Talk:Pat Tillman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

"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)

See Also Section Needs Clarification

"Bob Kalsu - Only other active NFL player killed in action Don Steinbrunner - NFL player killed in action during the Vietnam War"

This seems like a logical mistake I just pulled from the article. I'd fix it but I do not know much about this subject, or... perhaps there's just some minute detail I'm not seeing that makes this relevant... is the "active" keyword the big factor? Obviously none of them were active players if they were deployed... why would there be a differentiation for Don Steinbrunner had he not been "active" anyway? I would understand if there were a collection of like 10 of these guys and one or two of them had been retired players or something, but, this seems a little strange. JudgeX (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I added a couple words to clarify those descriptions. I am starting to wonder if those are even applicable entries for this article. They don't really seem related. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The Jon Krakauer book said he was born in Fremont (good sized city adjacent to San Jose). His family moved to the New Almaden village (in San Jose city limits) when he was very young. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.244.61 (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

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 April 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

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)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.6.54 (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2004 (UTC)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/05/04/SPG5K6FD091.DTL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.245.132 (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

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 June 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. --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)

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)

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ledelste (talk • contribs) 22:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

use this info.

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Grazon (talk • contribs) 04:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Grazon (talk • contribs) 03:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.245.132 (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

joke

Stop confusing me with your logic FRS!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.255.187 (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

rightie? lol

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.49.128 (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

To respond generally to the statements made above: It's noteworthy to mention Tillman's religion in light of the controversial statements made by Ralph Kauzlarich, regarding the family's beliefs, and how it relates to the investigation of his death. Additionally (since this is apparently hard to find) the biography by Jon Krakauer refers to Pat Tillman as an agnostic and possibly even an atheist. I'm sure if someone wants to actually read the book, they can find a relevant quote to include. On a more personal note, this entire discussion topic stinks of religious paranoia.129.2.167.219 (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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) .

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."

”

• http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2354894
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOyYMtpAao4
• http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/VIDEO_Military_to_review_Tillman_Army_0825.html

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

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)

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)

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).

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)

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!!!

Descent

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

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)

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)

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)

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:

• A Rolling Stones Article, Propaganda in the title
• An ESPN article, quoting Tillman's brother
• Trish Wood, an investigative reporter for the Huffington Post
• Mentioned as an example of propaganda for a WWU Journalism class
• Congress is currently examining why inaccurate accounts of these two incidents were disseminated, the sources and motivations for the accounts, and whether the appropriate Administration officials have been held accountable
• Jessica Lynch has charged that she was used for propaganda as well

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Not to mention including criticism in the opening is extraordinarily biased and makes the article into a position paper instead of a scholarly work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.59.89 (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

IP. Steve was talking about this which is an old version. I inserted the information you're talking about to be more in line with WP:LEAD. While you seem to imply the lead is a WP:POVPUSH, a NYT book review regarding an established author's work is about as mainstream as it gets. Previously the lead didn't say anything about the cover-up. -Shootbamboo (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

New committee report

I've added a link to and a couple quotations from the latest committee report on Tillman's death -- http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20080714111050.pdf -- but I haven't reviewed the whole thing. There's probably more stuff in there that's worth adding. JamesMLane t c 06:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

In search of NPOV

Can we really call it friendly fire (which most people understand is accidental, thus is inherrantly misleading) when murder and coverup from unit to top brass is the only conclusion to draw. 3 shots to the head from close range aint an accident. I sure as hell have no NPOV here but the intro claiming Friendly Fire perpetuation of cover up parrot fasion. Tantaluman (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Tantaluman

Why is 3 shots to the head at close range automatically not an accident? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.80.157 (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

$250,000.00 - who needs the cents?

"the NFL donated $250,000.00 to the United Service Organizations"
Are the cents important? I think it should be $250,000. What do you think? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

broken link reference 11

The link for ref. 11 is broken. The text of the P4 memo can be found at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17878621/

I would fix it but I don't know how. 68.1.30.123 (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

football career

224 tackles in one season? Really?! That is truly superhuman. No human has ever recorded that many tackles in one season. If it were true it wold be a world record not a team record. The NFL's website records 92 total career tackles. http://www.nfl.com/players/pattillman/profile?id=TIL573494

______ please fact check__________---

If you care to read the NFL website they state that tackle data before 2001 is not available. 224 tackles is a possible number when you have five years of NFL experience espn has his career tackle number at 344 so please check all every bit of data even from the NFL website espn link http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/stats?playerId=1605 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.166.0 (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Pat Tillman statue.jpg

This image was uploaded at commons, but it us going to be deleted Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pat Tillman, a True American Hero.jpg. So, to preserve the image on the Pat Tillman page, I uploaded the image as a nonfree image.--Blargh29 (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Including a photo of a statue that doesn't even resemble Pat Tillman fails to benefit this article. This sculpture image belongs in the article about the stadium and is not notable here. --MarsRover (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is notable, as Tillman isn't so famous that a statue of him would be no big deal. What other reasons do you have beyond it not resembling him? Pirate^Argh!!1! 06:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

InfoBox pictures are meant as a means to identify the person. Using this poor caricature as a means to identify Pat Tilman in his NFL days doesn't benifit the article. If you need another reason the photo of the statue fails show he is running on to a football field. He just has a weird distorted face which is misleading at best. Maybe the image can be put in a section that talks about the statue. --MarsRover (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like promotion of the sculpture or artist more than anything else. It's inappropriately used to identify his face, which even misrepresents the statue itself as a bust; the photo is very much incomplete, from the other photos I see on the web. I believe it should be removed from this page. The statue is a poor representation of the person, and the picture is an awful representation of the sculpture. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

See also section

I had removed Jessica Lynch. Can her entry be expanded, like the ones above, to explain the connection, ie, the similarity in both their stories? TIA --Tom (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy Verbage

I recently read Krakauer's book, Where Men Win Glory, and I think it's worth noting that in his account, the medical investigator who suspected homicide did so under the assumption of the weapons in the squad's possession. The medical investigator was going off of the ammunition that killed Tillman, which he attributed to an M16 or M4A1, without the knowledge that a SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) had been fired at Tillman, also. With that information Krakauer said he was told the pattern of three rounds in a two inch radius would not be that difficult to make at the range Tillman was from the vehicle carrying the SAW (and it's wielder).

I say this because the article currently reads like it's supporting a conspiracy theory as a possible explanation (the mention of "an M16 at 10 yards"). Assuming Krakauer has his facts straight, it seems highly unlikely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.140.254.10 (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

... none of the above is physically possible. An M16, M4, or SAW placing a shot group that tight would require a muzzle placed closer than 10 meters (unless someone were shooting from, say, a sandbag supported position from 10 meters away). I would say it's more likely that a Ranger sniper accidently shot Tillman from under 100 meters with a standard-issue MK-12 5.56mm special operations sniper rifle. The sniper probably had his thermal sight switched to "day mode," with the contrast turned all the way up to identify red hotspots, and did not fully identify his target (he assumed the hotspot was enemy because they thought they were receiving enemy fire). That's the embarrassment the military establishment trying to avoid. Ranger battalion TDA records obtained via FOIA would identify who the assigned sniper(s) were in the squad/platoon that fired on Tillman, although I’m sure if that’s what happened, it was accidental. Smashingsuccess (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

POV edit?

This edit,[7], appears to introduce a POV into the article concerning Ralph Kauzlarich. However I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to make a determination. Can someone else review it?   Will Beback  talk  22:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The content being added wasn't exactly what was conveyed in the cited sources; some of it was clearly personal commentary. As an aside, I do notice that some of the older citations are to deadlinks. I'll see if I can find more stable sources for the same material. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

LeLand High School?

This bio won't be complete until somebody highlights and details more of Pat's childhood and high school years —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.146.100 (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Motive for murder?

In response to the suggestions or speculation that Tillman was deliberately "fragged" by someone in the unit: Has any evidence been found indicating that one or more men in the unit disliked him enough to want to kill him? Did anyone in the unit stand to gain anything from his death? There is a significant difference between someone shooting a fellow soldier in error and then trying to cover up their mistake and someone shooting a particular fellow soldier on purpose. There doesn't seem to be any question that the men in Tillman's tactical unit tried to cover things up, but were they trying to cover up someone's mistake or an act of murder? Any theories out there? (71.22.47.232 (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

There doesn't appear to be anything in the article about what you're concerned about. A coroner seeing a body shot several ties and saying "I believe this person was murdered" seems believable. Chris Matthews exaggerating that into something suspicious seems believable, too. --MarsRover (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Burning his journal would be a good way to cover up such a motive.--216.67.20.169 (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Krakauer looked into the conspiracy theory aspect and doesn't buy any of it. He says so somewhere in this 50 min interview. Perhaps the article should make that more clear. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as any motive would go who is to say this was not ordered by high officials? What was Pat Tillman's potential after the army? A political candidate who doubles as an American football star and served two tours in the service protecting American freedoms yet was against the war? I have trouble NOT finding a motive in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.111.5 (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Help needed, Jim Wilkinson

I am a chemistry editor mainly who has somehow gotten involved with Jim Wilkinson (U.S. politician). Some editors might recognize that name as the "super-patriot" who covered up bad news from the Iraq War and then Pat Tillman's case. In any case, someone purporting to be Wilkinson has contacted me asking to correct or sanitize (depending on one's perspective) this page. Please check my talk User talk:Smokefoot#Urgent Help Needed. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent CID report content

(Discussion moved here from an editor's talk page.)
I have recently added information, extracted from a US Army CID report that reflects there was an ambush of Serial 2 just before they fired on Serial 1 (Pat's unit). I have even gone so far as provided a link to the report so folks can read this. My post of information is supported by this official CID report of investigation, though it may be contrary to the popular information that is out there. I believe folks are confusing the information between there were no hostile forces that fired on Serial 1, veruses the hostile forces that fired on Serial 2. We need to present the facts are they are, that being Serial 2 was under the belief that Serial 1 was part of the ambush. Please review the CID report and you will what I am talking about. Scarabaeus2 (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Most of the content you have added is still there. However, I have removed certain content that was not conveyed by the cited source. The report you cited is more than 1000 pages long, so it is possible that I may have missed something; if this is the case, providing the exact page number(s) within the source that convey the disputed text may resolve the issue. I've read the summary contained in the first half-dozen pages of that report, and it doesn't directly support some of the assertions that you have made. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are confused about the fact that there was no enemy fire. Yes, the engagement between Serial 1 and Serial 2 did not contain enemy fire; however, Serial 2 the unit that fired on Pat's unit, had just driven through an ambush. The CID report goes further to explain that since the members of Serial 2 were only reacting to what they believed was a continuation of the ambush, there was no malice or intent by the members to murder Pat Tillman. What I am putting forth conflicts with popular belief and stories told, but none the less is what happened. There was an ambush as supported by the the CID report, and you have to have enemy combat action to have an ambush. Scarabaeus2 (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not at all confused about the fact that there was no enemy fire, or that both groups claimed to be aware of enemy combatants and an ambush situation. However, you said, "The CID report goes further to explain that since the members of Serial 2 were only reacting to what they believed was a continuation of the ambush...", when the report does not indicate that. If it did, you would have provided the specific page number where such an assertion was made. As for "popular belief and stories told", I am unfamiliar with them -- I merely corrected the content you inserted based upon the source you provided. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hew to the source

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

• Per discussion below, looks like using the full quotation has clearly most support. --KFP (contact | edits) 15:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Recently there have been some attempts to change the text to something that seems logical or reasonable, but in any article we must always have a source for the information. If you want to change the text, hunt around and find a reliable source for it before you do so, and then change to your heart's content, being sure to cite the source. You can put the source right into the text if you are not sure about how to do footnotes, and somebody else will format it correctly for you. Sincerely, and thanking you all for helping out . . . GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This is particularly true in the part of the article that at the present time says: However, responding to religious overtones at the funeral, his youngest brother, Rich, said that "Pat isn't with God. He's f--ing dead. He wasn't religious. So thank you for your thoughts, but he's f--ing dead." (The dashes are in the source.) The dashes are indeed in the source: If you find another source that uses the word fucking, then by all means change the article to reflect your discovery — of course footnoting it per your revelation — but until then, please hew to the source. Oh, yes, and while his brother's name may indeed be Richard, nobody has yet come up with a source that verifies that fact. For all we know, his parents may have named him Rich, because that is the way the authors of this article wrote it. Thank you once more. GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

A good source has been found for the quotation, which means it can now be used without the dashes that were in the (bowdlerized) newspaper article. Now, can we leave it alone? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

A few points regarding the removal of the supposedly offensive language from the article.

With the recent home video release of The Tillman Story documentary, many people will have seen his brother's speech in its uncensored form. The film mentions that the Tillman brothers both swore like ... well, like troopers. It also explains that the brothers were very close. Richard's highly emotional outburst against the religious overtones at the funeral demonstrates his passionate belief that Pat would not have been happy about these overtones. This in itself might not have been noteworthy had it not been for Kauzlarich's references to Pat's atheism. So the removal of the quote in it's uncensored form does indeed make the article less "informative, relevant, or accurate" as specified in WP:PROFANE. Further, TucsonDavid, who is monitoring the article closely, obviously considered the quote to be encyclopaedic in quality in its bowdlerized form or he would have removed it. In what sense does the replacement of "f---ing" with "fucking" somehow downgrade the relevance of the quote ? Barry Wom (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph in question is about Pat Tillman's atheism or agnosticism, not about Pat and Richard's cussing or Richard's emotional outburst over the loss of his brother. Since a valued WP editor has brought forth a pretty good rationale for omitting the profanity (it casts absolutely no additional light on Pat's nonreligious stand), it seems the same point {"He wasn't religious") can be made without the use of the (to some) objectionable language. Well, that's my theory anyway, and I think the whole contretemps can be smoothed over with this recent re-editing in which the essentiality of the quote is really, I think, well stated. (Unless it's been changed when I wasn't looking.) The point is to get a good article about Pat Tillman without being bogged down in infighting. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with the decision to omit the cursing, but then again I doubt my opinion would change anything. I think it should be included because it shows how mad his brother was at Maria Schriver and John McCain to ascribing errant religious platitudes to his fallen brother. I believe by taking the curse out it detracts from the quote, dehumanizing it even. Just more of what happened during this whole episode. Ad nauseum sanitization and omittance is not what this article needs or what I believe Pat Tillman deserves.--Guymontague (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and many other sources have removed the dashed lines from "fucking." There is no need to censor his brother's words, and in fact, the exclamation that Pat is "fucking dead" has, alone, been well publicized in the media. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The words are not "censored." They are just not germane to the point made in the paragraph, that Pat Tillman was an agnostic or an atheist. The point is equally made with or without the abridged quote, which uses ellipses to indicate something had been omitted. Here's the WP take on this: Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. It's right there, in black and white, at Wikipedia:PROFANE. Sincerely, a friend to all, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think "He's fucking dead" is generally "vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers." While it is true that a curse word is featured, the phrase helps illustrate Richard's frustration that it was perceived Pat was religious. Without it, you can't sense any major emotion in the two sentences. By the way, GeorgeLouis, please do not keep reverting the addition of the text, for it is almost edit warring. There is no consensus to add or remove the phrase in the article yet. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but "fucking" is considered vulgar by the vast majority of people whose native language is English, and is so listed in the Eleventh Edition of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary ("usu. vulgar") If any interested person will look back, he or she will see that my "middle road" solution of just omitting the entire phrase as a civilized response to an editorial challenge was reverted first. As for consensus, the consensus was reached at Wikipedia:PROFANE. Now it is only a matter of whether that policy should be followed here or not. I say keep the "usu. vulgar" phrase out (because it is totally unnecessary) until decided otherwise by a real consensus, and not by a just a few people. If one wants to improve the encyclopedia and attract new readers and editors, one should watch out for little fooferaws like this one. Yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears that your main reasoning for the omitting is that "fucking" is vulgar and you think the entire phrase should not be added because of its vulgarity, as well as it's "irrelevance" to the topic. According to WP:CENSOR, Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content. Let's move away from the vulgar argument, since WP:CENSOR puts an end to it. I believe the phrase should be included, as it reveals to the reader, as I've said before, the frustration Richard has after people assume his brother was religious. By saying "He's fucking dead," Richard emphasizes his feeling about the whole funeral procession and the religious overtone. In its current state, the two sentences appear that Richard says what he says in a calm way, when in fact he was very disturbed. By omitting the phrase, we are informing the reader less about Tillman. If you feel there needs to be more users involved in this discussion, feel free to ask around at WP:CNB, WP:3O, or WP:PROFANE (although I'm not sure it's heavily watchlisted). Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The quotation says A LOT more about Rich than it does about Pat. In fact, it says nothing at all about Pat. The recommendation from WP:CENSOR says that discussion "should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article." And Wikipedia:PROFANE says something very similar. (This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles may contain offensive words and images, but only for a good reason. Do not use disclaimers.) Again, nothing is added to the reader's understanding by including a "usu. vulgar" term which is really off the point of the section anyway. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If I may chime in here; I find myself in agreement with the assertion that the "vulgarity" in Pat's brother's statements does indeed add significant weight, tenor and intensity to what he is saying. It is unfortunate enough that we are restricted to the medium of the printed word here, and we have already lost the benefit of facial expression, body language, tone and inflection -- now we are suggesting further handicapping ourselves by censoring out the actual words used because someone may find them objectionable? I've read the bowdlerized version; I've seen the warring GeorgeLouis has had to contend with, and frankly, I've mostly agreed with his arguments that the profanity wasn't necessary. However, I've now reviewed the sources (and watched a video clip of his statements - not suitable as a citeable source, mind you), and frankly, the bowdlerized version conveys a significantly different message than that of his actual statement. Pat's brother later commented on his previous statements, noting, "I found it offensive. I don't go into a church and say 'this is bullshit', so don't come to my brother's service and tell me he's with God. He's simply not with fucking God."

I still agree with GeorgeLouis that if that part of our article is simply trying to say "Pat wasn't religious", then we don't need any part of the quote to do so, but I don't find the actual quote in any way offensive. Paraphrasing the quote appears to distort the meaning. (And the Eleventh Edition of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, really? That's sooo 2002! Maybe "fucking" was "usually vulgar" way back then, but...) Xenophrenic (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fucking. Can't get any more up to date than that. "–adjective, adverb Slang: Vulgar. damned; confounded (used as an intensifier)." It simply is out-of-place vulgarity, and any editor trying to make a "statement" by including it in a section about young Pat's ethical views is engaged in wp:original research and, really, pushing the envelope. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the link; following it, I found this:

usage: The use and overuse of fuck in the everyday speech of many people has led, to some extent, to a lessening of its impact as an expletive. However, the word still retains its shock value, although it is less now than it was when the critic Kenneth Tynan caused controversy by saying it on British television in 1965.

I don't share your personal opinion that it is vulgarity. I also won't speculate on intentions of the editor that included the correct quote that you find so offensive. I will, however, point out that most everyone commenting here agrees that bowdlerizing or paraphrasing the actual quote changes the intensity and meaning of the statement - so that would be inappropriate. My suggestion would be to leave the correct, unaltered quote, or find a way to convey the same content without using the quote at all. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't find the quote vulgar; I've dropped the f-bomb in my articles (of course, always in quotes) several times. I would say whether to include it is a matter of editorial judgment on which consensus should be built, but it is not ruled out for any reason. I also don't think that filling in the dashes is original research; is there any serious dispute that the word "fucking" was meant?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The guidelines in WP:PROFANE attempt to prevent the gratuitous inclusion of profanity in articles. For example, in an article about horses, we would not write "The horse shitted"; rather, we would use "The horse defecated". However, this is a quote from Pat's brother, where he did say, "he's fucking dead". WP:CENSOR states: "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content." Thus we should not remove the word just because it is a swear word. It is better to include the word "fucking" since it is what Pat's brother said, and it more clearly carries the full emotion and weight of his comments into this text medium. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Although I do not discount GeorgeLouis's point that it says more about Rich than Pat. Incidentally, I did some work on this article back in the day. I do not think I added this quote but it is possible that I did, I can't rule it out without tedious looking through histories. The memory starts to go after fifty ... thousand edits.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• This source from The Guardian, which cites the quotation from "Richard Tillman, Pat's younger brother" as "'He's not with God, he's fucking dead,' asserted Mr Tillman. 'Thanks for your thoughts but he's fucking dead.'" This source from Esquire (magazine) offers the quotation as "Pat isn't with God. He's fucking dead. He wasn't religious. So thank you for your thoughts, but he's fucking dead." While I agree that non-contextual use of the word would be inappropriate under Wikipedia:Offensive material, in the context where it was used it makes for a rather strong intensifier and should be included in the article, consistent with policy and backed by multiple reliable sources. That and to preclude anyone thinking that the profanity being bowdlerized to "f---ing" is "farting". Alansohn (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: I got a message at my user talk, asking me to comment here. I'm sure it was left in good faith, but since I have not previously followed this page, I'm going to adhere to a strict reading of WP:CANVAS and not comment in this discussion. Just noting in the interests of transparency. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, Wikipedia is not censored. Putting something uncensored would be considered offensive if you put some nonsense or foolish content in an article that clearly is a censored article and it would be called vandalism. That source would clearly have censored it. WayneSlam 21:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• If the quotation is to be used, ie is considered to add to the Encyclopaedic understanding of the article, then it should be quoted in the original, verifiable, uncensored format - per Wikipedia is not censored - which covers this issue precisely. Please, stick to policy arguments - being neutral, using verifiable information - representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources, and not opinion. To do otherwise would be misrepresentation. As someone said in an unrelated debate, "If people would stop getting offended by words that are just words, all this retarded shit wouldn't be so gay."^[ref]  Chzz  ►  23:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying for consensus

Please, do not change the specific phrase (in either direction) until there is a consensus here. (WP:EDITWAR)

Let us try to clearly show the consensus opinions, below. Please just add "support" or "oppose" in the following subsections, with a brief comment if necessary. Feel free to continue to discuss the point at as much length as required, in the designated "Discussion" section that follows. Thanks.  Chzz  ►  23:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I notified everyone who previously contributed to this debate, asking them to clarify below  Chzz  ►  03:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Notified this debate on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not  Chzz  ►  08:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Full quotation

...his youngest brother, Richard, asserted that "He's not with God, he's fucking dead. He's not religious." Richard added, "Thanks for your thoughts, but he's fucking dead."<ref>...

• Support. WP:NOTCENSORED, conveys the feeling with no danger of misrepresentation.  Chzz  ►  23:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Actual quotes are always preferred over our attempted interpretation of them. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The intensity of Richard's comment was an important part of the story. And Xenophrenic makes a good point (below) about the possible misinterpretation of the shortened anodyne version.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Per the three users above me. Using a full quote, allowed per WP:NOTCENSORED, accurately conveys the speaker's point and establishes context (he was obviously not very happy). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support per everything I've said above. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Me too.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support as above, but see below for another suggestion which I would in fact prefer. --Mirokado (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support - per my reasoning from WP:CENSOR and what WP:PROFANE is actually supposed to mean. (Details are above, when I replied before.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support It should be included because it shows how mad his brother was at Maria Schriver and John McCain to ascribing errant religious platitudes to his fallen brother. I believe by taking the curse out it detracts from the quote, dehumanizing it even. Just more of what happened during this whole episode. Ad nauseum sanitization and omittance is not what this article needs or what I believe Pat Tillman deserves. Guymontague (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support – If you're going to quote someone then do it properly, definitely don't just cut out some word you object to. If you really think this violates WP:PROFANE, which I find a serious overreaction to the simple word "fucking", then don't use the quote at all. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support: The censored quote pretty much changes the meaning of the original, and the reduced version certainly changes the strength. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia is not censored. WayneSlam 23:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Barry Wom (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Shortened quotation

...his youngest brother, Richard, said that "He's not with God [..] He wasn't religious."<ref>...

• Support. There is a style policy stating "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers[nb 1] should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." That's in WP:Offensive material. There's no doubt that fucking is vulgar — http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fucking, Richard's outburst has nothing to do with Pat's ethical, religious or moral feelings (the subject of the section). The important words are Richard's testament that Pat "wasn't religious," not that he was dead, or "fucking dead," if you will. WP:Not censored states quite clearly a decision on what to include is "whether it is appropriate to include in a given article." Since Pat's brother, Richard, attests that Pat was not religious, that is really all we need in this article. Otherwise, we are flouting WP:Offensive material. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support this version:
  ...his youngest brother, Richard, said that "He wasn't religious."<ref>...

because the article is not about Richard Tillman. If we had an article Richard Tillman, in the section "Richard Tillman's religious beliefs", it would be OK to have something like "Richard Tillman was quoted as saying upon the death of his brother: 'He's not with God, he's fucking dead... Thanks for your thoughts, but he's fucking dead.' However, unless and until we have an article about Richard Tillman, the quote is not useful. The only part of the quote that bears on Pat Tillman is "He's not religious". The rest of it is Richard Tillman's personal opinion about where, exactly, his brother is at the moment. It might reflect Pat Tillman's beliefs or it might might not, who knows? Herostratus (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Other / Discussion

• Comment — Saying "He's not with God [..] He wasn't religious." would be a handy way to convey that Pat isn't with God, and is probably with that devil dude, because he wasn't religious, but I don't think that is what we are trying to get across. There is no chance of such misinterpretation when the actual quote is used. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment GeorgeLouis, above, states the guideline Wikipedia:Offensive material in favour of the shortened quotation; however, that page states that "a vulgarity or obscenity should either appear in its full form or not at all" - which to me, precludes the truncated version from consideration.  Chzz  ►  08:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • This quote is in reference to using bowlderisms such as "f***ing", "@#%^#", or "sh!t". However, as I mentioned above, the full quote needs to be used to carry across the real meaning of what he said. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment In the longer quote above, the first sentence supports the point being made in the article, but the second while adding emphasis is really saying "None of your kind thoughts will bring him back" which is a different issue. I think it is enough to quote the first sentence and avoid gratuitous repetition of the swearing, thus:
  ...his youngest brother, Richard, asserted that "He's not with God, he's fucking dead. He's not religious."<ref>...
  --Mirokado (talk) 08:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.