events didn't happen because we're afraid of presenting the left in a bad light. Feel free to improve it however you like, but don't just remove paragraphs with no edit summary and no justification. If you'd like to cover Frank Rich's opinion piece, go for it. However I just read Rich's piece and he doesn't really say anything new about the Tillman controversy, he just uses Tillman as an example of the Bush administration's tendency to play around with the truth. Rhobite 06:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Fox News" cite

I deleted "The fact that Tillman objected to the War in Iraq has now even been accepted by Foxnews. [2]" because it seemed irrelevant and not completely accurate. The link goes to a guest commentator's op-ed piece, and does not necessarliy reflect "Fox News." The opinions in the Op-ed piece don't add much to what is already in the "anti-war revelations" section of the article.--FRS 21:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] joke

Stop confusing me with your logic FRS!

[edit] Controversial criticism

It struck me as being rather unbalanced that the quote by Ben Johnson takes an entire paragraph, while the criticism to which it is responding are only quoted partially. This is particularly true since the quote spends a lot of time re-introducing facts about Tillman which anyone reading the article would already know.

I'm going to edit it down a bit. Perhaps we can find more responses by other conservative sources to add to that paragraph. --Saforrest 16:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

For reference, the quote was:
Conservative columnist Ben Johnson responded: "With the body barely cold, the Left has begun demonizing the late Pat Tillman. Tillman is the former NFL star who turned down a $3.6 million contract to join the Army Rangers after 9/11. He was killed last month in Afghanistan after Islamist soldiers ambushed his jeep. For most Americans, such noble service would qualify Tillman as a national hero, but it has unleashed a torrent of hatred on the Left.....the latest chapter in leftist hatred for Tillman...It is hardly surprising that this kind of rhetoric is found – in the midst of a war, no less – on the Left and on college campuses." [3]
Anyway, I tried to edit it down, but I would rather try to find a more coherent source than this, unless this quote was itself very influential. There's just not much content to it: some stuff about Tillman we already know, and a little political mudslinging, which you could find anywhere. --Saforrest 17:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I have trouble with the idea that the campus newspaper article this section refers to is noteworthy. A single article by a student in such a publication might become so in the face of a sufficient reaction, but what evidence is there for the stated "barrage of adverse national media coverage"? I'm outside the US, so I did not hear much about it in any case, but a web search for "Rene Gonzalez" and "Tillman" returns very little mass media coverage.

There appears to be a stronger case for mentioning the Ted Rall cartoon, but I think there needs to be a bit more said about the reaction (MSNBC.com pulling the cartoon, death threats, etc.). Also, the reference to the second cartoon seems superfluous - it does not refer to Tillman directly, and even if one inferred that, it is not critical of him. 59.167.22.191 08:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The Gonzalez article was covered on ESPN, and many cable news shows. It was big news here at UMass, obviously. The president of the UMass system even issued a statement. I'd prefer if we left it in. Rhobite 16:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rightie? lol

http://celiberal.com/phpBB/search.php?mode=results

[edit] San Francisco Chronicle story

An anonymous user keeps removing the SF Chronicle story about Tillman's left-wing politics, claiming that it's "POV hearsay rubbish". But this is all properly cited and attributed to the Chronicle. So I have to wonder, is this person accusing the Chronicle of fabricating the entire story? Since this is all attributed, there is no reason for removing the text. Feel free to add text which cites someone who doubts the accuracy of the SF Chronicle story. Rhobite 02:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, 67.15.76.188 is out of line, I support keeping it in the article. -- Stbalbach 02:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It's hearsay and it's biased POV hearsay at that. If you don't understand that, then you'll never understand why I don't log in for edits like this. 192.168.204.130 06:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You should log in, sock puppets are against the rules. -- Stbalbach 06:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not a sock puppet. You are really beginning to bug me. There is no rule that says I have to log in. Now either stop being so combative or face RfA. I am tiring of you. 192.168.204.130 06:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Dude, YOU JUST MANUALLY CHANGED THE IP'S TO HIDE THAT YOUR SOCK PUPPET. See the edit here. Unbelievable. You have no credibility and are clearly violating the rules of Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 06:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't accuse me - you are clearly misinformed of how IP addresses work. Also, if I were a sockpuppet, I would not be talking here with one voice. The key to sockpupetry is to try to pretend to be more than one person. I am not doing that here. 66.98.130.204 06:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-war

I'm confused. If Tillman was anti-war, why did he join the Rangers, an elite combat unit? If he became anti-war after joining the Rangers, why didn't he quit the Rangers? As I understand it, soldiers can quit the Rangers any time and elect to be reassigned elsewhere. Rangers are Rangers because they want to fight America's wars. Rklawton 06:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

What does "anti-war" mean? My understanding is that it's primarily used in the context of a particular war to refer to people who are opposed to that war. If you're confused, it's because you're mixing up "anti-war" with "pacifism". 59.167.22.191 16:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. It appears that Tillman supported the war in Afghanistan but not the one in Iraq. Rhobite 17:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This comment is being restored by me because stalbach deleted it:

"It's POV bunk that the lefties keep inserting. 67.15.76.185 06:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)"

67.15.76.185 06:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The above comment has problems on three points: 1) I don't delete people's comments. If the record shows I did, it was because of a technical error, edit page conflict, or perhaps I picked an older version of the page to edit by accident. I've seen strange things like that in the past. Why would I delete that comment, who cares? Second, the anon user "192.168.204.130" manually edited this page to change the IP he is coming from, anyone who knows anything about IP's knows that the 192.168.0.0/16 address space is non-routeable and it is impossible for anyone to post from that IP range. proof here in the edit history. Third, the anon user is name calling "lefties". Uncivil behavior. For the record the above comment was made by User:66.98.130.204 and

not "192.168.204.130". -- Stbalbach 17:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

But why would a San Francisco paper publish a bunch of anti-war crap about Tillman? Oh... Perhaps Wikipedia shouldn't serve as a mouthpiece for just a single newspaper with a clear POV. Given the nature of the alleged statements and the fact that they seem to run contrary to Tillman's own actions (speaking louder than words) and considering Wikipedia's purpose, perhaps we should hold off on publishing the anti-war stuff awhile and see if more information or corroboration turns up. Unless, of course, I’m also a sock puppet, too! Rklawton 07:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

How about saying "According to the San Francisco Whatever, Tillman . . . " and let people make their own judgments? -Wehwalt 11:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
By extension, we could also add to the UFO article "According to The National Enquirer"... (followed by some foolishness) and let the reader make their own judgements. Rklawton 15:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The San Francisco Chronicle is the top newspaper in San Francisco. If they say something notable, we should report it. As long as all statements are attributed to them there is no NPOV issue. If anyone notable has doubted the accuracy of the Chronicle story, please report it in this article. Rhobite 16:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That passage is clearly POV and really ia not necessary. It does seem meant to inflame.

It's confusing. If he supported the war in Afghanistan, why meet with Chomsky who opposes it? 65.185.190.240 00:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Because (he said over three months later) not every friendly meeting occurs between people who agree about every single issue. — Lenoxus 06:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
you can be a soldier and still be "anti-war" your perceptive just can't be so "white&black", i know this is an encyclopedia and this is supposed to be clearly defined. look at what we know of this individual, he studied all religion, he loved a game with passion, when he saw something that needed to be done, he threw down his millionaire status of celebrity in the USA and went to one of the harshest places in the world to get shot at for a shit pay check..Im no Pat tillman fanboy, but anyone with half a intuition or cognitive skill will recognize that as some sign of integrity, or sense of being/purpose.
In light of that we have to acknowledge his "transcendental studies" or whatever the eff you want to call it and see that this man actually had a brain, with some what of a revolutionary mind, and for that, and his media image, he became in my opinion the perfect target for the old false flag bolster of morale mid-theater. if we look at all human conflict, the good are mixed with the bad, and they fight their perceived "bad", all the while raping, killing, and performing the machinations that have tugged our unintelligent, violence prone, monkey brains through some thousands of years of civilization. no matter where, or when, unspeakable, and unspoken things will happen, be it the mafia, the armed forces, and the political snakes that head them, they all operate the same, sure some have badges some procliam legal status, but in the end it is the have against the have-not.
in light of THAT, their is no reason a seasoned killer, or even a man wit a keen sense of the bigger picture, or maybe with a taste of the hidden things that escape the eye of wikis, and congress, that really control this world, and its "politics"...lol, some of us are just not interested in seeing it, too scred to acknowledge it, or even worse KNOW, but have grown to like the taste of shit being crammed down their throats mainly because if they know where its made they can make a profit.

Tillman was fragged end of story for political reasons end of story, anyone who says it otherwise with social status especially in the media, is a propagator of the war industry that keeps us separated, maybe one day there will be a wikipedia article about that.NAMASTE

[edit] Promotion

A "promotion" from Specialist to Corporal is considered a "lateral promotion" as it doesn't involve a change in pay grade. Rklawton 06:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

As you can see in this article, both Specialist and Corporal are grade E-4. The reason it is considered a promotion is that a Specialist is not a non-commissioned officer (NCO) and Corporal is. There are also two types of Corporals in the Army. The first type, sometimes called a Shop Corporal is an E-4 who, being the highest ranking Specialst in a shop and not qualified for promotion to Sergeant, is given a temporary lateral promotion to Corporal and made NCO in charge (NCOIC). This promotion is local and will be recinded when that soldier leaves a shop or when a higher-ranking soldier is assigned to the shop. The other type of Corporal is a permanent Corporal , also called a DA Corporal, who, having published orders from the Department of the Army, is promoted from Private First Class (PFC) or Specialist to Corporal with a permanent date of rank. This person will not lose their Corporal status upon reassignment.

CPL Tillman was a DA Corporal, because he had published orders from the Department of the Army. Hughsonj 03:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

Earlier I made this edit, but after looking through sources, I believe it should read "...Tillman family over a month after his death, on May 28, 2004." I have changed this in the article. -albrozdude 07:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

See this for further verification of the correct date. -albrozdude 19:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Tillman

Do we know for a fact, not just news reporting, that Kevin Tillman played minor league baseball? I ran some searches on some stats sites, didn't come up with anything.

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/T/kevin-tillman.shtml Wehwalt 21:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atheist

Tillman's own official memorial bio [4] says nothing about "atheist". Since this is his official site and it's silent on the topic we can conclude a) he was not an atheist, or, b) those who knew him best decided that whatever he did/did not believe was not a notable enough aspect of him to be worth mentioning, or, c) both. Please stop re-inserting the Atheist language. 67.15.76.185 00:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Note, the above anon user is manually modifying the IP number to hide identity [5]. The users actual identity is User:67.15.76.185. -- Stbalbach 01:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Stalbach is monitoring my edits. He must have nothing better to do. 67.15.76.185 01:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should rely exclusively on an "official biography", however worthy the foundation's goals may be. That's not how Wikipedia works. But why is the language "announced atheist"? Did Tillman announce his lack of religious belief? Little odd here. Wehwalt 01:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Atheist must either be cited to a valid, authoritative source, or it's going to stay out. Period. 67.15.76.185 01:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I found a couple sources on this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/314137p-268555c.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/05/04/SPG5K6FD091.DTL
So while it's not correct to say he was an "announced atheist", it would be appropriate to include something about how his brother said this since it is notable. - Maximusveritas 08:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Why is it even noteworthy? So what? Tillman's religion probably wouldn't be included in the article, why would his lack of religion be included?--Wehwalt 09:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think his lack of religion is noteworthy so much as the incident itself, which you must admit was highly unusual. I've never heard of anything like that before and I found it to be an interesting little tidbit that sheds some light into who Tillman was and what his death meant to those around him. A single sentence describing it would be appropriate in my opinion. I guess we can see what other people here think. - Maximusveritas 20:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Tillman's brother drunken comments say nothing about Tillman's faith, but rather are an assertion of what the brother (possibly) thinks. It's a leap of logic and a tenuous extrapolation to conclude Tillman was an Atheist based on his brother's "he's not with God" drunken rant. Without a better, actual source, Atheist is staying out. And FYI: Any plain reading of what his brother said "he wasn't religious" says nothing about what Tillman himself believed. My next door neighbor is not religious, but I am 100% certain she's not an Atheist. We've spoken many times and she does believe in God. However, she's not religious and does not attend church. On the other hand, Atheism is a definate frame of mind whereby a person is certain there IS NO GOD. There's plenty of people who believe in God, but are uncertain about Religion, Church, doctrines relating to Heaven, etc. And in any case, the 1st part of the brother's two part statement; "He's not with God" is the bother's personal opinion, not a factual assertion about Tillman's wherabouts. And the 2nd part; "he wasn't religious", only tells us that Tillman wasn't religious, not that he completely did not believe in God. Those two concepts ARE NOT the same thing. 192.168.172.56 04:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

First- where's the source that says his brother was drunk? Second- being "not religious" does not mean you're an athiest. Third- why is it so difficult to believe that someone who is in the Army could be an atheist? I don't believe that we have sufficient information to "prove" he was an atheist, but I DO believe that the arguments around his religious beliefs warrant some mention. I added a "religious beliefs" section which everyone is more than welcome to edit and make better. But I believe the references to his possible non-religious status are important. --Wolf530 03:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed the sentence about speculation since it didn't have a source and was most likely just POV. I also added something about Emerson and Thoreau since they appeared to be his strongest influences. By the way, I found another source for Tillman's being "not religious" although I'm not sure it's notable enough to go in the article, so I left it out. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2005-04-16-tillman-opportunity_x.htm It's toward the end of the article, where Seahawks GM Ferguson recounts Tillman telling him "You know I'm not religious, but he's a really nice guy, and I want to help him out." - Maximusveritas 19:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
"Stalbach is monitoring my edits. He must have nothing better to do. 67.15.76.185 01:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)"

Yeah? Well, you keep lying, so I don't see a reason for Stalbach not to monitor them. However, that's going off-topic. I think it should be mentioned on his page that he was an atheist. Does that make him a bad person? That wasn't a rhetorical question, people, albeit a 'yes' answer to that would creep me out. Knightskye 07:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Tillman was an atheist and it's well documented. Those who wish to rewrite history can come on here and change that all they want, but it will always be changed back. If those who assassinated him hadn't stolen his journal, we'd all know definitively what his thoughts were on the war, on Bush, and religion. I'll give you a hint: he knew they were all fraudulent and he was going to speak out about it. That's why they iced him. --198.80.152.94 20:29, 9 August 2007

[edit] Friendly fire and decorations

Article reads: "Jones reported that senior Army commanders, including Gen. John Abizaid, knew of [the friendly fire] within days of the shooting, but nevertheless approved the awarding of the Silver Star, Purple Heart, and a posthumous promotion." This seems to imply that it was inappropriate to give those awards to somebody killed by friendly fire - but AFAICT, injury caused by friendly fire would still be likely to qualify for at least the Purple Heart. Can somebody who knows these awards better than me please fix up that passage? --Calair 01:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Purple Heart has to be the result of enemy fire, but it doesn't have to come from friendly fire itself. In this case, enemy fire appears to have triggered the chain of events that lead to Tillman's death. Rklawton 02:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The article doesn't imply that Tillman was ineligible for the awards. The point of the Jones report was that the Army approved the awards although knowing that the citation accompanying them, which is supposed to recount the circumstances that justify the honor, was false. JamesMLane t c 04:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The text of the citation is often mentioned, but it's not clear to me how we know what that is. Is there some place where it's been reproduced or transcribed where it can be reviewed? RFabian 18:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Tillman's wounds need have been from enemy fire to qualitfy for a Purple Heart. It is awarded to any anyone who is "killed or wounded during any action against an enemy of the United States." It makes no difference whether was friendly fire, or even the nature of the wound; I personally know one veteran who earned his Purple Heart after leaning on the hot barrel of a M101 howitzer while miles away from the action, and another who earned his following a fall down the stairs during the Tet Offensive. —xanderer 18:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What if you sprain your finger while pushing a button at the Pentagon to fire a missile from an unmanned plane in Asia?--Wehwalt 18:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

AIUI: There has to be enemy action somewhere, but that's the only rule. If you are mopping the floor, and the enemy sets off a bomb outside, and you flinch and get a splinter form the broom handle, you qualify for the Purple Heart. If sumbuddy mistakes sumbuddy for enemy, and starts a firefight where a hundred people are killed, nobody qualifies for a Purple Heart, unless they can pin it on the enemy some how. In this case there was a roadside bomb that went off. The bomb itself doesn't indicate enemy were present (and it seems they weren't), but it made sumbuddy jumpy enough to start shooting friendlies (and they did). I don't know that they would issue a Purple Heart on such tenuous grounds, but it's enough grounds to keep one that would be a Big Embarrassment TM to withdraw. — Randall Bart 01:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sprotect

If some here are going to sprotect this article, at the very least, they should not do it immediately after doing a non-vandal revert. The last edit reverted and sprotected after was a valid edit which, if you assume good faith, requires dialog about on talk, not just revert on a knee-jerk basis. It's this precise type of reverting, that keeps me as an anon. I have no interest in polluting my log-in name arguing with rude editors. And frankly, some sprotect actions here have been very rude! 06:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC) —This unsigned comment was added by 66.98.130.204 (talk • contribs) .


[edit] News + video

“ BBC News describes as a "public relations disaster" a newly announced investigation by the US military into the deaths of Army soldiers, including that of Cpl. Pat Tillman, in video obtained by RAW STORY.

BBC Washington correspondent James Westhead, in referring to Tillman's case, describes "evidence of a whitewash and a cover-up."

"This is very damaging for the Army," Westhead reports. "[It's] trying to appear as transparent as possible."

 ”

Seems like Alex Jones was right yet again... --Striver 22:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New AP info

Here's the link to an AP story that just came out. Don't have much time at the moment, but there's a lot of new information on the investigation in the article that's worth adding if anyone else has time. here's the link, via Yahoo: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061109/ap_on_re_us/inquest_for_a_warrior

--Chalyres 08:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two InfoBoxes?

Does anybody else think having two info boxes makes this article look odd? It gives the look that the article is about two different people. --MarsRover 05:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, a little. But think of it like the fact that the article is part of both types of categories; in a way, like anyone with more than one major role in life, you could say that the article is about two people, or at least two facets of the same person. — Lenoxus 06:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Here's one example of a similar treatment/application--John Glenn's dual roles as astronaut and politician. -Ageekgal 04:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CE Tag

How do you remove tags? This is definitly not a current event! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lophoole (talk • contribs) 17:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] New article on House investigation

I thought this news story merited a new article, since the investigation extends to the Lynch affair as well. Im not sure what to call it, though:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TILLMAN_LYNCH?SITE=KYB66&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

--popefauvexxiii 16:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

Somethings wrong! The article says Tillman died in April, and, joined the army in May!!!HUH???!!!

It says he joined in May 2002 and died in April 2004, almost 2 years later. — ERcheck (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


Oh I see! Guess I'm dyslexic!!!

[edit] Descent

Any relation to Pitchfork Ben Tillman? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CURRENT EVENT TAG

I believe the Current Event tag should be removed. Would anyone agree? Curran (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use {{helpme}} for questions directly related to content; it's supposed to be more of a tool for users who need help either with editing (wikicode, templates, etc.) or wikipedia policy, and also only supposed to be placed on userpages. You don't need permission or opinions from other editors in order to do something, so just remove the tag. If someone disagrees, they'll reinsert it, contact you on your userpage, or raise the issue here :) Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 17:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ralph Kauzlarich comments

MarsRover and another user have reverted my addition of the Ralph Kauzlarich comments into the Pat Tillman article. I fail to understand exactly how this information is not relevant to the article, esp. in light of the fact that it appears in the "Controversial criticisms" section, and request clarification. I would hope this is not a case of information supression. Aloha. Arjuna 05:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain why its relevant? Ralph's is upset at the surviving Tillman family. It seems to have little to do with Pat. Throwing in a blurb at the end that Ralph's opinion is a sign of a cover-up conspiracy is a weak way to make it sound relevant. --MarsRover 06:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm rolling my eyes a bit at this one, but I would say it is relevant to the Tillman's family's fight to keep the investigation going, so it should be left in. See Natalee Holloway for another article where criticism of family members is deemed relevant.--Wehwalt 08:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pattillman40.gif

Image:Pattillman40.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Propaganda categories

Considering that Pat Tillman was actually against the war and refused to speak at a press event, his stance was pretty clear. That after he died, a false story was magically constructed where he died while engaging the enemy, and he was awarded two awards that he didn't deserve shows that the information is completely false. That the false story was then repeated numerous times to the public while commanders were well aware of the true information then suggests manipulation of the information for public consumption. Finally, the point that him and his entire family are against the portrayal that was given to the public a few years ago underscores the manipulation of information.

But really, our opinions are irrelevant. What matters is the view of external sources:

I'm perfectly open to discussion, but that this is propaganda seems more than obvious to me. To edit in good faith, I won't be the one to reinsert the categories for at least 24 hours. Anyone should feel free to leave their comments. --68.23.8.238 04:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda is defined as "information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc." .. How can we view this as anything but? I know we have a hard time labelling information from our own country propaganda but this clearly meets the definition. I think you may be more worried about the connotation than anything else. I'm simply stating that officers within the military purposely spread false information to help their movement. An unreleased Army investigation has as much already concluded this. I understand your fear of the connotation, but the definition clearly fits and notable external sources are clearly mentioning it as such. --68.23.8.238 04:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Given your own definition how is this propaganda. The article is specifically about the person, if you split the scandal to another article then maybe that would be. Even that is debatable since its really "CYA" not "deliberately spreading widely" lies. The powers that be wanted this whole event to disappear. A Cover-up is not the same as propaganda. --MarsRover 07:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Withholding just another way of manipulating the information, but that isn't why I am arguing that this is a case of propaganda. There would be no information to withhold if soldiers wouldn't have been ordered to keep their mouths shut by the officers who invented a story to hand a Purple Heart to Tillman. What would you classify information that was completely false, disseminated widely in the public, and systematically and artificially held up by concealing the truth up the chain of command?
Again, frankly our opinions don't matter. What matters is that news sources and educational institutions are verifying the classification. You said: its really "CYA" not "deliberately spreading widely" lies. What does "CYA" mean? --68.23.8.238 14:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
It means "cover your ass". It is a difficult question. In a way, Tillman's death was presented as war propaganda, it was certainly one of the iconic stories of the military action in Afghanistan. But so labeling it is in its way POV. I'd be inclined to leave them out (and I'm not sure the categories are helpful themselves to WP) but I"m somewhat torn on the question.--Wehwalt 15:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as there is no consensus and much new information was just released I'm going to stop pushing for the category labels. I'm going to look over the new information, and I'll come back for further input if the situation warrants. --68.23.8.238 20:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Resource

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/topstories_story_207212230.html Odd facts: • In his last words moments before he was killed, Tillman snapped at a panicky comrade under fire to shut up and stop "sniveling." • Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments. • The three-star general who kept the truth about Tillman's death from his family and the public told investigators some 70 times that he had a bad memory and could not recall details of his actions. • No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene — no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck--24.15.10.239 05:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the post, but it appears that the bottom 3 bullets are already listed close to or at verbatim in the 'Controversy surrounding Tillman's death' subsection. The information was obtained from source #6. There is no mention of him snapping at a panicky comrade under fire to shut up and stop "sniveling" that I have seen in the Wiki article, but the soldier who made this claim to the chaplain who wrote about it has since changed his story to ESPN here: [6] A new angle they mention in the ESPN story is the possibility of snipers. I would imagine this angle would have already been pursued by seven military investigations or Tillman's family would have said more about it by now if they thought it were serious.
I do think they've noticed there are a very long string of 'mistakes' in the official story and just find the official account highly unlikely, especially after being lied to once; however, I'm thinking they will have a harder and harder time pointing to conclusive proof. The only three angles I see left to pursue are find out who fabricated new information and replaced the original information for the posthumous awards, pursue public affairs officers in the middle of the department who dealt with the Tillman story following his death, and get more documents released (possibly including earlier drafts of Bush's speech to the Correspondent's Dinner). --68.253.38.224 14:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bush Avoids Pat Tillman investigation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnBItdZaNfw

Is this worth including in the article? If so could someone else do it please as I hate Bush too much to write anything NPOV about the S.O.B. :D --190.16.114.153 21:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is there another article? There should be

Why is everything about Pat Tillmans death and cover-up and hearings in this one article on him? Shouldn't there be an article like Pat Tillman Death Coverup and Inquiry I propose thusly. Have you seen this? Link Bmedley Sutler 06:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I put a link to a very similar article under the external links section. I wasn't sure if every new detail in the investigation should go in to the article if it were only remotely related to Pat. There was another article where Kensinger's attorney states that Kensinger was just as out of the information loop as other senior officials and is merely a scapegoat. Again it's notable, but I was trying to stay focused on information that isn't changing as rapidly and which is more related to Pat or his death. --68.21.94.56 17:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refreshing to see willingness to criticise US

It's refreshing to read this article and discover that the editors of the encyclopedia have no problem with articles/topics that are (actually or potentially) very, very embarrassing to the US.

I find it strange that the same thing does not seem to apply to so many articles concerning Israel, even in cases such as Rachel Corrie or Battle of Jenin. In these other cases, the "official" (actually Israeli) position is headlined at every point (even to putting their "security concerns" in the lead, where it certainly does not belong). Other information (including that coming from individual US citizens, the UN, EU etc, let alone NGOs) is systematically distorted and/or removed. It seems strange that so much of this practice is going on with such little serious opposition. PalestineRemembered 08:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Navy Mark 12 Mod X Special Purpose Rifle

The way I see it, the only thing that remains to be disclosed is the serial number for the Navy Mark 12 Mod X Special Purpose Rifle that fired the shots and which Ranger was signed for the weapon at the time.

The Navy sniper rifle is the only 5.56 mm weapon capable of firing the three shots from the distances mentioned in the various reports.

The final word from DOD (thus far) is that snipers had dismounted right before the friendly fire incident occurred. Ranger MTO&E confirms for journalists and pure civilians (so the deep-end "secret squirrel" sniper theories can go away).

173rd 09:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Plus (heard this in a bar in Vicenza)...

Pat Tillman was killed with this type of sniper rifle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_Mark_12_Mod_X_Special_Purpose_Rifle

The key to understanding how it happened is that it chambers a 5.56 mm round. Most sniper rifles are 7.62 or larger, but this one is not, as it was designed for special operations.

The sniper killed Pat while observing through a thermal gun sight. Three single shots from less than 100 meters easily fits the bill with the shot group found on Tillman's forehead.

Interview military experts to confirm.

The sniper didn't know it was Tillman because thermal sights show hot spots that may or may not appear as normal, clear images. If the sniper still had the thermal sight in daylight mode, the red hot spot may have completely covered Pat's face.

I realize soldiers wear "friendly" reflective "glo-tape" patches these days, but that system may not be fool proof.

Once the above facts are confirmed, the only thing left is the question of whether it was an accident. If it was unintentional, the sniper in Tillman's unit will have to admit what happened. The latest PDF released by DoD notes, for the first time, that snipers were on the ground during the incident.

173rd 12:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed POV from the lead

First i put a citation tag on the last two sentences of the 4th paragraph in the lead, then i decided to take it out completely. I think we can all agree that this is, at the very least POV, and basically unverifiable:

The sniper probably did not realize it was Tillman because the thermal imaging gun sight used during the incident would not have provided an image clear enough to recognize Tillman's face. Used in day mode, the thermal site would have provided only hot- and cold-spot images that blurred facial features.

Additionally, i placed a fact tag on the statement that now finishes the paragraph which states a probability that tillman was fired upon by a ranger. It probably just needs to be reworded unless there are official documents that state the same.

--PopeFauveXXIII (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that it is POV (what is the point of view?). However, it is certainly unsourced so I agree, it should go.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opening needs work

The opening is way too long and needs to be trimmed down. Way too much info is crammed in there, especially about the questions and accusations about his death. It is discussed below and anyone seeking specifics out can easily find them via the contents section. SteveCoppock (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 10 Yards, not 100 Yards

Someone had changed 10 yards to 100 yards, I have correced it. Please take care it won't happen again. --Tubesship (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)