Talk:Ilario Pantano/Archive 1

Archive 1

Started article

I started the Ilario Pantano article, and contributed much of its original contents. I also put a lot of open questions that I though remained to be answered, together with some comments of my own, here on the Talk page. Today I moved those questions and comments to a page of their own, User:Geo Swan/Pantano.

Other wikipedians are now making substantial contributing to the article. But no one is explaining their changes on the talk pages, as one would normally expect them to do. Since I disagree with some of thsoe changes, and have questions about some of the others I would really wanted to see those explanations, and enter into a dialogue about them.

It occurred to me that the size of my comments and questions was intimidating other contributors from using the Talk page hence the sub-page of my own page. -- Geo Swan 14:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Merging Sections

I decided to merge the first four sections under one section (which might be in the need of a new name, but that's what I thought of at first), and make the old ones subsections. They are too short to be their own sections, IMO. If you feel this is wrong, please revert it. Fbv65edel 21:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Relation between Pantano and the efforts to give GIs a refresher course in American values and the laws of war following the publicizng of the similar Haditha atrocities

User:Looper5920 removed a section about the Commandant's response to the publicizing of the Haditha atrocities, with the edit summary: "removed entire section as it has nothing to do with Lt Pantano"

I am the person who added that section, and I believe it is related to Pantano. In June 2004 Pantano confessed to committing atrocities. He claimed that he shot the Iraqis because he was alarmed and thought they were going to turn and attack him. But he willing confessed that he slowly and methodically shot them dozens of times, in order "to send a message". Pantano willingly confessed to scrawling a message over their bodies, in order "to send a message". Pantano did not call for body pickup, because he wanted to leave their corpses "to send a message".

The officer in charge of Pantano's article 32 hearing criticized Pantano for his body mutiliation. Personally, I don't understand why Pantano's actions were not condemned as an act of terrorism.

Pantano's actions were widely defended among his fellow serving GIs, the Veteran community, and on the American Right, even though he willingly confessed he violated the laws and customs of war with his corpse desecration.

The wide support Pantano received was a clear warning of the danger that other GIs would commit similar atrocities on a wider scale.

In short I believe there is a firm connection between Pantano and Haditha. I believe it is regratable that a senior officer over-ruled the recommendation of his article 32 hearing that Pantano be held to account for the corpse desecration -- which sounds to me like it sent the message to his fellow Marines that atrocities were OK. -- Geo Swan 14:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Lt Pantano was not at Haditha. In short I believe there is a firm connection between Pantano and Haditha. You can believe what you want. It just does not belong in this encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Looper5920 (talk • contribs)

• • I just reviewed your contributions to this article. I see that you are the one who wrote that Pantano served with the 2nd battalian, 2nd Marines. Didn't he serve in the First Marine Division, Mattis's Division? I see you wrote that "no better friend, no worse enemy" was his battalian's motto. Can I ask how you knew this? -- Geo Swan 01:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marines was attached to the 1st Marine Regiment, which is part of the 1st Marine Division during their 2004 deployment to Iraq. As soon as they left Iraq they returned to the 2nd Marine Division in North Carolina. This can be found by reading the Battalion's history on their webpage [1]. The motto of the 1st Marine Division is "No better friend, no worse enemy" as can be seen on the Division's webpage [2].--Looper5920 06:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleared of charges?

The article intro states he was clear of all charges. Yet reading the article, it appears this is not the case. Rather, the charges were dropped after it was determined there was no case for the murder charge (it was felt there was a case for conduct unbecoming of an officer but this was not persued for whatever reason). These are of course two different outcomes and we need to be clear on which one is the truth Nil Einne 14:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Lt Colonel Winn (then Major Winn), the officer who headed Pantano's article 32 hearing, recommended the murder charge be dropped. He remained critical of Pantano for "desecrating" his victim's bodies, and recommended that Pantano be formally held to account for this act. General Huck, who commanded Pantano's Division, chose to follow Winn's recommendation that the Murder charge be dropped, and chose to ignore his recommendation that Pantano be held responsible for the body desecration. It seems the officer who authorizes an article 32 hearing has the authority to igmore its recommendations, and he or she doesn't have to offer a justification for doing so.

What reason could Huck have had? I've wondered if a CO can ignore the recommendation for a court-martial for morale reasons. Would it have reduced the Morale of his Division if Pantano was tried for a crime that was widely repeated by other GIs in his Division?

The article on Horace Mann, his Prep School, also says he "was cleared of all charges". When I disputed that, contributors to the Horace Mann school, some of whom seemed to be Alunmi, argued that saying Pantano was "cleared" was a fair way to characterize Huck choosing to ignore Winn's recommendation about Pantano's body desecration. Go figure.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 23:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

revert -- see talk

[[User:81.132.51.161] added Pantano to the category Iraq war crimes. When doing so they added this edit summary:

"added 'category: iraq_war_crimes', which contains a list of articles related to war crimes or 'alleged' war crimes regardless of court verdicts.(pre-emptive explaination for the editor who deletes it"

Later that day User:Looper5920 reverted that addition, with the edit summary:

"External links - removed completely inappropriate "War Crimes" tag....Pantano was found innocent...please stop adding this."

Maybe Looper5920 didn't notice the edit summary, and this explains why he or she didn't address 81's edit summary here on the talk page.

I'd like Looper5920 to address the point 81 made -- that the category was for articles related to war crimes or 'alleged' war crimes regardless of court verdicts.

I'd like Looper5920 to tell us when Pantano was found innocent. I followed his case closely. His case didn't get to the court martial stage. Major Winn, the officer who was in charge of his article 32 hearing, recommended the murder charge be dropped, for insufficient evidence. May I suggest it is misleading to describe this as being "found innocent"?

I'd like to remind Looper5920 that Winn also recommended that Winn be held accountable for desecrating his prisoners bodies. I do not believe this is consistent with a description that he was "found innocent".

As near as I can tell, from press reports, most of the hearing was devoted to beating up on the whistle-blower, and that, at no point, did the hearing address the statement Pantano gave to naval investigators, before he got lawyered up. In that statement he bragged, over and over again, that he had decided to use maximum violence "in order to send a message". He told the naval investigators he had decided this long ahead of time, and he had instructed his platoon to do likewise.

If Iraqi rebels, or Afghan rebels, use violence to terrify civilians, to send a them a message, we classify that as terrorism. I dispute Looper5920's assertion that it is "completely inappropriate" to consider whether Pantano's addmission that he too planned to terrify civilians puts him into the category of self-confessed terrorists.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 22:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dispute it all you want. Show me where he was convicted of a war crime and then we'll talk. It is not an assertion that is yours to make.--Looper5920 22:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Looper accompanied this note with an reversion. I left him or her a note on his talk page And he or she replied, on their talk page, with a note that cites wp:blp as their authority for the reversion.

wp:blp is a meaningful argument. I think what we need is to acquire a complete copy of his statement to the CID, and put the whole statement up on the wikisource. Then readers can read his aggressive bragging and misplaced pride in using maximum violence "to send a message" for themselves, and reach their own conclusion on his conduct.

I continue to think it is highly misleading to say he was "found innocent".

Back when his hearing was imminent I read several newspaper article that contained extensive quotes from his orginal June 2004 statement. I found his confessions of premeditated plan to use violence to send a message highly chilling.

But those articles have all passed down the internet's memory hole. I'd welcome advice as to how to acquire a copy of his statement for wikisource. Presumably his statement must have been publically available for those newspapers to quote from it. FWIW, I am not an American, so I believe the path of submitting a FOIA request is closed to me. But, if any American wikipedians want to submit one, I will chip in on the $50 fee.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 23:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP is the relevant policy that applies here. Categorizing Pantano under War Crimes violates the BLP directions on use of categories — see example "criminals", which equates to "war crimes". In addition, Pantano is not a "public figure", so privacy and "do no harm" have top priority. — ERcheck (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Innocent?

The way the UCMJ works (and for that matter, any of the American court systems), you cannot be found to be innocent. It's just not a possible outcome. An Article 32 hearing corresponds very closely to a civilian criminal Grand Jury proceeding, the outcome of which is either no charges being filed (in either proceeding), or a recommendation for courtsmartial from the Article 32 or the filing of charges by the Grand Jury. No one is ever declared innocent in either (and they are not declared guilty or not guilty, either.) This case didn't go to trial (which also would not have found him innocent, only guilty or not guilty), so Pantano should be granted the presumption of innocence of the murder allegations. htom 15:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The article 32 hearing did recommend he be held accountable for the body desecration -- Major Winn used the term body desecration -- so I find it disturbing how often well-meaning but misinformed wikipedians write that Pantano was "cleared of all charges". Geo Swan 13:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be better to say something like ... no billed on the murder charges, and the remaining charge was dropped by the prosecution ... but that's at best a very long way of saying cleared. htom 02:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "...remaining charge dropped by the prosecution..." is an accurate description.

A General Richard Huck was the C.O. of the 2nd Marine Division. (Pantano platoon was in the 2nd Marine Division, but had been assigned to reinforce the 1st Marine Division.) Huck authorized the article 32 hearing, and Major Winn -- a non-lawyer -- reported back to Huck, recommending punishment for the body desecration. Which Huck ignored. Huck wasn't part of the Prosecution. Neither was Winn.

As I understand US military law, Huck doesn't need to explain why he ignored the recommendation. As I understand US military law, Huck would not have been abusing his authority if he ignored article 32 hearing recommendations if he thought punishment, or further prosecution would be bad for the morale, or trigger unwelcome diplomatic repercussions. IANAL. I may have got this part wrong. But I think "...remaining charge dropped by the prosecution..." is quite inaccurate.

Stephen Green, the psycho who was the triggerman of the gang of GIs that murdered the family of the teenage girl, then raped and murdered her, had already been discharged. He was still able to be charged, in civilian court. Does this mean Pantano is not fully in the clear?

Pantano's initial sworn statement to Naval investigators was at odds with his later account on many key points. My reading of the excerpts from his initial sworn statement, that some MSM newspapers quoted, at length, was that the statement supported even more serious charges than murder.

I'd like to put the full text of Pantano's June 2004 statement to naval investigators up on wikisource. I'd be grateful if anyone knows how to track down that statement. I'll put it up even if it has to be manually transcribed, because I think it is important if readers are to understand the whole story.

Cheers! Geo Swan 22:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Internet threats?

The article says "On February 17, 2005, it was reported that Ms. Pantano's site went down, and a parallel site with a similar name went up. It was reported that the parallel site contained threats against Pantano, and his family; that it contained a video simulating Pantano being decapitated. Retired Marines are reported to have volunteered to stand a security watch over Pantano's home." So, who reported these things? Currently all we have is an unsourced claim. — Red XIV ^(talk) 00:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Googling a bit, the Washington Times. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050216-115952-3599r.htm htom 04:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Edits and run for Congress

Go figure....a new editor completely retools the article into a puff piece with tons of personal information and pictures and a week later he announces that he is running for Congress. Nothing fishy there.--Looper5920 (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Pantano's mother is a professional publicist. Geo Swan (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

By definition, Looper, isn't a bio supposed to contain personal information?Vanessaw79 (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, are any of the edits unsourced or unverified by credible public sources, as required by Wiki? Vanessaw79 (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that neither one of you has specifically disputed the article yourselves. But the occasional drive-by tagger tags it without initiating a discussion, perhaps maliciously or perhaps based upon your speculative comments in this section. Would you care to dispute anything specifically regarding the material in this article? Vanessaw79 (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole tone of this article is very pro Pantano. Accepting without question that an autopsy of done of bodies buried for over a year? If others think it is a good idea, I'm going to put it up at the NPOV notice board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afuhz (talk • contribs) 18:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Drive-by Tagging

I checked the rules. Again. According to the well-stated rules of Wikipedia, when an editor tags are article, they should make a note of explanation on the talk page. It's a simple Wiki rule, but it eliminates misunderstanding and promotes editorial collaboration. If you care enough to dispute an article, take a few minutes to start a discussion, so that other contributing editors can remain involved. Vanessaw79 (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This is something I wondered about, several years ago. Some tags, when instantiated, specifically state that readers should look to the talk page for a further explanation of why the tag was placed. As these tags grew more popular I decided to address some that had been tagged, by contributors who weren't leaving that explanation. Many of these tags I was sorting out had been there for months, or even more than a year. Originally I went to the trouble of figuring out who had left these unexplained tags, and I would both leave a polite note on the talk and leave them a polite request to return to article's talk page and add that explanation. Most of those contributors either weren't active any more, or didn't bother responding. And I would then remove the tags.

I asked for advice on the WP:ANI as to how long I should wait after leaving that heads-up. I was told that for those tags that specifically say readers should look to the talk page for that further explanation, if the tagger hadn't placed the promised explanation within 24 hours I should feel free to remove the tage without leaving a warning I was going to do so first.

Nevertheless I still leave a note on the talk page -- saying the tage was missing the accompanying explanation, and I would wait a reasonable amount of time, and then remove the tag the next time I visited the page, if no one supplied an explanation.

Not all tags require the tag placer to leave an explanation.

If a tag was properly explained, or it was one of those that didn't require an explanation -- but I think that the article has been changed, and the the changes mean that the tag was no longer appropriate, I leave a note saying that, and that I will remove the tag, after a reasonable period of time -- if there were no objections.

The limited number of contributors who seem to routinely game the tagging system bug me too. But some tags that don't comply with the rules are left by good faith contributors who don't know any better.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

infobox image

I changed the image in the {{infobox}}. Images in biography infoboxes are usually just head shots. I saw that User:Redheadedinfidel uploaded a lower resolution version of the initial image -- presumably because they didn't know how to set the size of the image any other way I used the modifier "220px" to set the image width to 220 pixels. Geo Swan (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy of the lead paragraphs

In addition the lead section contains some inaccuracies. His article 32 hearing was referred to as a "military tribunal". I have never ehard an article 32 hearing referred to as a "military tribunal". I am concerned that this implies that the merits of Pantano's case were judged by lawyers. If I am not mistaken the officer sitting on an article 32 hearing is not required to be a lawyer, and the officer who sat on Pantano's article 32 was not a lawyer. I changed the wording from "military tribunal" to "article 32 hearing".

The article now says his hearing: "...found that there was no credible evidence or testimony for the accusation, and declined to prosecute Pantano, dropping all charges." I am concerned over the accuracy of the rest of this statement.

My understanding is that in the US military justice system an article 32 hearing is a non-judicial hearing convened under the authority of the GI's superior officer. The name "article 32" comes from article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice -- shared by all the US military services. The officer authorized to sit on the article 32 hearing makes recommendations to the GI's superior, as to whether charges should or shouldn't be laid. It is up to the GI's superior whether to act on the hearing's recommendations.

The lead section also lapses from compliance with Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. For instance, who says his memoir was "successful"? Did it make the NYTimes best-sellers list? Then, properly referenced, it could be called a "best seller".

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Repeated bits

This article contains passages that are word for word identical with other passages that describe Mr Pantano.

Note this google search: "order to showcase historical importance of warrior class" Pantano

source	passage
linkedin.com	... produced documentary film and companion book, Warriors: In Their Own Words, chronicling veterans from WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq in order to showcase historical importance of warrior class and to raise money for a wounded veterans charity, Freedom is Not Free.
en.wikipedia.org	... produced a documentary film and companion book, Warriors: In Their Own Words, chronicling veterans from WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq in order to showcase historical importance of warrior class and to raise money for a wounded veterans charity, Freedom is Not Free.

Some of the instances of repeated bits will be due to the wikipedia being widely mirrored. But I don't think this instance is.

Now it could be that the individual who wrote the linkedin.com article also authored the repeated bits on the wikipedia article. It is not a copyright violation for a wikipedia contributor to re-use passages they themselves wrote elsewhere on the wikipedia -- or to re-use elsewhere material they first wrote for an article here.

Nevertheless I request disclosure as to who actually wrote the repeated bits.

I will also note that we have a {{coi}} tag for use when "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." Over on the wikimedia commons the wiki-id User:Redhead Infidel asserts he is Mr Pantano. Because I don't have experience with the use of this tag I am going to ask for opinions over on WP:ANI.

• done... [3] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#possible conflict of interest

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If User:Redhead Infidel is Mr Pantano, we have Conflict of Interest issues. If s/he is not Mr Pantano, we have Copyright problems. And either way, we have unsourced material. User:Redhead Infidel could you please clarify your relationship to the subject of this article? If you are not Mr Pantano, we will need to remove some of this material to protect Mr Pantano's copyrights. --Rlandmann (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not Mr. Pantano, nor related to him (as previously intimated). I've followed this military case and several others since their inception and have remained informed on developments since. As for the images, I certainly did not wish to infringe upon Mr. Pantano's copyright, which is why I obtained permission to use the images publicly. When I uploaded them to Wiki, I explained this via the permissions emails and attempted to distinguish between ownership and authorship when I tagged them, while also simultaneously explaining the source & permissions. Perhaps that confused the issue. I will be glad to make any corrections, if you could point me to the specific images that require clarification.Redhead Infidel (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. The copyright problem here is related to text not images -- take a look at the table that Geo Swan posted above. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged

Pantano just claimed on a live debate (WECT TV, Wilmington, North Carolina) that the book that had the most effect on his life (other than the Bible...) was "Atlas Shrugged", which he supposedly read during Desert Storm. Is this noteworthy, given his trying to secure political office in order to stop "Socialism"? -- 4.153.85.153 (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

POV clean up

I tried to clean up the article so it was less Pro Pantano, and I think I it is decently NPOV now. I might have screwed up some of the formating, so HOPE me if you can.Afuhz (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well this article got redone in a completly pro Pantano slant again. more people need to watch it Afuhz (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

Afuhz, thanks for keeping this article cleaned up and not looking like a PR puff piece written by his campaign manager.

I was wondering if someone could update the photo in the infobox to a more recent photo. As far as I know, he is no longer in the military. As people are using his wikipedia article to find information on a candidate, he should not be misrepresented as a current military officer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffreyLMason (talk • contribs) 16:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Captives searching their own vehicle?

In the April 15th incident section, it says "According to a statement Lieutenant Pantano made to military investigators in June 2004, he then used hand signals to order the captives to search the vehicle again." This must be incorrect -- captives being ordered to search their own vehicle!? More likely Pantano searched the vehicle, but because the June 2004 statment is unreferrenced, I can't check on this. Simply deleting this sentence would only further confuse the event description. This section needs help. If the statement is indeed true, it needs to be better explained. Noca2plus (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Originally references that would have supported this were present. There has been a referencectomy.

I agree, it is hard to imagine a responsible officer would order captives to have their handcuffs removed, and be made to search a vehicle. Yet that is Pantano's story. The UCMJ, AR-190-8 and the Geneva Conventions all require GIs keep prisoners safe from harm once they have been disarmed -- I too wonder how Pantano could reconcile his repsonsibility to keep his captives safe with ordering captives to search a vehicle for hidden bombs. Geo Swan (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Autopsy

The autopsy section states that the autopsy "confirmed Lt. Pantano's testimony that he had shot the men as they approached him in a threatening fashion". I fail to see how an autopsy can determine the position two men were standing in before they had two clips of ammunition emptied into them. 174.106.27.140 (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

In his June 2004 statement Pantano proudly asserted that he had emptied his two magazines, with his rifle in three-shot-per-trigger-pull mode -- hitting the two men with 80 percent of his rounds.

The autopsies were of men who had only been hit by couple of bullets each -- not a couple of dozen as per Pantano's own sworn statement. I am surprised that this clear fact wasn't trumpeted by every reporter with a backbone. I am not aware of any WP:RS that made this connection. Corporal O's testimony corresponded with Pantano's own sworn statement. He had placed the men facing into the vehicle, one facing in through the driver's door, and one facing in through the rear seat door behind the driver. According to his own sworn statement Pantano shot the men, in the back, when they were still on their knees. Geo Swan (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

dubious

Someone applied a {{dubious}} tag to the assertion that Pantano had previously demoted Coburn. It is my understanding that a dubious tag obliges the tag placer to initiate a subsection on the talk page, entitled "dubious". That does not seem to have been done here.

In early 2005 I watched Howard Kurtz, on his show on CNN devote a segment to Pantano's mom's efforts on his behalf. I followed his case closely. Press reports did routinely assert Pantano had demoted Coburn. Is it an exaggeration to call it a demotion when Coburn remained, officially, a Sergeant, when Pantano removed him from a position of trust and responsibility, and reassigned him to his radio operator? I understood from the articles, at the time, that usually a radio operator is a junior, inexperienced GI.

I have no problem with the tagged statement standing, as is. And would support the removal of this tag. Geo Swan (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Where's the History?

Respectfully, the wikipedia is not for POV discussions. I appreciate that you started this article; however, your own biases shine through. Personal opinion and speculation (such as your 'reasonable interpretation') do a disservice to those who have access to the actual documents and testimony, as well as those actually involved in the case. It would be prudent at this point to step back and allow others with more knowledge on the subject to comment in order to ensure that the situation is reported based on the facts available instead of speculation and conjecture. As an encyclopedia, accuracy within the Wikipedia is important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kit Jarrell (talk • contribs) 16:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy is the one thing that is not important in Wikipedia. The only thing that is important is being able to quote from sources the Asperger's-riddled editors consider "reliable." Primary sources such as you describe are not welcome, and deemed "original research." Just one reason I will never give Wikipedia any money. You shouldn't either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.201 (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Those who are in possession of the court documents, testimony transcripts, handwritten statements, and personal interviews with the parties involved are more qualified to expand this entry in a factual and fair way than someone going purely off of press releases and conjecture. I am more than willing to take over the maintenance of this article, and provide documentation to back up the facts I am listing. If there is someone else who has more information and hard documents than I do, I would gladly step aside for them. However, I and my co-blogger are the only bloggers on the internet with the level of information that we possess. Also, there are only 3 journalists with the level of access we have to Pantano and his defense team. Therefore, it stands to reason that we would be qualified to comment on the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kit Jarrell (talk • contribs) 16:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

POV witnesses section?

I haven't looked at this article in a long time. I see a lot of unsupported assertions. Some of those assertions I think would merit a {{cn}} tag. problem I had is that I originally supplied good valid references that would have supported some of the currently unreferenced assertions, and those references have been removed.

That may be due to normal human fallibility, not an injection of POV. Nevertheless this section seems to me to have been biased to de-emphasize aspects of Pantano's case that showed him in a bad light. Geo Swan (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This article has numerous sections written as promotional material. Referenced citations, when provided, often link to inappropriate sources. Jerimee (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Post election edits

I reverted the recent edits regarding 2010 election results based on POV. While they may have been cited (by a more or less reliable source), they carried a definite POV slant. Moreover, they restated facts/spin already described in the article and elsewhere. I hope future edits on Pantano will respect WP:NPOV. --S. Rich (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Good job, I had considered doing the same but didn't feel like getting caught up in all the BS (I did the original POV cleanup Tuesday night). On second glance, the source article was copied/pasted here, so it violated WP:COPYVIO as well. 98.74.135.22 (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Puppygate

Hi. Mr. Pantano is currently involved in a mini-scandal involving the accusation that his family kept "foster dogs" instead of letting them be adopted, as was the deal. Mr. Pantano apparently hid the dogs with his mother because his children wanted to keep them as opposed to honoring the fostering agreement. I wouldn't think this notable except for the fact that the adoption woman has accused Mrs. Pantano of threatening her life, mentioning that she should watch out because Ilario is a sharp shooter. My question is basically this: Is this notable? If so, do we have to wait until after the 'scandal' is resolved to discuss it? The threat of murder would fit in with the rest of the article, given the question as to whether or not Mr. Pantano had committed the crime in the past. -- 4.152.246.232 (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It's notable if you have WP:RS. If not, it's potentially libelous. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, can we please curb the compulsion to attach "-gate" to every potential scandal? It's intellectually lazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alancliddell (talk • contribs) 23:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The story was reported on pretty substantially both in North Carolina and in Washington. I would support including it. Arbor8 (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I also support neutrally written inclusion of this development, provided there are suitable RS. Geo Swan (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancies with Pantano's initial sworn statment

The lead section of the article currently says:

The day after the charges were dropped, forensic evidence from the autopsies of the two Iraqis corroborated Pantano's testimony - that he shot the insurgents as they moved toward him.

At the time the charges were made public extensive quotes from the statement he gave to navy investigators in June 2004 were also published In his initial sworn statement he described emptying two whole magazines worth of bullets into the two Iraqis.

The trouble with the claim that the post-mortems established that Pantano shot the Iraqis in the front -- not in the back as he described in his initial sworn statement -- is the post mortems were of men who had been shot a modest number of times -- by two or three bullets IIRC, not two or three dozen bullets.

So I suggest this assertion merits qualification. Geo Swan (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Problems with the article

The article uses Infobox military person, I could not figure out how to add an official website to the info box. If that is impossible then a more general info box should be used. The external links section has too many articles that should be eliminated or used to write the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.211.141 (talk) Revision as of 15:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox military person does not use a URL or Website parameter. Would need to change infoboxes. Not sure if want to right now, though, because he is still well known as military figure, although, he is becoming much more known as a political candidate. However, unless he wins office sometime, I am not sure if it needs a different infobox at present. I do agree that the article needs cleanup, especially the EL section. Will try to work on that. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

explanation

The lead section describe the two Iraqi captives Pantano shot as "insurgents". I replaced that with "Iraqi captives". There is no evidence the men were members of the resistance. They were unarmed, and presented no resistance.

The lead section also

The day after the charges were dropped, forensic evidence from the autopsies of the two Iraqis corroborated Pantano's testimony - that he shot the Iraqi captives as they moved toward him.

There are two versions of what happened. In June 2004, when interviewed by Navy investigators, Pantano was clear as to where he was, and where the captives were. He was standing behind the two men, who were on their knees, where he had placed them, each facing into one of the open doors of their vehicle. Pantano described, very clearly emptying two whole magazines into the men and their vehicle. His rifle was in a three-shot-per-trigger-pull mode, so he made ten deliberate trigger pulls, changed magazines, and made another ten deliberate trigger pulls. Contrary to the passage above, in Pantano's statement the men were still on their knees, facing away from him, and he opened fire when they turned their heads to face one another.

Pantano told the Navy investigators he aimed 80 percent of his shots at the men's bodies, implying the other 20 percent were to shoot up their car.

So, the post mortem should have found the men had each been shot in the back about 2 dozen times. The post mortem report was of two men who had been shot in the front. But the two men who had been the subject of the post mortem had each only been shot a ocuple of times.

So I question the accuracy of stating forensic evidence confirmed his testimony. Geo Swan (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

ref 5 and sergeants demotion

reference 5 states

" It was the sergeant who two months later complained about the shooting, prompting a Naval Criminal Investigative Service probe. Lt. Pantano arrived in Iraq in March and remained on combat duty until October during the probe, his civilian attorney, Charles Gittins, has said. He has called the complaining sergeant "disgruntled" because Lt. Pantano removed him from several jobs. "

Being removed from a position as squad leader is not exactly the same as a demotion. The article to me makes it seem that Coburn lost rank. This is unlikely because a service member can only be busted down by the officer who promoted them or an officer of higher rank. Also I am reading many sources stating (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2005/05/010318.php) that Coburn did not file a complaint but did testify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkimmerX (talk • contribs) 20:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

No better friend, no worse enemy

From the article: "The slogan is also a popular Marine saying popularized by Lieutenant General James Mattis, then commanding general of the 1st Marine Division."

That is actually a popular saying that was coined by Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix more than 2,000 years ago, and borrowed by many others well before James Mattis. Jsc1973 (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ilario Pantano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927150204/http://www.jdnews.com/news/coburn-16455-pantano-case.html to http://www.jdnews.com/news/coburn-16455-pantano-case.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://fayobserver.com/articles/2012/11/08/1215936?sac=fo.local
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/00/House_Resoultion_167.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=%2FGlobalTemplates%2FDetails.cfm&StoryID=31435&Section=News

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)