Talk:Ilario Pantano

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.