Talk:Killian documents controversy/Archive 11

Discussion of Primary Sources and WP:OR

Hi BC, "what if previously unnoticed primary sources directly contradict, without any interpretation needed, published reports not just in highly politicized publications like the National Review and Washington Times, but even something like the Washington Post? " The answer is that unless such primary sources are analyzed in a third-party publication/by a reliable source, they cannot be cited in the article as counterevidence to the claims made in the Washington Post et al. That would clearly constitute original research, connecting the dots that have not been connected by a reliable source. (By the way, I can respect your POV as an honest difference of ideology, but while you take a shot at NR and the WT as "highly politicized," and suggest they are botching up the facts, I hope you see the irony - CBS' highly politicized reporting, editorial viewpoint, and playing fast and loose with the facts is why we're all here to have this argument, no?) At any rate, if the WP was comparing apples to oranges, show us a reliable secondary source that makes this claim and we can discuss if it should be added. Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you not see this link? Also you skipped over my point about there being no interpretation, which I do believe is key here. Note carefully this WP:PSTS section of WP:OR:

• Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is an example of a primary source. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:
• only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
• make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.
• Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations, published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research; original philosophical works, religious scripture, administrative documents, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.

So in the context of the above, let me try to rephrase my point more logically: "Newspaper A" makes a point of how "Memo Sample X" does not have the same format as "Official Form Sample Y," suggesting that there is a format problem with Memo Sample X. However "Official Format Guidebook B" says that Memo Sample X is in the proper format for its type. Additionally, all other documents of that same type, most of which are authenticated as genuine, also have the same format as Memo Sample X and as described by Official Format Guide Book B. All of this is visually obvious, so the question then becomes which is the most credible source in regards to whether Memo Sample X is in the correct format? A simple question, no?

And again bear in mind that there is no interpretation here or need for specialized knowledge -- we are essentially looking at an animal that has the shape of a small horse, has strong black and white stripes, travels in large herds of similarly shaped and colored animals, and lives in Africa -- a newspaper calls it a pony and an animal guide book says its a Zebra. Which source should you use? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

BC. I read the link you provided to your user page. It is not a parallel situation. Even if it were I might disagree with that editor's viewpoint. I am not skipping your point about there being no interpretation involved: I disagree with you. I think there is interpretation involved, and as above, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." I would like to see a secondary source that states what you are claiming about whatever other military documents you are suggesting we introduce to this article. Since it is all visually obvious, according to you, some enterprising journalist must have broken that story by now? Kaisershatner (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask yet again, where is the "interpretation" needed here? The Wikipedia policy clearly states that primary sources are acceptible if "the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" This seems to be the main sticking point in moving our discussion forward: I keep pointing this out and you keep not responding to it directly. I gave you clear examples to comment on and you failed to do so. Wondering why some hypothetical "enterprising journalist" didn't break this story has about as much bearing on this discussion as asking why, say, US news coverage of the Iraq war has been so shoddy and poor. If you could, just please address the points in hand.

And also, since above, you note "This is a singular case that was evidently not looked into by any other generally recognized reliable source," I'm skeptical we will be able to include your analysis since it can't be cited. Finally, where you write "So you asking for another secondary source appears to be both disingenuous and not really connected at all with my whole basic point," I respectfully disagree, and I remind you of your pledge to refrain from inflammatory language. I do not appreciate your suggestion that what to me seems to be a logical request for a supporting secondary source is "disingenuous." Please comment on the content, not the contributor. Kaisershatner (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

See my previous response. I've had to repeatedly restate my points and questions, including even having to create this whole new section to move a previously unresponded to post of mine in an attempt to help focus you on responding directly. This has all been very, very time consuming and not at all helping to move the discussion along. I think my characterizations of this type of conduct have been pretty neutral and only descriptive. I would like to work on other articles, but my having to seemingly endlessly restate my points here has left me with little time for other Wikipedia issues I'd like to deal with. I apologize if my language seems inflammatory, but I think it's very unfair, as well as apparently violating certain Wikipedia guidelines, to have to force me to go such lengths to get pertinent responses to my points and questions. Do you see my viewpoint here? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Jc-S0CO's Revert

User:Jc-S0CO removed from the opening sentence the critical information that some experts have characterized the documents as probable forgeries. I've asked him to explain the reason for his revert on the Talk page. This section is provided for his response. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he did the right thing. What you keep calling "critical information" is merely weighted POV, as has been pointed out again and again. Remember that "controversy" usually means there are other sides to the story and you want to strive to achieve balance and fairness in any Wikipedia article. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You've already expressed your thinking about this in the discussion above. Why don't we let Jc-S0CO speak for himself. As I said before, if you think we should balance the opinion of experts who concluded that the documents are probable forgeries with the opinion of other experts who believe to the contrary that the documents are likely authentic, please provide a source for that information. I'm not saying this simply to challenge you; if there really is an expert who says the documents are probably authentic, I'd like to know about it 67.168.86.129 (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Faux Forgery Info

There seems to be some confused logic here that goes roughly, "Of course the memos fit in with the media investigations into Bush's service record, as well as his official DoD docs -- they were forged!"

This contention is not only just unsupported opinion, but it's also illogical as well as being contradicted by best evidence. Following up on some earlier promises, and as a courtesy, I'll point out just the major issues with the forgery claim. This is technically WP:OR since it depends on primary sources, but there is no interpretation involved and the info is verifiable, hence it seems well in keeping with the provision in WP:PSTS that goes, "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone--without specialist knowledge--who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." Also this is not for the article, but merely FYI for some of the posters here.

For starters, if the documents were indeed forged, this would mean the supposed forger was not only smart, but smarter than the entire blogosphere, the news media in general, and the supposed investigators on that CBS panel report: he or she got things right that most everyone else go wrong, oftentimes laughingly so. This will shortly be demonstrated:

1) Format

The basic format of the Killian memos, including the position of the signature block, are in keeping with ALL other such military/government memorandums for record (or "file") found on the Internet, as well as Air Force writing guides that are available, most notably the 1997 version of the USAF writing guide, "The Tongue and Quill," as demonstrated by this 1999 Memo & Letter Formats for United States Air Forces Auxiliary guide.

See also these military/government memos found on the Internet, and note their dates (as well as how many are also proportionally spaced):

• Dated June, 11, 1959 (Also Proportional)
• Dated Oct. 15, 1969 (USAF)
• Dated Oct. 4, 1971 (Also Proportional)
• Dated Nov. 30. 1971 (Also Proportional)
• Dated Feb.17 1972 (Also Proportional)
• Mid 70's UFO sighting reports

This Washington Post article comparing one of the Killian memos to an official letter is just a notable sample of the widespread confusion over military document formats. If you check pages 157-182 (by PDF page count) of the Tongue and Quill, you will see how the format for memos is different from official records, including how the signature block is generally on the right for memos and on the left for more official records. Elementary research that the supposed forger managed to do but very few others.

2) Common office equipment in the early 70's

Every research-challenged blog and media comment made about the sort of office equipment that was around in the early 70's was laughably off. By 1971, revenues from IBM's MT/ST-MC/ST word processors exceeded typewriter sales, with about 3600 units being shipped monthly about that time, and IBM's model "MC/ET" ("Mag Card/Executive"), introduced in 1972 and which had a 14 week waiting period because it was so popular, had most if not all of printing features of the earlier Selectric Composer (which dates back to 1966) in an updated, simpler and secretary friendly device. (See the "Business Machines Executive Newsletter" issues March and May, 1972). Judging from features lists of mostly long forgotten word processing systems (obscure Redactron sold its 10,000th word processor by 1975) like those listed in this daisywheel ribbon cross-reference, proportional printing was a highly desired feature back then. Read these comments by a lawyer describing some of his experiences with some early word processing systems. Also note that there were two common forms of data storage in use back then, magnetic tape cartridges and (later) cards. While developed by IBM, other systems used the same media for interchangeability. So a document created in the late 60's on an IBM system and saved to a cartridge, could be then be brought up years later on, say, a Redactron model like this. A good overview of IBM's word processing developments is here, and a good overview of the entire early word processing market is here.

In case you're wondering how many companies could afford these $8,000+ machines, bear in mind that Xerox couldn't make enough of its model 914 copier, which cost $29,500 in 1960 -- an awful lot of money, even more so considering what a dollar was worth then. The trick was in leasing -- the 914 copier was leased for $95/month plus 5 cents/copy. Word processors were apparently also leased, as were usually IBM typewriters. These were not disposable devices -- they were expected to be in service for a good many years (look at how many Selectrics are still around for filling out forms.)

3) Reproducibility with a modern word processor

Most of you are familiar with this animated "reproduction" of one of the 4 memos that CBS used (the infamous August 18, 1973 "CYA" one). It was done by Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs. So where are the reproductions of the other 3 memos that CBS used in its report? Johnson never posted his results for those. Thomas Phinney, the Adobe typographer, took a crack here using the Aug 1, 1972, memo, but that didn't come out so hot, especially on close up. And right wing target Dr. David Hailey didn't exactly do any better when he tried, again with the same Aug. 1st memo. As far as I know, I'm the only person who tried replicating all six memos with a modern word processor, and my results, along with two other little tidbits, are here. As with Johnson, I got fairly decent, if not even better, results with the Aug. 18 memo, but the rest.... Only one other memo reproduced at all well, and that was one of the two memos that CBS didn't use -- the very short one dated Feb. 2, 1972. The others, all the longer, more complex ones, produced bad to completely incompatible results. Why? Because, Sherlocks, they weren't done on a modern word processor.

Microsoft's Times New Roman (which I used) and Apple's Times Roman (which Johnson used) fonts are based on a font style with a very long history, as well as numerous knock offs over the years like IBM's "Press Roman", and daisywheel "PS Roman" & plain "Times" print wheels. The Times font itself is based on fonts that preceded that, as this 1728 printed page demonstrates. Even Microsoft's version is considered, ironically enough, to be a forgery by some. An additional complication, even for supposedly the exact same font, is how it's rendered, both on screen and by the printer. Proportional printing prior to the introduction of laser printers in the mid-80's were done primarily by first I/O Selectrics, then daisywheels, with "NLQ" dot matrix printers being added later. These had to deal with restrictive limitations based on horizontal resolution, typically to 1/72" for an I/O Selectric and 1/60"-1/120" for a daisywheel. This relatively horizontal resolution meant there were compromises in rendering proportional typefaces compared to what modern inkjet and lasers can do. Which in turn means that if memos were indeed created on some old system using an old Times or Times-like print element, you would expect to get EXACTLY the results you end up with when you try to overlay all the memos with a modern recreation done in Times Roman/New Roman -- some not so bad, some awful. Even with modern computers, you can get some "drifting" when translating between between one font rendering system to another -- take a look at the differences between the relative lines endings in the left and right columns here.

4) If these memos are forged, then where are the "real" ones?

It costs the US military an awful lot to train a pilot. And failure to take the mandatory annual physical is not a minor matter. And in Bush's case, his "Not Observed" rating report for the 1972-1973 period caused a USAF query for more info as to why. As Bush's commanding officer, Killian was obligated to have warn and counsel Bush in regards to the medical exam, both leading up to it when it was looking that Bush wasn't going to take it, and then after he missed his deadline. So if these Killian memos are forgeries, then where are the real ones showing Bush being warned and counseled about getting his exam done? There would have been more than one document involved, so where are they? Were they all coincidently lost? Or perhaps ingested by a canine? This is called logic. The same type of logic also says that if the memos were indeed fake or forged, Bush himself would have recognized it off the bat -- they are about him after all, and in regards to an apparently important little phase in his life. They had dates, names, things said and done, and there were plenty of other more official records at the DoD for memory joggers, plus his dad was around then, and he had been a big shot pilot, so...why the "no comment" on the memos being real or not? Of course, if they were real, then there would have been no benefit whatsoever to come clean about them since CBS and Dan Rather & Co. were getting pilloried quite nicely over their mishandling of the authentication issue.

5) Did the forger have access to all the information needed to forge the memos?

The short answer is no. Aside from very unlikely subtle things like the supposed forger being smart -- and confident -- enough to figure out that the "Not Observed" rating report had an anomalous date on it that indicated that is was backdated (it was dated May 2 when it should have been May 26, the end date of the reporting period) as the "CYA memo" described, one of the memos had information that was not available prior to CBS obtaining the memos -- the very brief Feb. 2, 1972 memo that CBS didn't even use. While very short, it has two important elements -- a reference to James Bath, and a concern about flight qualifications/certification for both Bath and Bush. In addition to the curious fact that Bath also got verbally suspended from flying by Killian exactly one month after Bush was, and for the exact same listed reason, "Failure to accomplish annual medical examination," Bath's name was redacted from the DoD record released in 2004, but not in the same record obtained in 2000 via FOIA by Marty Heldt. The real forgery killer, though, lies with the memo showing Killian being concerned about flight certifications. An examination of Bush's flight records kept here by the DoD indeed shows a distinct and very anomalous sharp rise in "training" flights in a T-33 training jet shortly thereafter, especially through the beginning of March.

Despite the flight records being being messy and unsorted, the supposed forger in theory still somehow managed to pick up on this and was confident yet again enough to conclude that Bush had flight certification issues and so forged this short, one sentence memo stating that as a concern of Killian. And not only that, the forger somehow figured out that James Bath had the same issue, even though Bath's flight records don't appear to be publicly available anywhere. Lucky guess perhaps? But let's forget about Bath for the moment and just consider Bush's situation. So a careful analysis of Bush flight records shows a strange series of T-33 training flights (in yellow here) and the supposed forger took this cleverly derived info to forge at least part of the Feb. 2nd, 1972 memo, which CBS didn't even use. Very unlikely, but still theoretically possible, no? No.

Bush's flight records were very belatedly released on September 7, 2004. But, see, the big problem here is that according to the panel report, CBS had obtained two of the memos on September 2nd, 2004 and the rest a few days later on September 5th. Therefore, there were no flight records available for any would be forger to use, and there never was -- they had never been released earlier. There isn't even a hint in any of the other DoD records that Bush had any flight certification issues, so without the flight records, there was no info whatsoever available to any would be forger to have used to forge the Feb. 2nd, 1972 memo. Such a little memo, such a big problem...

Sorry. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Of course the fake memos match the Tongue and Quill from a few years later - the forger, Bill Burkett probably used them to help create the fake memos.

BC, you keep bringing up the same points and even using your articles from your partisan highly POV website. Can you be a bit more open minded about this topic? The memos are clear fakes. The isn't even proof that anyone has ever seen the originals except for Bill Burkett. No one has claimed to have seen them and he won't even talk about it now. 70.13.181.218 (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Soooo, when faced with overwhelming, verifiable, no if's or but's evidence that something you had firmly believed in for about 3 1/2 years was never more than a bunch of illogical, poorly researched nonsense, you close your eyes and whisper to yourself, I do believe in Burkett. I do believe in Burkett. I do, I do, I do, I do, I *do* believe in Burkett....he's a telepathic, time traveling, super genius forger. There can be no other explanation! I do believe in Burkett. I do believe in Burkett. I do, I do, I do, I do, I *do* believe in Burkett.... ? Gawd....

Look, I'm not going to debate my little summary, and I'm certainly not going to deal with more non sequiturs not quite connected to it. It was meant strictly as an FYI background for the regular editors here, and...well, it is what it is. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

BC, please read the reminder from the top of this talk page:

I think your sarcastic remark relates to an earlier question about the provenance of the documents - rather than give your answer, you claimed its a non sequitor with your cartoon. Jmcnamera (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, did I discuss Burkett? No. Why did I not discuss Burkett? Because anything to do with him is utterly speculative. Did I list a lot of verifiable, non-speculative issues? Yes. Does your response or that of 70.13.181.218 even touch upon any of those non-speculative issues? No. Does that then make your comment and that of 70.13.181.218 very much non sequitur responses? Yes. We're talking turkey, not donuts. If logic and evidence shows that it has to be Colonel Mustard with the dagger in the dining room, there is no point in wanting to discuss the color of the drapes, no matter how fervently you feel it's important. Even the question of where the dagger came from is equally irrelevant if the point, so to speak, is that it was a dagger. Also was it stated that this was just FYI for the benefit of regular editors here? Yes. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Stuff which you provide as "FYI" can not be considered as being submitted as "evidence". Is there a proposal to change the article? -- SEWilco (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

See my response to Jmcnamera and contemplate this some more. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Callmebc, your response continues to ignore the question. The question of where the docs came from is pertinent. They either came from Killian or they are forgeries. However no one clamins to have seen them, no reliable story has been given to how they appeared when they did and there is simply no connection to Killian besides Burkett's claims. Provenance does matter in document authentication. Jmcnamera (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You're not getting it -- the "question" of where they come from is NOT pertinent in the slightest in relation to the overall picture: 1) it doesn't change the documents themselves, i.e., if there is a dagger in the body, where the dagger came from makes no difference to there being a dagger in the body; 2) without better info, you can only guess and speculate -- some people seem to think Burkett is a time traveling, telepathic super genius forger while I personally suspect the documents came from a law office file without permission; 3) there is much, MUCH more than enough other information regarding the documents where little or no speculation is needed, and that should be your focus and not some utterly irrelevant guesswork. And all of the non-speculative, non-guessing, verifiable, look-up-able, researchable information only points one way.

Which actually brings up a moral dilemma regarding the Killian-related articles on Wikipedia: the confused "coverage" of the Killian memos issue, from the laughably off base charges by the right wing/conservative mediasphere to the timid, very poorly researched pieces in the the mainstream media, is reflected in the contents of the Wikipedia articles. What, if anything, should or can be done about this? On one hand, Wikipedia policy doesn't like the use of primary sources, but what if there are irreconcilable differences between what primary sources clearly show or demonstrate versus what was published in the media -- who "wins"? For instance the USAF writing guide, The Tongue and Quill, along with whatever contemporaneous memos that can be found, contradicts this Washington Post piece regarding alleged format issues with the memos. What would be in the best interest of both Wikipedia and any curious readers wanting the best info? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

But all we have is a picture of a dagger which was claimed to have been in a body, without the dagger nor proof that a murder took place. But, of course, you already said you're not debating your summary. Do you have a proposed change to the article? -- SEWilco (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No, what you have precisely, metaphorically speaking, is a dagger in a body lying on the floor, and the only person who fits all the clues is Colonel Mustard. But instead of discussing any of this, people are trying to make issues of where the dagger came from, what color are the drapes, whether Colonel Mustard really a colonel, was the body "lying" or "laying," what if the real murderer is a guy with powers of teleportation, and so on.

And didn't you notice yet? -- nobody is actually debating the summary, just everything but the summary. As far as the article goes, go read the part a couple of graphs up that starts off as "Which actually brings up a moral dilemma...." You thoughts and comments on that would be most appreciated. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

BC, as you know, WP is an encyclopedia and not a forum for original research. It is dependent on secondary source material to support its articles. Where you state "what if there are irreconcilable differences between what primary sources clearly show or demonstrate versus what was published in the media -- who "wins"?" The answer is: we support the encyclopedia article with secondary sources. I am not kidding when I suggest you present the findings you consider so obvious and conclusive to the editor(s) at, say, The Nation, Mother Jones, The New Republic, or wherever - there must be some enterprising journalist with liberal or leftish views who would be proud to be known as the person who blew the lid off this Killian forgery thing. (Maybe Dan Rather, even, it might help in his lawsuit if he could prove he was right all along). But until a secondary source publishes this stuff, it really shouldn't go in the article. (By the way, I think I have stated this before on this page, as long as you are complaining about "I didn't hear that" and "gaming the system.") On an unrelated note I have proposed changes to the intro below. Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You yet again didn't answer the question posed, and instead, again, offered up an opinion and made tangential comments. Let me yet again repost my last query about using primary sources that you have yet to respond to directly, and I will keep reposting it until you do:

• Sorry, I hate to be a nudge about this, but I had already excerpted a full Wikipedia section above that clearly states among other things that primary sources can be used if "the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source" and you really should have responded there rather than having me restate the issue here. And again like some others, instead of responding to points and questions presented, you offer up unrelated tangential points. Could you and the others please respond at least first to the topic raised, and where it's raised, before bringing up a different issue? Thanks in advance.

-BC aka Callmebc (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I will again answer this. In direct reply to your point: I think that asking readers to compare the formatting of authentic military memos from the 1970s with the Killian documents, or asking them to compare such memos with the assertions made by typography experts and other critics of the Killian documents, requires analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Therefore, I (again) argue that this is not an instance where primary sources can be used. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no "again" here -- I had actually created a whole new section above just to try to get to you answer the question asked, and you still didn't then and you haven't now. Let me yet again just repost it:

• Let me ask yet again, where is the "interpretation" needed here? The Wikipedia policy clearly states that primary sources are acceptible if "the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" This seems to be the main sticking point in moving our discussion forward: I keep pointing this out and you keep not responding to it directly. I gave you clear examples to comment on and you failed to do so. Wondering why some hypothetical "enterprising journalist" didn't break this story has about as much bearing on this discussion as asking why, say, US news coverage of the Iraq war has been so shoddy and poor. If you could, just please address the points in hand.

-BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Improving the introduction

I have two proposed changes:

• I would like to insert the word "photocopied" into the lede: "involved six [photocopied] documents critical of..." I think this is more accurate - after all, if there were "real" documents to examine then they could be validated or proven as forgeries.

I'd prefer "... involved six photocopies, reportedly of documents critical ..." htom (talk) 19:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Where it currently reads: "...but had not been properly authenticated by CBS. Many media sources have asserted that the memos are forgeries. This has also been suggested by typewriter and typography experts [2]." I would like to change it to: "...by CBS. The provenance and authenticity of the documents subsequently became a matter of controversy, with many media sources and some typewriter and typography experts asserting that they are forgeries." I think that this both reads more fluidly and also emphasizes the "controversy" referred to in the lede. Kaisershatner (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Good change. htom (talk) 19:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this article is mostly about the controversy around CBS' reporting which presented the documents. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not an improvement. The current version is POV'd, misleading and just plain bad. Your version is just also POV'd, misleading and even overall worse. "The provenance and authenticity of the documents subsequently became a matter of controversy ? The provenance bit is primarily "contoversial" among right wingers fixated on Burkett. And "Many media sources and some typewriter and typography experts asserting that they are forgeries" is outright deception -- as already discussed, only the right wing/conservative media, especially the blog sites, have been chanting "Forgery!" (Mr. Finkelstein's not very convincing assertions notwithstanding.)

What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? Not only do you repeatedly ignore & evade questions & points no matter how many times they are raised, you also ignore them when making a proposal for making the introduction even more misleading and POV'd than before, and under a disingenuous subsection named "Improving the introduction".

Why don't you consider doing more basic wiki work, like adding the two missing memos to the Content of the memos section, or having the "The Segment" actually describe, well, the segment? Nice basic corrective, NPOV article improvement that needs to be done and something that nobody will argue (much) with, no? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear BC, to quote you, "I will endeavor to be polite, regardless of the circumstances and provocation...In the worst case I will only adopt a neutral tone and will strive to avoid even making sarcastic remarks, however "appropriate" the circumstances might be...I will give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and then some, regardless of my suspicions." Please assume good faith. I am trying to improve the introduction. Your repeated description of my proposals as "disingenuous" is insulting and a personal attack. NB, I have repeatedly answered the point that you repeatedly raise. I will do so again, above. Please desist with your personal attacks. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is that there seems to be little point in going on with any "discussion" here until I get some 3rd party dispute resolution going. The bottom line is that all my attempts to get on point discussions going have been disrupted by chronic violations of IDIDNTHEARTHAT and the provision in WP:CIVIL that goes Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. Despite the mountains of words on this page recently, the sole, inarguable improvement to the article has come from my pointing out that George Bush was actually a pilot in the Air National Guard and not just a member of the "U.S. National Guard" as the article had it since October. This sort of neglect and obstructive behavior is not only in violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but it actively discourages participating in Wikipedia -- who wants to waste enormous amounts of time and effort dealing with this sort of behavior? Also I had pointed out that there were more fundamental, less contentious issues with the article and mentioned two of them, but instead -- yet again -- of you even touching upon these, you instead claim I made a personal attack (?!?) Given such behavior, and given the 3RR threat hanging over me, it would be best if I abstain from any more participation here until I get some clarity from others. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

Because this talk page is over 150 kb, I created Talk:Killian documents/Archive 10. It has no content yet other than the {{archive-nav}} template. — Athaenara ✉ 19:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The page is automatically archived. I think the time is set at 3 months at present. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I added inactive discussions to it from mid-December 2007 through early February 2008 only.

Should I undo that and delete the archive? — Athaenara ✉ 19:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I'll tell the bot to continue archiving in 10. I think the indexer bot will discover your stuff within 6 hours. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Should I follow through and remove the duplicates of the archived inactive discussions from this page? — Athaenara ✉ 19:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they're archived. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll do that, then. Thanks. — Athaenara ✉ 20:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...150+ kb of "talk" and not exactly a lot to show for it, it would appear.... -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the current introduction

Let's be honest -- it's badly POV'd, inaccurate and grossly misleading. Specifically, section by section:

Imporant Note on the discussion thread

PLEASE, discussions here get very, very messy, especially in regards to threading, as well as getting off point and hard to follow, so I'm trying to keep things organized here be clearly delineating who is saying what by bolding the commentators and keeping the indents in some sort of order. This should help keep the discussion on track -- your cooperation is really needed here. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Section 1

The Killian documents controversy (also called Memogate, Rathergate or Rathergate[1]) involved six documents critical of President George W. Bush's service in the Air National Guard.

They are technically actually "memos" and memos are not official "documents".

Discuss one item at a time. Item 1 is a complaint about "official documents" when only "documents" is used. "Official" is not being claimed. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't you want the article to be as accurate as possible? If so, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the "documents" are actually memos? (BTW -- I put the quotes around "memos" and "documents" separately for a reason.) After all "memorandums" are not considered official records by the military and are usually not archived as official documents unless they contain classified information. For instance the official DoD repository of Bush's records doesn't contain a single memorandum. (Also scroll down through this USAF Powerpoint presentation for the section on formats, which are based on the Tongue and Quill.) Also isn't it true that MANY people, especially (but not exclusively) bloggers, made confused comparisons of the layout of the memos to that of DoD records and forms? And if so, wouldn't it be rather encyclopedic, to say the least, and of benefit to would be users to at least differentiate between the two? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes a document is just a document. Saying they are memos is more specific than necessary, particularly if they were not created as actual memos. -- SEWilco (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Callmebc, stop reformatting my comments. Stop altering my indentation to indicate that I'm responding to something else. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not really addressing any of the issues I raised. And by your logic, there is no point in even specifically saying that Bush was a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard when you can just say "he served in the Guard". -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SEWilco. "Documents" describes the Killian Documents, and is detailed enough for the introduction. And I would by extension agree with your argument that writing Bush was a pilot in the National Guard in the introduction would be sufficient, as long as further detail was provided in the body of the article. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting my point: why not be specific about what the "documents" actually are if you are going to be specific about things like Bush being a pilot rather than just a "US Guardsman"? Would you refer to IRS "Form 1040" as just a "government form"? A tiger as "a big cat"? a frog as "an amphibian? Well? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

BC, I would argue that we aren't sure what the documents are, beyond being "documents." They may be military memos, they may be forged papers that only resemble military memos; but certainly we can all agree that they are "documents." I'd rather not have us describe them as "documents in the general style of military memoranda" or something to that effect - isn't it simple just to call them "documents?" Is there something controversial about calling them that or do you feel some point-of-view is being advanced if they aren't called "memos."? Kaisershatner (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"They may be military memos"? If presented with a picture of a zebra, would you claim that it may be a zebra or it might be a pony disguised and painted to look like a zebra. That type of reasoning is not helpful for an encyclopedia article. As for why they should be called "memos," please read my detailed response to SEWilco's first comment. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"Documents" does not imply any official status, it's just shorter than saying "words on paper which are not a billboard or abstract artwork". There is dispute that the documents are "actually memos". They are in the shape of a horse but people can't confirm if it is a zebra, donkey, pony, or pigmy horse. Want to try some synonyms for "document"? -- SEWilco (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be a bit off point again. Let's try this: they look like military memos, they have the format of military memos, they have the content of military memos, so why not refer to them as memos? Would you really call something a "horse-shaped object" when it looks like this, especially in an encyclopedia article? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The word "documents" in the introduction is not implying they are official documents. It is merely stating that what is being referred to are pieces of paper with words on them. No need to change the word to something more descriptive if that description implies something which they are not. Is there another term which neutrally refers to words on paper? -- SEWilco (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, you don't seem to addressing any of the issues I raised, both originally and to your last posting (and please stop with the "personal attack removed" redactions -- you have been getting very much off point.) I made a long, very detailed response to you the last time. Could you please address that first before making any further comments? It would really facilitate moving the discussion along. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The issues you raised are They are technically actually "memos" and memos are not official "documents". and I responded that "memos" is not accepted as being accurate, "official" is not mentioned, and "documents" is a neutral term. Would "things" be preferable? -- SEWilco (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I already answered that bit in detail near the top of this section -- and which you really didn't address then -- I'm not going to repeat it here. Also I specifically asked you the last time to please respond to this long answer I had given you before making any more further comments. I'm afraid I'm going to have to ignore any further posts on your part if you keep up this behavior -- it's just too disruptively time wasting to deal with even for a reasonably good multitasker like myself. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Documents is more neutral than memos. Besides, the originals probably have an extension of .doc  :-) 68.25.204.130 (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please try to refrain from making a comment like that -- aside from obstructing discussion and delaying making improvements to the article, it also doesn't speak well of your understanding of the topic matter. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The intro is describing what they definitely are. Sometimes a document is just a document. Saying they are memos is more specific than necessary, particularly if they were not created as actual memos. -- SEWilco (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, this comment was already answered in detail. If you have an issue with the answer, please respond to that and not just pointlessly repeat your same comment. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

But that was my answer to your answer. If I'm not answering the right answer then be more specific than "that". -- SEWilco (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Outdent and summary response:

As I said, I earlier gave you a long answer, but since you did offer up the first good compromise in the current debate, I'll summarize the points I made so far:

• By all available USAF/military writing guides, samples and such, they are indeed memos, aka "Memorandum for Record," "Memo for File" and so on. There is no wiggle room here - they are memos. Ipso facto and all that.

• Why does it matter? Memos are not normally archived unless they are classified -- only other more "official" records like forms, and confirmed orders are, and the formats are distinctly different as described by the Tongue and Quill (PDF pgs 139-176) and this ROTC powerpoint presentation, but that didn't stop people from cluelessly comparing the format of the Killian memos to Bush's official records. Even the Washington Post did so here and here. And one of the many things the CBS panel report (PDF pg 156) botched in its alleged investigation was the signature block location: they also thought it was suppose to be on the left side for a memo.

• While WP:OR prevents those little nuggets of enlightening info regarding the Post and the Panel Report to be put into the main article, the least we can do for the benefit of curious/confused readers is point out that the paper objects/pdfs referred to vaguely as "documents" are actually technically memos, which inarguably have a different format from Bush's official records, as well as having a different purpose.

Now does this finally clarify the issue with just using "documents"? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Dear BC, let me try to explain my perspective on why "memos" is inferior to "documents." NB I am not replying directly to your above points, because my reasoning in this case doesn't depend on your above comments on the similarity of formatting, archiving, etc. In my view, calling them "memos" without qualification carries the implication that the KD are some kind of military documents. In my view, the assertion that the KD are military memos or documents of some kind is at the very least unsubstantiated, as in, it has not been proved that the KD are actually bona fide military-made paperwork of any kind. And it probably can't be proven without originals. In my view, the term "memos" alone is insufficient- it is laden with an implied argument that the KD were produced by the military - it presupposes their legitimacy. For this reason, "documents" is in my view closer to objective. A possible avenue to reconcile this might be to call them "documents in the style of military memoranda" or "documents entitled "memo to file, memo to etc." something, but I think my preference would be for "documents." As a further example, imagine if I personally forged some documents that resembled, or even duplicated exactly, the formatting and typography of 1970s military memos, and I presented them to you as forgeries. Would you call them "memos", or "documents that look like military memos."? Since we don't know what the KD are, calling them documents seems to me to be the most neutral description of them. We can certainly all agree that they are documents, if not "memos." Kaisershatner (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"I am not replying directly to your above points, because my reasoning in this case doesn't depend on your above comments on the similarity of formatting, archiving, etc."!!

Well, at least you're openly admitting that you're not responding to the points and refs I presented. But that still makes your subsequent comments irrelevant, primarily because they are yet again just more un-ref'd, unsubstantiated opinion. Let me yet again ask/plead that you respond to the issues and backing support raised. If you need some further explanation or clarity, just ask and I'll be happy to help. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC) (Edit restored -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

Arguing here what the documents are is not relevant, as whether they are memos is clearly disputed here and in the article. In the intro, 'documents' is neutral and does not carry the implications of whether the papers are really 'memos'. If there is proof that the documents are really memos, discuss relevant parts of the article but not by changing a word in the intro which is not supported in the article. And the recently accepted change to another phrase was proposed by Callmebc, not by me. -- SEWilco (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, that was again a nonresponsive answer -- I laid out pretty clearly why the "documents" are actually technically memos and why this distinction is important, and you failed to address any of those points. Would you only use the term "Equidae" (aka "a horse-like animal") in any article when referring specifically to zebras? Would you likewise only use the term natural satellite when you are actually referring to the Moon? I've twice now responded at length to your comments on this subject, including many refs, so please do me the courtesy of responding directly to my points. And actually the official Wikipedia policy, WP:CIVI clearly states "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others," so ignoring my points is not really technically an option. Also the Wikipedia behaviorial guideline WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT also discourages ignoring "reasoned opinions and comments". So again, please respond to the issues at hand. (PS - you did initiate that vote for my proposed change). -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I already responded to your evidence of their being memos; 'memos' is too specific for their disputed status (as shown in the article) and 'documents' does not imply 'official documents'. I might use 'documents' to also describe a photocopy of a zebra or the Moon. And I deindented Kaisershatner's comment below back to the indentation which he used, as you altered his indentation so it looked as if he was responding to your 16:30 comment although that did not exist when he commented. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You've only been stating and restating your unref'd, unsubstantiated opinions on the matter. Do you see the sub-section labeled Outdent and summary response: above? I carefully laid out my points, reasoning and evidence -- I'm asking you to please respond to that and not just offer up further off-point opinions (Also, I had only added an indent to Kaisershatner for clarity's sake.) -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I did respond to that, but to make it simpler: "the paper objects/pdfs referred to vaguely as "documents" are actually technically memos" — No they are not "technically memos" if they were not created by TexANG's Killian as memos. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Again off-point and unresponsive to the points raised -- see below. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SEWilco, who makes my point more succinctly - about "carrying the implications" of the term "memos" without proof that the KD are actually military in origin. BC, I am "openly admitting" only that the precise details of your post about the similarity between the KD and military memos of the 1970s are irrelevant to my reply, since my point is your argument is petitio principii, or begging the question. You are presupposing the documents in question are some kind of military product, then observing the similarities to military memos, then concluding we should therefore call the KD "memos." Since the KD have never been authenticated as military in origin, their similarity to "memoranda" is not sufficient for us to call them "memos," and calling them "memos" in that context implies they are some sort of specific military publication with the characteristics you note above. I have already offered above to work out some kind of language like "documents in the style of military memos" or "documents entitled 'memo to file'" if you are insistent on using the word "memo," (even though I think this is inferior to calling them simply "documents"), but as I have stated, calling them "memos" because they resemble military memos, when they haven't been proven to be military memos, is circular reasoning. I also agree with the other editors here who have pointed out that "document" is accurate, and sufficient, to describe these photocopied and faxed items that are central to the KD controversy. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, please respond to the points, issues and refs I had laid out. Did you not see my response to you on my Talk page: "I'm quite willing to start afresh -- when I bring up points A & B, and/or ask question C, just address those first before going on to other matters. If you think I'm asking a trick or leading question, just tell me and I'll respond. If you're not too sure what I'm asking, especially if I ask it again, again just tell me and I'll try my darnedest to make it more clear. Fair enough?" Did you not think that was a fair proposal? And again, if you need some further explanation or clarity, just ask and I'll be happy to help. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure BC, in response to the points you have laid out (again), we should not call the documents memos because doing so falsely implies they were created by the military when this has not been established. I believe SEWilco has also repeatedly answered those points. Using a more specific context here (zebra, rather than horse, to use your analogy), implies a level of certainty about the papers' origin that is not supported by the facts. Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Again off-point and unresponsive to the points raised -- see below. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Section 1A -- Further discussion of use of "memos" vs "documents"

Attention SEWilco and Kaisershatner, again please respond to the following as per WP:CIVIL and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and please refrain from offering up any further off-point comments & opinions until you have done so:

Outdent and summary response:

As I said, I earlier gave a long answer, but I'll summarize the points I've made so far:

• By all available USAF/military writing guides, samples and such, they are indeed memos, aka "Memorandum for Record," "Memo for File" and so on. There is no wiggle room here - they are memos. Ipso facto and all that.

• Why does it matter? Memos are not normally archived unless they are classified -- only other more "official" records like forms, and confirmed orders are, and the formats are distinctly different as described by the Tongue and Quill (PDF pgs 139-176) and this ROTC powerpoint presentation, but that didn't stop people from cluelessly comparing the format of the Killian memos to Bush's official records. Even the Washington Post did so here and here. And one of the many things the CBS panel report (PDF pg 156) botched in its alleged investigation was the signature block location: they also thought it was suppose to be on the left side for a memo.

• While WP:OR prevents those little nuggets of enlightening info regarding the Post and the Panel Report to be put into the main article, the least we can do for the benefit of curious/confused readers is point out that the paper objects/pdfs referred to vaguely as "documents" are actually technically memos, which inarguably have a different format from Bush's official records, as well as having a different purpose.

Now does this finally clarify the issue with just using "documents"? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear BC, please stop moving entire sections around on the talk page. It is very confusing. Also, you'll find on most talk pages people simply reply in chronological order rather than interspersing their replies into other people's paragraphs. In reply to your above post, (1) I dispute your view that my previous answers are "off-point comments." (2) My reply to your argument that "ipso facto" the "documents" are "memos" on the basis of your comparison of the Killian documents with military memos remains the same. You are begging the question. There is no proof that the KD come from a military source, and describing them as "memos" on the basis of their resemblance to authenticated military documents is therefore misleading and overspecific. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Also, to me it seems as if a way to solve this impasse is to describe them as documents in the style of military memos, or documents entitled "memo to file," etc., as I have (repeatedly) noted, but you never respond to that suggestion. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Again mostly unresponsive. Is there something about the first point that you don't understand? Let me repeat it and discuss it further:

• By all available USAF/military writing guides, samples and such, they are indeed memos, aka "Memorandum for Record," "Memo for File" and so on. There is no wiggle room here - they are memos. Ipso facto and all that.

We're not speculating where they came from anymore than we might wonder about where this "horse-like object" is standing. Just to make sure you understand, I am talking about a certain type of military document called "a memo". "A memo" has certain well-described formatting characteristics, and it's NOT an official military document that's archived, which is something I had pointed out. The Killian "documents" show those exact same formatting characteristics by all refs and samples available, which is again something I had pointed out. Are you disagreeing with any of these points? If so, why specifically and what is your supporting evidence aside from what you just "think"? Again, if there is something you don't understand, please point it out and I will try to make it more clear. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

BC, I understand that on the basis of your comparison of the KD with all available writing guides that you believe the KD are indisputably "memos" that are not archived, and that have certain kinds of specific formatting. Do you understand that a document that shares the characteristics you have listed above, but that was written by me, or by someone in 2004, for example, is not a military "memo", but rather a document that resembles a military memo? And that calling the KD "memos" is therefore potentially misleading in the absence of proof they come from a military source, while calling them "documents" adequately describes what they are for the purpose of the introduction? Kaisershatner (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, despite my efforts, instead of responding on point, you yet again went on another tangent of speculation. I'm going to try to rephrase things in a simple yes or no fashion. If you again avoid answering directly, I'm afraid I'll have no recourse but to look into an RFC of some sort to move this discussion further along.

• Question 1: By ALL available sources, including authoritative military writing guides and available samples, which I have already ref'd, the Killian "documents" very clearly possess all the formatting characteristics, including the position of the writing block, of military memos -- Yes or No?

• Question 2: If you answer "No" to Question 1, can you offer up any counter references to support your answer -- Yes or No?

• Question 3: If you agree that the Killian documents do indeed show all the formatting characteristics of military memos, is there a good reason not to call them "memos" -- Yes or No?

• Question 4: If you answer Yes to Question 3, can you point to any policy or guideline of Wikipedia to support your answer? -- Yes or No?

If you think these are leading questions, please state why and how, and I will be happy to respond directly to your concerns. (PS -- have you noted the article wording used in the "Section 5" issue?) -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Already responded to several times in preceding section. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to these points nor this earlier answer. If I'm mistaken, could you provide a diff of when you did respond on point? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killian_documents&diff=196319021&oldid=196315434 -- SEWilco (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That diff you offered goes, I did respond to that, but to make it simpler: "the paper objects/pdfs referred to vaguely as "documents" are actually technically memos" -- No they are not "technically memos" if they were not created by TexANG's Killian as memos.

But that was given in "response" to this comment, You've only been stating and restating your unref'd, unsubstantiated opinions on the matter. Do you see the sub-section labeled Outdent and summary response: above? I carefully laid out my points, reasoning and evidence -- I'm asking you to please respond to that and not just offer up further off-point opinions. Not exactly an on-point response to either the "summary response" or this earlier answer like I had asked. Do you have any diffs showing you responding on point? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear BC, I think it may be you who is not responding on point - did you answer any of the questions I raised in my reply, or respond to the suggested language changes? No. Regardless, I will answer your points, again: Question 1: By ALL available sources, including authoritative military writing guides and available samples, which I have already ref'd, the Killian "documents" very clearly possess all the formatting characteristics, including the position of the writing block, of military memos -- Yes or No? Answer: I am not an expert in analysis of military documents, so I don't think my view carries weight. However, I am prepared to concede you are right temporarily for the purpose of answering your other questions. * Question 2: If you answer "No" to Question 1, can you offer up any counter references to support your answer -- Yes or No? Answer: I didn't answer "no." Let's continue to assume a provisional "Yes" for now. * Question 3: If you agree that the Killian documents do indeed show all the formatting characteristics of military memos, is there a good reason not to call them "memos" -- Yes or No? Answer: YES! See my repeated posts above. I will provide diffs in a sec. * Question 4: If you answer Yes to Question 3, can you point to any policy or guideline of Wikipedia to support your answer? -- Yes or No? Answer: Yes. Wikipedia policy supports articles that are neutral. A neutral term for the KD is "documents." The term "memos" falsely associates the KD with some kind of military origin, which is unsupported by currently available evidence. Kaisershatner (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Added [1] diff. Kaisershatner (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Added another diff [2]. Kaisershatner (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

1) Your first diff frankly doesn't appear to really say anything -- it makes vague references to you writing stuff. Unresponsive in any case.

2) Your second diff also ignores all my offered references and reasoning to only make the tangential -- and utterly illogical -- comment, "There is no proof that the KD come from a military source, and describing them as "memos" on the basis of their resemblance to authenticated military documents is therefore misleading and overspecific."

3) Your comment "I am not an expert in analysis of military documents, so I don't think my view carries weight" appears somewhat evasive. Did I ask you if you were an expert in analysis of military documents? No. If I had asked you if the animal in this picture clearly possesses all the characteristics of a zebra, yes or no, would you have answered "I am not an expert in zoology"?

4) As I have pointed out more than once, WP:PSTS clearly allows for using this type of primary source if it only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and that it "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source". Are you saying that you genuinely cannot mentally connect the descriptions and examples in both the the Tongue and Quill (PDF pgs 139-176) and this ROTC powerpoint presentation to the Killian memos and to samples like this? Is that what you're really claiming? If so, does this not suggest that this article is probably not a good match for you?

5) Would it matter to you if I point out that both CBS and USA Today clearly refer to the documents as memos? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I have to state that CallmeBC wrote "the paper objects/pdfs referred to vaguely as "documents" are actually technically memos" and wait a month for him to find where he said that, so he'll recognize that his point was responded to. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I do believe I had last requested that you supply a diff, any diff, showing you responding on point in this discussion. That seems like a modest request, so until that is complied with, please refrain from any more odd, unnecessary comments, especially ones that might also be seen as personal attacks. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The comment is factual and from your record. Please find where you made the quoted phrase. -- SEWilco (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You response is nonsensical, This is what I had asked

• You've only been stating and restating your unref'd, unsubstantiated opinions on the matter. Do you see the sub-section labeled Outdent and summary response: above? I carefully laid out my points, reasoning and evidence -- I'm asking you to please respond to that and not just offer up further off-point opinions.

And this was your response:

• I did respond to that, but to make it simpler: "the paper objects/pdfs referred to vaguely as "documents" are actually technically memos" — No they are not "technically memos" if they were not created by TexANG's Killian as memos.

There is virtually no connection between what I asked and your response. I had laid out an argument, gave plenty of refs and reasoning for why the documents are technically memos, and all you did and have been doing is ignore all that to just say you disagree by making an utterly pointless, unref'd statement, "No, they are not "technically memos" if they were not created by TexANG's Killian as memos." Do you really think this applies to the evidence I gave, to which you did not respond to at all? This is like your behavior over the Mother's Day story where I gave a ton of refs to Bush's official documents refuting the anecdote, and when I asked you to find any official records supporting the story, you instead made some odd, cryptic allusion to the story being based on official records -- except all that had was just a mention of some ex-Guardsmen supposedly comparing their own pay records to reach an utterly irrelevant, not to mention illogical, "conclusion".

Do I have to include you as well in RFC/dispute resolution actions, or will you try to have a real discussion based on real sources, real reasoning and a genuine desire to improve the article? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You stated yourself most of the stuff was OR and not for the article, so it's also not relevant for the intro's summary of the article. Change the meaning of the article and changing the meaning of the intro will be proper. I responded to the suggested change which you've been repeating since the start of the section. And for the Mother's Day topic — it took you a month and many words to find mention of those records, which was merely the first point of discussion. Please do start an RFC, there can't possibly be even more commentary than this to reach a decision. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"You stated yourself most of the stuff was OR and not for the article" -- that's not entirely accurate, is it? What I had actually said was "WP:OR prevents those little nuggets of enlightening info regarding the Post and the Panel Report to be put into the main article" -- the "nuggets" of course being that both the Washington Post and the CBS Panel Report screwed up royally in confusing memos with official docs. And as far as your Mother's Day comment goes, again you are not being entirely accurate, are you? It took me a month to figure out that the "official records" you kept cryptically referring to were no such thing. It was just some dubious hearsay that went "A survey of the pay and flight records of several of the Texas Air Guard members of that period shows no activity for May 13-14, but drill pay vouchers and flights for May 20-21." That not only was without any credible sourcing, but had nothing to do with the points I was discussing nor with what Bush's applicable and genuinely sourced service records showed. Remember? And you are doing much the same thing here -- I offer up this bit of hard evidence, that impeachable source, and so on, and then only point out what they clearly show, and your response has been to ignore all the offered evidence and refs and instead just disagree with the conclusion with nothing more than an opinion based on odd, utterly irrelevant, unsourced reasoning. Am I pretty much painting an accurate picture here? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 06:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing ever has anything to do with the points which you're discussing. But I was incorrect. There has been a decision reached in all this talk, but it is being ignored. -- SEWilco (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet again a comment that does absolutely nothing to address the many points in my response. What can I say -- I talk turkey, you talk canned ham; I say zebra, you say painted horselike object; I say "Ref A and Ref B shows C", you ask, "Does C have a hat?"; and if I ask "What about Ref A and Ref B?", you reply "What does this have to do with C having a hat?" -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi BC. Since you have been pretty free with your accusations of WP:CIVIL and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and you yourself persistently ignore the arguments of others here as well as my own (still waiting for your answer to my question about documents I personally write that resemble memos), I have to conclude further "discussion" isn't going to help that much. I am trying to maintain my assumption of good faith about you, I even play your "yes or no" game, but I am starting to wonder if you are trolling. Please bring your RFC at your convenience, I don't think direct engagement is getting us very far, and I would be happy to have outside views on whether or not SEWilco and I and the other editors here are in fact answering your arguments, and whether in fact, you are responding to ours. Regards, Kaisershatner (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What "arguments of others" did I ignore, pray tell? And what arguments of mine have you answered, exactly? Your behavior here, and that of some editors, appear very much to be consistent with a desire to obstruct rather than help meaningful discussions, never mind improve the article. And it seems very likely that behavior such as this is the reason why all the Killian-related articles are still in such poor encyclopedic shape after all this time. I can only hope that the dispute resolution process of Wikipedia has some teeth. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Section 1 proposal

It has been proposed that the introductory phrasing be changed because 'They are technically actually "memos" and memos are not official "documents".' I claim the article does not indicate acceptance of them as "memos". Should the phrasing in the first sentence use "memos" or "documents"? -- SEWilco (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep as documents. These are not memos unless it can be shown that they are not fakes. There is no connection between them and Killian except the word of Bill Burkett. Burkett has no explanation for how he got them. We can't say they are memos since there is no evidence that they ever were. Documents is neutral, memos is not.

Sadly this is one of the wiki arguments that goes on forever because one editor clings to their belief and won't listen to anyone else. Jmcnamera (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Change -- there is no support to refer to them vaguely as just "documents" when you can be much more usefully precise, especially when all available sources support such a change:

• 1) Both CBS and USA Today, who had obtained the memos, clearly refer to the documents as memos.
• 2) Every single available ref indicates that they are memos: descriptions and examples in both the the Tongue and Quill (PDF pgs 139-176) and this ROTC powerpoint presentation, as well as any available samples, like this for instance.

Since I have dutifully offered up both primary and secondary sources to support the change, it would appear that the burden is now on anyone wanting to keep the status quo to do likewise. Seems fair, no? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The article uses "memo" 35 times and "document" 139 times in the text (not counting the disputed use in the first sentence). -- SEWilco (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You didn't say which article, you again ignored the military refs, and overall that's not exactly a very scientific approach. Try this: click on the USA Todaylink and please state how does USA Today describe the "documents" in its introduction to them, where it goes, "The following are...." -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article. Same one referred to by "I claim the article …". -- SEWilco (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So...you you're decided to ignore (again) the primary and secondary source refs, including the CBS article transcript and the USA Today PDF file, and instead are now trying to use the article itself as its own reference to support not changing the article. Hmmm....no, I don't think that kind of recursive self-referencing is exactly kosher, and it also appears that using Wikipedia articles in general is not quite allowed. Sorry. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 06:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Self references aren't allowed in article space. Here we're discussing the article and its contents. Which is hard to do without discussing the article text, just as you used quotations from the article when discussing what to change. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep as documents. BTW the CBS source you cite (1) says "But 60 Minutes has obtained a number of documents" and (2) is dated from the period of time CBS was still claiming the documents were genuine and before they repudiated their use, so of course they use "memos". Also (3) you continue to ignore the fact that there is no link from these documents to any military typewriter, so why use a POV laden term like "memos" when "documents" is factually accurate and neutral? (I have asked this at least three times now). Kaisershatner (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You are not sourcing your argument properly -- both of my "CBS/USA Today" links clearly call them "memos" -- are you disputing that? And your typewriter comment is what I've been calling an unresponsive opinion -- not only does it have little or nothing to do with any of the issues and refs I had raised, it makes no logical sense. The point is what type of "documents," regardless of their being real or fake, are they. And by all sources available, secondary and primary, they are standard military memos. In any case, can you cite any secondary or primary sources supporting your opinion and refuting my refs? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up examples: is this best described as a "business letter" or just as a "document"? Is this best described as a "tax return" or just as a "document"? Is this best described as a "resume" or just as a "document"? Simply describing something as it appears to be is an entirely separate issue from whether the item in question is real or fake. The resume may be fake or real, but isn't it still best described as a resume regardless for the purpose of any discussion on the matter? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

By all sources available, they have the general appearance of military memos. But concluding that they are memos, in my view, implies a connotation that they are authentic. And since we don't know that they are authentic, why isn't documents sufficient for you? You honestly think the whole article is suffering because we use the neutral term rather than the more specific one? Why? To me it seems as if the "harm" that you are decrying from your perspective (failure to be specific enough) is outweighed by the harm from the perspective of every other editor here (use of a potentially misleading term). Try to see it from the other side. Kaisershatner (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are merely expressing an opinion unrelated to all the evidence presented. And you again completely ignored my lengthy response covering the whole authenticity versus description issue, as well as pretty much everything else I've posted, along with the refs. What you are calling a "neutral term" is no such thing -- it's a vague term that serves only yo promote ignorance and confusion about what sort of "documents" they are. Are they forms? No. Are they official letters? No. Are they pay stubs. What are they, then? To be honest, all I've been seeing are reasons for why the Killian related articles are in such poor encyclopedic shape. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep as documents. htom (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. On my side I've presented a veritable Everest of ref's and reasoning to support the change. On the other side, there seems to have been everything but, to put it mildly. In any case, what are your refuting ref's, reasoning and that good encyclopedic stuff? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they're in the article which we're summarizing? -- SEWilco (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And maybe you just made another comment not really connected to the evidence and ref's on the table in regards to the issue raised. -BC aka Callmebc (talk)

Elaborating, they are definitely documents (well, they are at least images of purported documents, and thus documents; they are not novels, physics tests, ... and may or may not be memos.) Whether they are or are not memos is part of the controversy. Calling them documents sidesteps the issue -- NPOV -- of their validity entirely. Whether or not they are genuine or fake, they are documents (or images thereof.) And so we call them that. htom (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You have an odd definition of "elaborating" -- you only offered an opinion using a bit of "logic" that not only makes little sense, but ignores that huge stack of sourced ref's and connected reasoning on my side. Do you actually have anything at all substantial to even support your contention, never mind refute any of the stuff I've listed (and relisted ad infinitum)? And as I had already pointed out to Kaisershatner and to not-quite-quote you, "Whether or not they are genuine or fake, they are memos." -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 06:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I said, even though you label it "not-quite-quote", which I will assume is some form of humor. If you will not or can not see the distinction I'm making, perhaps you should be the one directed to, as you've directed so many others, WP:TEND htom (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of my trying to figure out what you mean by your off point and wholly unsupported opinions ("Whether they are or are not memos is part of the controversy"!?! -- only on this talk page, which doesn't count), you instead attempt at least to address the issues and refs already presented . Once again, do you have anything whatsoever substantial, by Wikipedia standards, to support anything you've said, never mind refute any of the stuff I've listed and relisted? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Section 2

Four of the documents were presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes Wednesday broadcast aired by CBS on September 8, 2004,

Highly misleading -- Dan Rather said that CBS was told they were authentic. Also the memos were only a relatively small part of the entire 12 1/2 minute piece (located in 2 parts here and here) that actually featured an interview with Ben Barnes, along with actual DoD records and an interview with White House spokesperson, Dan Bartlett. And USA Today had published all 6 memos the morning after. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

but completely accurate as this article is about the Killian 'documents' and not about 60 minutes. --68.25.204.130 (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That comment does not address any of the issues I raised and actually seems to be a non sequitur, especially in regards to the "60 minutes" bit: the section in question goes Four of the documents were presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes Wednesday broadcast aired by CBS on September 8, 2004, -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The statement about CBS reporting on them is completely true and CBS did present them as authentic even though they later admitted to not having authenticated them. --68.25.204.130 (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Again comments not having to do with the issues raised. Please read the beginning of this section again and address only those issues raised. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If "...presented as authentic as part of a 60 Minutes Wednesday broadcast..." were used instead, would that be an improvement? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, an on-point response, finally. Thanks. If you view the entire entire 12 1/2 minute segment (which is I think more accurate than "broadcast" since it was just a normal news segment for 60 Minutes), Part 1 Part 2, you see that the Killian stuff doesn't even get discussed until near the end of Part 1, and it only takes up the beginning section of Part 2. The entire segment was really about Bush's Guard service. So technically the Killian documents were used "as part of a CBS broadcast investigation into Bush's Guard service." So anything along those lines would be a marked improvement in accuracy over what the current article has it. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It needs to retain that CBS did present them as authentic. 68.25.204.130 (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually viewed the segment in its entirety? I provided links.... -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is about the Killian Documents, not the CBS segment, and I agree with 68.25... that the sentence must retain that CBS presented them as authentic - that is the entire reason for th controversy. About the rest of the wording, if you prefer "presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes Wednesday program on September 8, 2004, as part of a CBS broadcast investigation into Bush's Guard service," that would be fine with me. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comment doesn't address my main point(s), and again the section of the intro I referred to specifically mentions the CBS broadcast. Perhaps it would help if you reread what I posted, as well as use the links I provided to view the entire segment before commenting further. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are your points, pasted from above and italicized, and my reply to them, again, maybe this will help me reply on point: "Highly misleading -- Dan Rather said that CBS was told they were authentic." Yes: Dan Rather presented them as authentic, as in "we are told [the KD] were taken from Killian's personal files." Also, as I wrote above, the whole reason there is controversy is that CBS presented documents as authentic that they failed to authenticate, and later had to retract their story. Second, "Also the memos were only a relatively small part of the entire 12 1/2 minute piece (located in 2 parts here and here) that actually featured an interview with Ben Barnes, along with actual DoD records and an interview with White House spokesperson, Dan Bartlett." This may be true, but this article is about the Killian documents, not about the CBS news program. I also proposed above an alteration that would make it clear that there was a longer segment. You didn't reply to my proposed change. Finally, "And USA Today had published all 6 memos the morning after." This is true. I would be happy for the intro to read "initially presented as authentic in a CBS News segment..." and add that USA Today published six documents the following day, if you would like to propose wording to that effect. Kaisershatner (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you finally tried to reply on-point for a change. But the way you did is a bit messy. Let me try to break it down:

• Me: "Highly misleading -- Dan Rather said that CBS was told they were authentic."
• You: Yes: Dan Rather presented them as authentic, as in "we are told [the KD] were taken from Killian's personal files."

Conclusion: So you actually agree with my saying that Dan Rather said that CBS was told they were authentic. Which is slightly different from presenting them as authentic, no?

• Me: "Also the memos were only a relatively small part of the entire 12 1/2 minute piece (located in 2 parts here and here) that actually featured an interview with Ben Barnes, along with actual DoD records and an interview with White House spokesperson, Dan Bartlett."
• You: This may be true, but this article is about the Killian documents, not about the CBS news program. I also proposed above an alteration that would make it clear that there was a longer segment. You didn't reply to my proposed change Finally, "And USA Today had published all 6 memos the morning after." This is true.

Conclusion: So you are almost agreeing that my description of the segment is true, as well as giving mention to USA Today's "contribution". I admit that I didn't respond to your suggestion about the rewording, but only because, as I said, "your comment doesn't address my main point(s)." Also you didn't respond to my point about how the intro I referred to specifically mentions the CBS broadcast, which is what really drew attention to the Killian memos, although USA Today did publish them all the following day.

As far as your suggested rewording goes, it's a very marginal improvement at best I think. Something like "initially presented in a CBS News segment covering the George W. Bush military service controversy, with all six published by USA Today the following day would be far more accurate and neutral. I think.

Also, this whole business surrounding "presented as authentic" is actually nonsensical if you think it through. No legitimate news organization qualifies its information used in news reports as "authentic" unless they initially had some uncertainties with it that had to be resolved. CBS had some initial doubts about the memos, primarily because of their being photocopies, but did go through an authentication process, however rushed and sloppy it turned out to be. Insisting on inserting something like "presented as authentic" is only belaboring a pointless point, and indeed falsely implies that there was some sort of deliberate attempt at deception, which is certainly not the case. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What is with this rambling? CBS did present them as authentic. Yes, its too bad they didn't tell the viewers they came from photocopied faxes from a Kinkos but they didn't do that. 68.25.204.130 (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, highly opinionated speculation not having to do with the issue raised. Again please, pretty please read the section in question and respond to that if you could. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Section 3

less than two months before the 2004 Presidential Election

False implication that this was a singular effort by CBS to affect the election when in fact was a just one media investigation among many regarding Bush's service, and it wasn't even the last major one prior to the election.

No, it simply implies they did little fact checking on an explosive allegation right before an election. 68.25.204.130 (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Again you are speculating and not addressing the issues raised. Also, please follow the formatting I'm trying to use here to keep discussion from getting unwieldy again. -BC aka Callmebc (talk)

The reason this is significant is because it was reported as a major part of the media reporting on CBS which followed. Other news organizations were investigating communication between CBS and the Kerry Campaign, et al. The political ramifications of the timing of this particular report are undeniable, and the media treated it as such. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is that what CBS did was simply in keeping with other media investigations going on at the time, and CBS wasn't even one of the major investigators. The AP for instance filed FOIA lawsuits to obtain Bush's remaining records. And indeed, CBS broadcasted its segment literally the day after an AP lawsuit obtained more records from the DoD: [3]. This provides rather important context to the timing of CBS's broadcast -- it was really just a "me too" effort in the context of what other news organizations were doing at the time. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The timing was not simply a "me-too" by CBS. They delayed the planned broadcast of a different segment so they could air this one instead. In other words, they rushed it. The timing is in important though perhaps it can be argued that it was Mapes making the rush and not CBS as a corporation. 68.25.204.130 (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 68.25 and Jc-S0CO; the rushing, the political implications, the Kerry contacts, and the impending election are all significant parts of the Killian Documents controversy. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not the timing was CBS' intent is irrelevant here; what matters is that this is part of what other (rival) news organizations attacked CBS for. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"What other (rival) news organizations attacked CBS for?" Rival news organizations did no such thing. Where is the refs for that? Before the authenticity issue spread from the right wing blog sites, the reaction by rival news organizations was that the Killian memos had only shed new light on Bush's controversial military past. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. After the authenticity issue came to light, the talk was about how this had been released in such close proximity to the election. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Soooo....if the authenticity "issue" never spread from the right wing blog sites (that is, if some lazy news organizations had done some real research into the matter), and everything else was exactly the same, there wouldn't have been any allegations regarding the timing of the CBS story? Hmmm.....I guess that makes sense since, as I've been pointing out, the CBS report was only one of many media investigations that year. But still, I'm not sure your basic contention is supported either -- see this Washington Post article. It's a long report (if somewhat shaky on some technical details) that basically only describes mistakes being made in the rush to authenticate the documents, apparently in order to include them with a long sought after interview with Ben Barnes regarding Bush's Guard service. There is no reference to the timing in relation to the election. Can you or any the others find any good refs to support the "timing issue"? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The article already supports the election being an issue in Killian documents#Accusations of Bias. -- SEWilco (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I just looked -- actually it only very vaguely discusses accusations of bias in general, but doesn't offer any references by news organizations to the timing of the report in relation to the election. This Washington Post article that is cited only discusses the aftermath of the CBS panel report finding "no bias" actually. I am looking for a ref, any ref, by a news organization that considers the timing of the CBS broadcast to be an issue. If you can't find it, then that means that the less than two months before the 2004 Presidential Election bit needs to go as unsubstantiated POV pushing. Agree? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it means that you feel it is POV pushing. You don't make the rules in wikipedia. That they were released less than two months before the election is relevant since CBS choose not to vet the story more carefully before running it in replacement of an existing segment. 68.25.204.130 (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have to admit you are correct in saying I don't make the rules in Wikipedia. On the other hand, I didn't exactly claim that I did. Wikipedia itself makes its rules, and one of those rules is WP:PROVEIT -- which basically means that if you can't offer up anything more than your opinion that the timing of the CBS report is significant, it needs to go for the good of the article. On the other hand, Google can be your friend -- I suggest you spend some quality time with it to see if you can find some support, any support from a good news source for your contentions and opinions. Not just this one, but perhaps a few others you have stated without refs on this Talk page. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Section 4

but had not been properly authenticated by CBS.

Mary Mapes and the others working on the story thought they had authenticated sufficiently enough, and were apparently feeling under the gun to compete with the other media investigations.

This is pure conjecture. It is not our job to make excuses for them. We report what has been reported by others, and that is that the memos were improperly authenticated.^[4] ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's documented both in the panel report and in the book she wrote on the matter, Truth and Duty. No exactly conjecture. She genuinely thought she had sufficiently authenticated the memos. I'm not asking if she actually did -- there are indeed plenty of opinions regarding that.... -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the CBS review said they weren't authenticated sufficiently. Mapes allowed her partisan opinions to overule journalistic common-sense. --68.25.204.130 (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Again that comment does not address the issues I raised and your characterization of her is only a highly opinionated POV and utterly besides the point. Also I didn't mention the Panel Report -- it was about what Mary Mapes believed, and she clearly believed and still believes that she had made a reasonable effort at authenticating the documents. This is in both that panel report and in the book she wrote on the matter, Truth and Duty. Are you denying that Mapes thinks she was right? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does, you just don't like the answer. CBS itself admits they docs were not authenticated properly. I don't believe anyone today feels they were authenticated properly. --68.25.204.130 (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please reread the issue raised in this section and only address that if you could. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

BC, you wrote "Mary Mapes and the others working on the story thought they had authenticated sufficiently enough, and were apparently feeling under the gun to compete with the other media investigations." Maybe, maybe not, but either way irrelevant. The article claims the documents were not properly authenticated by CBS, and this is objectively true, and extensively detailed in the Thornburgh-Boccardi report, among other places. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please reread the issue raised in this section and only address that if you could. Also read my response to user:Jc-S0CO. Your opinion of what's relevant is not germane to what I'm asking about. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The phrasing does not state that CBS thought proper authentication was done at the time of the showing. It is stating now that they were not properly authenticated. -- SEWilco (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please reread the issue I raised and respond to that if you could. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You stated what CBS/Mapes thought. What other issue did you raise? -- SEWilco (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The fundamental issue is context and fairness. At the time of the broadcast Mapes had thought she and her crew had sufficiently authenticated the documents. The panel report later claimed that she and the others had rushed matters and made mistakes, but Mapes still thought that she had sufficiently authenticated them despite the mistakes made. The phrase used in the article, but had not been properly authenticated by CBS, suggests improper behavior when it was just a judgment call that did not work out well (to say the least). A more accurate, less POV version would be but were later found to be insufficiently authenticated by CBS. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"but were later found to be insufficiently authenticated by CBS." seems OK to me. What do others think? -- SEWilco (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that is accurate. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Concur. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree as well for obvious reasons. Thanks guys. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Section 5

Many media sources have asserted that the memos are forgeries.

Very, very deceptive statement if not an outright lie -- as has been discussed ad infinitum before, the "f" word has only been used by the right wing media and in opinion columns. No mainstream news source has made this "assertion" as a news item.

This may, in fact, overstate the case. Some media outlets did describe them as forgeries, I think this was covered here, but "many" might overestimate the number. Would you accept "some media sources,"? Kaisershatner (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Seth Finkelstein tried to offer up his blog and an opinion column in the UK newspaper "The Guardian" to disprove my observation that the "forgery" charge is strictly only a right wing/conservative thing, primarily by bloggers, and not what the mainstream press has been using to characterize matters. Which makes using even the term "some media sources" deceptive. "Right wing/conservative media sources" is far, FAR more accurate. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have never offered my blog. Other examples have been given. It is for reasons such as this, that I believe detailed discussion with you would not be productive. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you or did you not offer up this blog entry that was published in UK Guardian newspaper in its "blogging" section to disprove my claim then of "Actually only right wing/conservative media sources have been using the term 'forgery'"? I do believe this diff indicates that you did. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(Grits teeth, remembers WP:CIVIL ...). That is an editorially-vetted, published, column. It is not my blog. It is not the Guardian's blog. It is not published in the Guardian's blogging section. It has the word "blogging" at the end of the URL because that was a related keyword to the title given to it, which in fact I had nothing to do with. This has been explained to you, and you are pushing WP:AGF. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to rehash that last debate we had. My reply now is the same as my reply then The bottom line is that it was only an opinion column of some sort, and as such, it doesn't really count in regards to the matter at hand. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

BC, you keep bringing this up, not Seth. In fact, you keep bringing up every issue you want and never allow resolution except when its to your terms.

The Guardian is a respected, left-wing reliable source. I usually disagree with their coverage but they are every bit as valid as the Washington Post, NYT, etc. The article in question is a valid cite for this article. 68.25.204.130 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about opinion columns ! They are not vetted for content accuracy as a matter of standard procedure for editorial content by newspapers. Only news articles are vetted for content accuracy. Columnists are expected to do their own content checking and not lie outright, but they don't get vetted for accuracy because they are opinion columns ! Right wing/neo-conservative Bill Kristol writes a weekly column for the NY Times -- do you think anything he writes represents the NY Times and is anything other than just his right wing opinion? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Section 6

6) This has also been suggested by typewriter and typography experts [2].

This is actually the one line that's accurate.

Section 7

7) As the provider of the documents claims to have burned the originals after faxing copies to CBS, it is difficult to ascertain their validity.[3]

Only if you ignore all other evidence, including all the other media investigations and DoD records, related to the contents. All of which was discussed by the mainstream media.

So does anyone wish to dispute my points? If so, please do provide valid refs and do try to deal with the issues at hand. The article currently is, well, a bit of mess and has been apparently for quite a while. Isn't it well past the time that it actually starts getting genuinely improved? Well? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Silence does not constitute assent. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This comment does not at all address any of the issues raised -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Callmebc, this article is about the documents Burkett faxed not other investigations. The simple explanation is that the documents match what the forger wants people to believe and what was being discussed. That you feel other things support them doesn't provide a shred of proof to the faxed documents not being fakes. The actual documents are needed or at the least an explanation as to how Burkett got them and then they can be traced from there. He lied about how he got the documents, maybe he lied about burning them, probably the originals are still on his PC. --68.25.204.130 (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Utterly irrelevant, highly POV'd speculation not having anything to do with the issues raised. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, you don't like it, but it is true. Without the originals or any sense for how the copies are claimed to have been obtained, its hard to authenticate. Will you want to buy my original Declaration of Independence? I can fax a photocopy of it to you and I'm sure that it's contents will be just what you expect. However, it can't be proved as an original unless someone can see my "original" and not the faxed photocopy, plus I'm sure someone will ask, "where did you get it?" So far after a couple of years, we still don't know where the "Killian documents" came from except from a Kinko's. 68.25.204.130 (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, highly opinionated speculation not having to do with the issue raised. Again please reread the section in question and respond to that if you could. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it is your speculation that you want to add to the article. People keep answering your questions and constant polemic statements and you ignore their responses, and then ask them again. The talk pages for this article are full of your repeated assertions. Please listen to the responses. 68.25.204.130 (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I ask you again -- please reread the section in question and respond to that if you could. And also leave the formatting alone -- this will greatly help in keep the discussion readable. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop formatting my comments - I checked your past edits and you have edited other people's comments before. If you want bolded text to say who said what, then do it for your comments and let other editors decide for their comments.

Yes, I read the section and I responded. Perhaps you could read the response and not simply look for affirmation of your opinion. 68.25.204.130 (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So in other words, you don't want to cooperate with my idea to keep this discussion readable and on track? And technically your "responses" so far have appeared to be only your personal opinions on matters not really directly connected to the issues raised. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

BC, "it is difficult to ascertain their validity" without originals - this repeatedly comes up from the document examiners and others asked to state definitively if they are forgeries - most at least say they can't without originals. It is also difficult to authenticate them without originals. And if your view, "only if you ignore all other evidence, including all the other media investigations and DoD records, related to the contents. All of which was discussed by the mainstream media," then it would already be out there that the "memos" are genuine. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You keep making assertions along the lines of "if this is true/not true then someone surely would have done something about it". This is speculation -- and there are many instances in the past where the news media dropped the ball on much, much larger issues (the Iraq war for one, especially in the news "coverage" of the invasion and the events leading up to it comes to mind.) I'm only asking you and the others to look at "Claim X" and my comments regarding its appropriateness in an encyclopedia article that's suppose to make readers better informed, not more clueless. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Callmebc, in the Washington Post link which you provided above it says Because the memos were copies, Matley said in a recent interview, "there's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them. . . . I can't say either way from my expertise, the narrow, narrow little field of my expertise."[5] -- SEWilco (talk • contribs) 21:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for boldly calling attention to that excerpt that I used for another section, but your "point" does not address the issue I raised, "Only if you ignore all other evidence, including all the other media investigations and DoD records, related to the contents. All of which was discussed by the mainstream media." like this. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you don't mean this Boston Globe article from the next day [6] titled New doubt cast on Guard documents - Military official now says CBS records are fake or did you mean to reference where Bouffard said the Boston Globe misrepresented what he said. Please don't post a link to a discredited article.

From [7] :

Correction: Because of an editing error, the headline on a Page One story Saturday on whether documents released by CBS News about President Bush's Texas Air National Guard service are genuine ("Authenticity backed on Bush documents") did not accurately reflect the content of the story. The story quoted one analyst saying that the documents could have been produced on typewriters available in the early 1970s, but the analyst did not vouch for the authenticity of the documents. A second analyst quoted in the story said he doubts the documents are authentic.

68.25.204.130 (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, could you please kindly stop grossly misrepresenting everything, wandering completely off point from any and all of the issues, as well as making sections a bit disorganized? The cite you mentioned, for instance, did not discredit the article I used -- it was just a standard list corrections to just parts of different articles, including just one small bit from the article I used. Even with the correction, it has no bearing on the point I was using the article for, which was that there is a lot of support for the memos when you look at their contents. Here are other refs for you if you don't like that Globe one, and they all came after the CBS report: Air Force Times, US News and World Report, and the Columbia Journalism Review. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're disputing "it is difficult to ascertain their validity" then it won't be hard to ascertain their validity. Who has clearly ascertained their validity? -- SEWilco (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to respond to that little bit of outside the ballpark reasoning. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, then were you disputing "the provider of the documents claims to have burned the originals" or "faxing copies to CBS"? -- SEWilco (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm just disputing that your comment has anything to do with the topic of this section, the issue I raised, and the points I had already made and don't want to repeat ad infinitum. Is there something I has already written that you need some clarity on? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Formatting issues

I guess some editors don't like my idea of organizing responses in a way that I thought would make for much better clarity. I'm open for any suggestion for what might help keep a discussion here from turning into an unwieldy, off point mess that never goes anywhere, as has been the case too often in the past. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Try discussing one issue at a time instead of seven. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I had created distinct subsections, and it was only involving a short paragraph. And even individual sections quickly degraded into hard to follow, indented messes. And I do believe you know that "discussing one issue at a time" hasn't helped much, if any, in the past. Do you have a suggestion for keeping discussions things better organized and on track? Of course it might help a bit if editors responded more on point like user:Jc-S0CO did above. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Having come here from the debacle that the article on the 9/11 terrorist attacks has become, I can tell you that the primary reason discussion falls apart is because someone raises too many issues at the same time. When the discussion branches off in a dozen directions at once, things get sloppy very quickly. It's best to keep it restricted to two or three issues at a time, and to limit the number of subsections being created. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm willing to give that another go if you think that might help move things along despite my having not exactly encouraging past experiences along these lines. Should we just move the first section to below here and ask the other editors to only comment on that and not the other stuff until something is resolved with it first? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the genie is out of the bottle at this point. The discussions are there, so we all just have to run with them. Until this dispute is resolved, however, it might be for the best if those of us presently participating in it did not pose new sections. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

I'm just informing all of you that I am deleting the Wikipedia:Third opinion request. Such requests are meant for disputes between only two editors, and I see more than two involved here. If you find you aren't making progress toward resolution, then see Wikipedia:Mediation. Before that, you may want to submit a request for comment to get more editors involved, and hopefully build a consensus. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Media sources

As long as everyone is active here, can we improve the "many media sources" part of the intro? To me it seems like the more relevant fact is the typography experts, so that should go first, and also don't the media sources conclude "forgery" on the basis of the typographer/expert opinion? I would propose something like: "several typographers and forensic document examiners have concluded the documents are most likely forgeries, and no experts have authenticated the documents. Several media sources have also concluded the documents are forgeries." Then it links up with the graf about the lack of originals, which is important so as not to overstate why experts can't authenticate them. (This feels vaguely familiar, was it in the article before?) Kaisershatner (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think "media" was added to emphasize the non-blog/web analysis, as an indirect way to demean those. I think in this situation the online contributors were recognized as being a significant factor so being harsh on them is improper. Your proposed phrasing seems OK, particularly because it improves the flow. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Change backlog

Looks like there is a backlog of changes. They don't have to all be made the same day. -- SEWilco (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No doubt. Once I get hold of a paragraph, I like to beat it into the ground until it reads well. I'll slow down. Anything you didn't like about the edits? Kaisershatner (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to avoid having eight editors shuffling text in the same hour if some of them can wait a little. We were approaching the evening edit window. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. On the document/memoranda flamewar - just because BC didn't really reply to my proposal doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't - anyone up for changing the intro's "Four of these documents were presented" to "Four of these documents, entitled "Memorandum," "Memorandum for Record," and two "Memo[s] to File," were presented...."? It makes it wordier but provides the additional information without any of the implications I was concerned about above. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Too detailed for intro, but you could identify which four documents are being referred to someplace in the text about those. The article or footnotes should have a description of which are the CBS-entangled documents so when a reader is looking at copies they know which are being referred to. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how about if I footnote it ("Four of these documents, <ref>Two entitled "Memo to File," one "Memorandum," and one "Memorandum for Record."</ref> were presented....)Kaisershatner (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If the purpose is to identify which documents are being referred to, check that the other documents (USA Today's additional papers) don't have those titles. Maybe there's something such as the dates which would be more unique. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Did that. If you follow the .pdf in the extlink section to the USA Today docs, four are memos, the other two have different titles (I think "Subject:" in both cases, IIRC). Kaisershatner (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine, as long as they can be identified without having to watch the "60 Minutes" video. Not everyone can view video. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Before I make the change, have to verify I have it straight; the T-B report seems to conflict with the article's definition of the "four" CBS docs. After I get the facts, will make the change. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WaPo's Sept 10 story links to "all of the documents in question," meaning the ones used in the CBS report, and links to the four entitled memos as above (here is the pdf link [8]), so I will make the change. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Next issue?

We need to update the references to rm dead links and verify the citations, IMO. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Might replace dead links with new sources if such are found. Can't delete dead links used as sources, just as we can't delete books not in one library. Dead links might reappear, might help identify replacement versions, or might appear later in archives. Might want to add identified archive links. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Authenticated or not?

The intro was changed by Bellweather BC to read that the documents had not been authenticated by CBS, from "later found to have been insufficiently authenticated by CBS." How do the other editors here feel about this change? Related to this, I have been trying to update the references systematically as well as copyedit, and I added three references that to me suggest "not authenticated" might actually be a better choice of words (I reprint them here, hyperlinks are in the article already):

1. ^ Dobbs, Michael and Howard Kurtz (September 14, 2008). "Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers.". The Washington Post. Retrieved on 2008-03-14.
2. ^ Ross, Brian and Howard Rosenberg (September 14, 2004). "Document Analysts: CBS News Ignored Doubts.". ABC News. Retrieved on 2008-03-14.
3. ^ CBS ousts 4 over Bush Guard story.. Associated Press (January 10, 2005). Retrieved on 2008-03-14.: "Boccardi and Thornburgh found that Mapes had said the documents were authenticated, when in fact she had found only one expert to vouch for only one signature in the memo."

Basically, of the four experts consulted before broadcast, Matley didn't authenticate, Will and James didn't authenticate, and Pierce verified one signature. Thornburgh and Boccardi drew the conclusion that they weren't authenticated. Your thoughts? Kaisershatner (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

How about something like "but CBS had failed to obtain clear authentication", based upon what we say about the CBS review panel findings? -- SEWilco (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok with me, I think "it was later found that CBS had failed to obtain clear authentication" would work. Anyone else? Kaisershatner (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

From the CBS response immediately after the "60 Minutes" show, the "later found" phrase does seem important. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Content of the memos

I removed from the content of the memos section this: "Independent documents confirm Bush was grounded for failure to complete a physical. It is analysis of the veracity of the memos and not appropriate for the section. I wouldn't want to include additional analysis there (imagine: independent documents confirm Killian thought Bush was an exceptional pilot and authorized his honorable discharge. Equally true, but equally unsuitable for that section). Kaisershatner (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Callmebc

Just a note to avoid confusion, I have just reinstated the indefinite block on Callmebc for tendentious editing and attacks on living individuals which have caused yet another complaint to the foundation. Callmebc was unblocked on the basis that there would e no further disruption, but it appears that the zeal for WP:TRUTH has unfortunately got the better of this editor again. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• It's a sad situation. Despite the tendentiousness, I think he means well. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the few good suggestions he has made about the article (I think "but were later shown to have been insufficiently authenticated" is one) are massively outweighed by the infinite representation of his other points, and most significantly IMO by the repeated accusations of "IDIDNTHEARTHAT" etc. I don't think there's a single instance where BC ever wrote "oh...I see your point now. Guess I was wrong." Kaisershatner (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I did think it was interesting that he thought he had a Better Way to format Talk pages and tried to impose it without explanation. Looked to me like he chose Nonnested_Name_Prefixed_Format_2, as if that hadn't been tried already in 1982 and found to be unsatisfactory. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect Callmebc's persistent violation of the do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point guideline, with the apparent purpose of violating the Wikipedia is not a soapbox policy, is the sort of thing which inspired the No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man essay. — Athaenara ✉ 04:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

CBS response

As you may have noticed, I have been updating the references somewhat systematically, using the updated templates and accessdates; I think only one link thus far was totally dead and I found a replacement. However, the next sections are going to require more copyediting- anyone else want to take a stab at it, or want me to bring it to Talk before making changes? Kaisershatner (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The lack of alterations to your recent edits suggests you're doing OK. Go ahead, everyone will edit. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The article said Caputo in the CSM reported early, but the cite is from 9/14: "and Michael R. Caputo in the Christian Science Monitor.<ref> {{cite news | title=Campaign Panic in Perfect Times Roman |author=Michael R. Caputo |date=September 14, 2004| url=http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0914/p09s01-coop.html | accessdate=2006-03-20 | publisher=Christian Science Monitor}}</ref>" I pasted it here temporarily while I look for an earlier cite to support this, if there is one. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Coverage by other papers, uncited in article: "Other newspapers that carried stories questioning the documents' authenticity on September 10 or 11 included The Houston Chronicle, The Chicago Sun-Times, and the Daily News (New York)." still looking for cites for these; may not be strictly necessary as the basic point is that the media was noticing in general. Other views? Kaisershatner (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Searching the article for "september 10" already finds assorted media reports on that date. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"The statement was replaced later that day with one that omitted saying that CBS was convinced of the memo's authenticity and removed the claim.[9]" I don't think thisis an essential part of the narrative; if it is, it is unclear. Moved it here for comments just in case. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I put it back because the removal by CBS is similarly interesting to the mention of people who saw the creation of the documents. The reference should source to The Note (ABC News) but I can't change the reference due to politics. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I can update the reference to the Note, but can you explain what the point of the sentence is? That CBS first claimed there were people who saw the docs created and then retracted that claim? To me it seems like over-reach by the spokeswoman, but if you think it is integral to the story in some way, I guess I would err on the side of inclusion and let the reader decide. Do I understand your view correctly? Kaisershatner (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Let the reader decide what it means. I can't decide whether it reflects errors or confusion, but it does seem like behavior which should not have happened if clear verification had been done. The later discoveries illuminate the earlier situation, even if through a fog. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Formatting some quote boxes

Anyone interested in this proposal? (see here). Just something I have been playing around with. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The "see here" links to a test page with text in boxes. Although visually appealing on a wide screen, it competes with adjoining text and on a narrower browser window both normal and boxed text become narrow columns. I don't think the first test (diff) improves the article. The quotes should be next to text which discusses it (easily remedied by moving it down a little) and the existing text actually tells the events with quotes woven in the story. To unweave the telling would probably require longer quotes accompanied by redundant text which says pretty much the same thing. And there are existing tools for formatting longer quotes (changes to the style of other templates are a separate issue). -- SEWilco (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, will undo it. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And speaking of formatting, this may be the same monitor size discrepancy problem, but I liked the picture at the top where it was before (upper right) rather than next to the TOC. Would you put it back? I think it breaks up the long block of text and makes it less tiring to read. Note that most FAs have such an image in that spot. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, back up it goes. I was placing a priority on screen usage rather than artistic license. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"It was reported..." and missing documents

Here is a section I cut from the article. If it is to be included, it has to be cited first of all, but second, it is chronologically unrelated to the KD scandal and probably belongs in GWB military service controversy, not here. Other views? Kaisershatner (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"It was reported that the new Killian memos were inconsistent with his endorsement of Lt Bush's May 1971 performance review, a year prior to the date on the disputed documents. Killian endorsed the rating officer's evaluation of Bush, which in part described him as "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot". However, the more applicable performance review for the May 1, 1972 - April 30, 1973 period had all "Rating Factors" checked off as "Not Observed" and with the comment by the rating officer, "Lt Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of the report." This "Not Observed" rating report provoked the USAF, which overseers Air National Guard pilots, to issue a "Notice of Missing or Correction of Officer Effectiveness Training Report" on June 29, 1973. USAF Master Sgt. Daniel P. Harkness, wrote "Ratings must be entered on this officer in Sections V & VI. An AF Fm 77a should be requested from the training unit so that this officer can be rated in the position he held. This officer should have been reassigned in May 1972 since he no longer is training in his AFSC (Air Force Service Category, or job title) or with his unit of assignment." The inquiry evidently ended on November 12, 1973 when Harkness's request was denied by Major Rufus G. Martin with the comment, "Report for this period not available for administrative reasons." Analyses of these and other official records released by the Pentagon regarding Bush's military service suggest that some documents that should be in the official records are inexplicably missing: "Each of these actions by any member of the National Guard should have generated the creation of many documents that have yet to be produced," AP lawyer David Schulz wrote the Justice Department Aug. 26, 2004. White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said there were no other documents to explain discrepancies in Bush's files. "

It is a whole lot of speculation about stuff that isn't known. It also ignores the context that the Vietnam air war turned out to be different than expected (air-to-air missiles controlling the sky), with a need for machine gun dogfights and SAMs. Not only was Bush's aircraft found to not be useful in Vietnam, by the time of these memos there were Vietnam veterans flooding the Air Guard and the pilots for Bush's kind of aircraft were not needed. There are a number of reasons for encouraging evaporation of pilots. But all the above seems more relevant to the GWB controversy article than the Killian documents, as for the most part the Killian documents controversy was quite focused on the documents and those who touched them. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• George W. Bush flew the F102 Delta Dagger. As the F102 was phased out of the TexANG many F102 pilots refused to retrain on the replacement jets in the last months of their service or to compete with USAF F4 Phantom pilots returning from VietNam seeking positions in the ANG. Bush's 300 hours in the F102 and 200 hours in other aircraft gave him enough points to satisfy his guard service requirement, so his seeking nonflying status in 1972 is not unusual.Naaman Brown (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional news items and related sites

About the "additional news items" that are left after removing all sources already cited in article and dead links, can they be cut, should I just leave them alone? Same goes for "additional sites," I doubt we need to link to TKS, and I could move the Mapes link elsewhere (I would vote to keep that one). Kaisershatner (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, done distributing these except for two sources:

• Democratic National Committee "Action Alert" E-mail
• "60 Minutes Documents on Bush Might Be Fake" CNSNews.com — September 09, 2004

I would like to cut them both; the DNC action alert adds little to the story, in my view, and the CNS news source merely cites doc examiners who can't be sure about anything, and otherwise duplicates multiple sources from the same time period already in the article. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the CNS piece. Those are a couple of prominent typographers (Haley and Collins) that I don't immediately recall seeing quoted elsewhere. Though as you say, they don't say anything particularly amazing/different. 24.18.183.97 (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

why no link to authenticated Killian memos?

When I first got interested in this subject, I downloaded a copy of an authenticated memo known to be from Killian's office and typed on a monospaced typewriter. This article has links to the CBS Reports memos faxed from Kinko's by Billy Burkett. Why no links to authenticated memos from Texas ANG archives? Naaman Brown (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have seen in some of the discussions postings of memos from other Texas ANG offices, including a posting of a memo that George W. Bush sent to Col Killian: that does not show what a memo from Killlian's office would look like FCOL. The point is, do the CBS Reports memos match memos from Killian's office in that timeframe typed by secretary Marian Carr Knox on her Olympia typewriter? There are authenticated memos from Killian's office from that timeframe that have been on public record since 1999. Why not show authentic Col Killian office memos for comparison? Why show only the CBS Reports memos, or post memos from other officers and other offices? Authentic Killian memos are out there for comparison. Naaman Brown (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Because that would be original research. If a reputable published source has done this, let's look at a link. Cheers, Kaisershatner (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Does USA Today's coverage of the Bush memos controversy count as "reputable published source"?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/11-1_2004_Personnel_File.pdf
page 31 of 33, actual 3 Nov 1970 memo from office of Col Killian on promotion of Lt Bush
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-09-09bushdocs.pdf
the "Killian" memos supplied by Bill Burkett to CBS Reports
Naaman Brown (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of bias section too long?

The accusations of bias section looks a little like WP:UNDUE. Making an accusation of wrong-doing in the absence of evidence is hardly notable. Why do we need to comment on crackpot conspiracy theories on either side? Ronnotel (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Concur. The section should be cleaned up and tightened. Mark Shaw (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ronnotel, your phrase "the absence of evidence" is inaccurate; the evidence is circumstantial but that doesn't mean the same as "nonexistent" or "flimsy".

I assume your ire is directed mainly at the second paragraph. We need to keep: DNC Chair denies DNC involvement; DNC Chair notes Rove and Reed history of dirty tricks, and names other Republican figures; U.S. Representative notes that fake documents helped Rove's agenda but admits absence of direct evidence. Those are all substantive and important points. We might save a few words by paraphrasing the second McAuliffe quotation. Otherwise, I don't see much room for trimming. JamesMLane t c 21:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No ire intended. I'm just struck that the whole section looks somewhat petty. The article would hardly be worse off by reducing the section to a single sentence, such as "Prominent individuals on both sides of the political spectrum accused each of involvement in the scandal." And give some references. Ronnotel (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the article would be significantly worse off after such a virtual elimination of this section. The section recounts partisan bickering, but the partisan bickering was a significant aspect of this controversy, and the article is about the controversy itself. (Obviously, this level of coverage wouldn't be appropriate in the main article about Bush's military service.)

I've shortened the section by paraphrasing McAuliffe instead of quoting him in full, per my suggestion above. JamesMLane t c 22:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell, none of the accusations or theories about political dirty-tricksterism, from any corner, ever really went anywhere. Consequently, it would be good to be careful about overemphasizing the he-said/she-said/they-said/someone-else-said nature of the fallout from the event - particularly when actors with significant political biases and baggage (e.g. Rove, McAuliffe) are involved. Additionally, and again because these accusations never panned out, we need to be careful to present was is left in in a balanced manner.

I'm not highly invested in the idea of significant changes at the moment; I'll have to study the section a little closer before getting into specifics. This is just general, for background. Mark Shaw (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree about being balanced. That's why, when I restored the Hinchey quotation, I moved the Republican denials to their own paragraph. I thought that, buried at the end of a paragraph about Democratic accusations, the responses might tend to get lost. In general, on a controversial subject, we achieve balance by fairly presenting each significant viewpoint -- and not just saying "Mr. X believes Y", but noting the principal facts and arguments advanced by each side in support of its position. JamesMLane t c 22:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine in its current condition. Keep in mind that the political spin was a big part of the story; while CBS's defense of their actions was crumbling, the DNC was accusing Republicans of planting the memos. Kaisershatner (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that DNC accused the Bush campaign of planting the memos implies the DNC considered the memos to be fakes. Naaman Brown (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Some guys blog and some guys letter

Could someone justify why http://www.flounder.com and http://site.xavier.edu/polt/typewriters/fw.pdf are even remotely valid external links? It's some guys blog and some guys letter to the editor. Hipocrite (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Because they provide a comprehensive summary of the details of the Killian forgeries, for one thing. Mark Shaw (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Blogs are not valid external links per WP:EL, regardless of how good they are. Hipocrite (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a valid point, but: I can see by your contentious tone and the fact that you're already edit-warring this that you're going to be obstinate about it. Do you have a POV issue here? If so, I advise you to step back, take a deep breath, and wait for other responses before proceeding. In the meantime: what is your issue with the Woodworth letter? Mark Shaw (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see by your contentious tone and the fact that you're already edit-warring this t hat you're going to be obstinate about it. Do you have a POV issue here? If so, I advise you to step back, tape a deep breath, and wait for other responses before proceeding.

The woodworth letter is a letter by some guy. It does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. It's not one of the three links that "should" bel linked, and it's neither very large, a directory of websites or organiziations, and it's doesn't contain information about the subject (a document controversy) from knowledgable sources - what exactly does it have to do with a docuemnts controversy? It looks like an amature typewriter enthusaist biovating about the issue of the day. Hipocrite (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You raise points that have been raised before, and rejected. So I've reverted your changes. Discussion here may indicate that changes may be made, but achieve consensus before making them, please. htom (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

And: please keep WP:CIVIL in mind. I'm perfectly willing to work with anyone who can do that and raise good points as well, even if I do not necessarily agree with those points. If, on the other hand, you insist on mocking and assuming bad faith.... Mark Shaw (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That's super great guys. Are you interested in adressing the ponts of WP:EL that I raise, or have those fallen by the wayside? Hipocrite (talk) 07:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:EL is a style guide, not a policy document. I urge you to read the discussions in the archives. htom (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

That's just not accurate. WP:EL defines common practice with external links. Please point me to where these links were discussed. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Newcomer's analysis considered "definitive" by major media sources including Weekly Standard [10] for another thing. Appropriate to link to it. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess that provides evidence it provides "information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Could you please discuss why we need to link to the webpage as opposed to just mention what the weekly standard says? I don't like linking to blogs by random people. Hipocrite (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't care for linking to blogs by random people, either. Newcomer isn't a "random people" in the world of digital typography, and the extensive writeup on this topic posted by him isn't a blog entry, both of which are referenced (or were at one time) in the archives (use your browser to search for Newcomer.) htom (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"Why" is because people (somewhat reasonably) want to see (or should want to see) more than a newspaper's summary in one sentence of such a complex and complicated topic. Newspapers may be RS, but Newcomer is an authority on the topic, and writes, there, as such. htom (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Should we grab those pages, turn them into a .pdf, and store them over there --> with other source documents? Who to ask about this? htom (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine, whatever. I yield on Newcomer. How about the random letter? Hipocrite (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you're not actually going to discuss this, and your tone remains, uh, what it is, I have to conclude that you're just mounting a WP:JDLI exercise. The "random letter," written by a typographical expert, describes yet more specific document analysis. Mark Shaw (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

So that civility discussion from above was not applicable? I'm not mounting a don't like it campaign, I'm asking what justifies linking to this specific letter from this specific person. Above was pointed out a reason to link to a blog, and I yielded. I don't think it's unnaceptable for me to ask for the same about this letter. Hipocrite (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a letter from the editor, not to the editor. An editor who's published, for decades, using only non-computer methods. htom (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, now I get it. I don't think Fred Woodworth's fringe views about anything should be linked as neither notable, reliable nor interesting. I don't see how he, unlike Newcomber, has any mention in reliable sources as an interesting source of information. Hipocrite (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this the same Fred Woodworth? And whether he is or not, so what? The value of the typographical analysis is quite orthogonal to any perceptions you may have about the weirdness of his political views. Mark Shaw (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The statement you made above is that it was a letter from the editor. It was neither published, nor is the publisher in question anything more than a crank with a typewriter. It's just not relevent enough - how is it any more notable than, for example, me writing something on the typewriter in my closet? Hipocrite (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

PS - same PO box. Hipocrite (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The .pdf of the letter will be going away in a couple of weeks, as the host has redone their addressing scheme. Just because someone is a political crank doesn't mean that they don't make valuable contributions in other ways -- Wikipedia, itself, has more than its share, on all three sides of the blade. The difference is that you, typing in your closet, haven't been sending out a quarterly review about old books for decades. He has. htom (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"Crank with a typewriter." You do indeed have a POV problem here, obviously. Mark Shaw (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's civil to call others POV pushers? Did you read about Fred Woodworth? Hipocrite (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of civility, your tone has not changed since you started this mini-crusade. If you have legitimate concerns about anything in this article, and wish to be taken seriously about those concerns, you might want to work on that.

The material behind the two links you're complaining about speaks directly to the evidence for the Killian memos' inauthenticity. True, it would be best to have had, say, the New York Times expose these forgeries, but we know that that wasn't going to happen, so we have to work with the various people and agencies who actually did. And characterizing them as "cranks" or "some guy" isn't at all helpful.

If your underlying point is, as I suspect, that the Killian memos weren't forgeries, or that the subject of those memos is a wretch, or something else along those lines, this is not the proper forum for that argument.

(By the way, and for the record, I have no issue with your addition of the linkfarm template to the External Links section. Seems appropriate to me, as long as there is some dispute about those links.) Mark Shaw (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Stop reading "tone" into my comments. I don't care if the documents are forgeries or not - I care only that random external links to random people's blogs be removed from all articles in the encyclopedia. I don't care one whit about the referenced content in this article, and, in fact, to my knowledge, I have not edited the referenced content in this article. Please stop assuming that I have some sort of nefarious plan. Why is this specific letter notable in a way similar to the notability of the previous link? Specicifically, the previous link was mentioned in a reliable source. This link was most certainly not. I strongly advise you to take a large step back and reconsider trying to work with me, as opposed to against me. Hipocrite (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and please note that I'm objecting to only one link, the previous one having been justified by it's mention in a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else agree with Hipocrite that the link in question should be removed? For reference, we're referring to the link to the Woodworth analysis represented by this diff. Mark Shaw (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree with Hipocrite's request that it be removed, if that's not obvious. htom (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but (his wearisome manner aside), he does have a good point in that Woodworth does not seem to be referenced by any significantly reliable sources - or, at least, I could not find such via a Google search. And the other sources, Newcomer included, seem sufficient. If there's some degree of support for his position by editors not historically involved with POV-pushing on this article I'm inclined to go along with it, but I'd like to see an indication of that support. Mark Shaw (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi htom; I was also recently looking at this link. Am I understanding it correctly - it is written by Fred Woodworth and published in the Mystery and Adventure Series Review? The author seems to have a comprehensive knowledge of typography but I don't know if he is considered an expert. I googled him a bit w/r/t the Killian docs and I didn't see if he was quoted or cited elsewhere. If not, I am not sure this article _needs_ a link to his analysis; what I'm thinking is that it is different than the Newcomer analysis, which was widely cited in the WaPo and Weekly Standard et al. and which was obviously a crucial part of the KD timeline and story. However, I could be wrong. What's your view? Kaisershatner (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that Woodworth is more readable than Newhouse, especially for someone who is not knowledgeable about typesetting. I don't see other links to it, though, from RS, so it may have to go, which is sad because the removal does not improve Wikipedia, it merely makes it more conformant to one person's view of a guideline. htom (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not accurate. The leter was unpublished - private coorespondance to a guy who runs a typewriter fan website. Hipocrite (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) The letter cited is from Woodworth, to Richard Polt, and published (on the internet) by Polt on his website http://site.xavier.edu/polt/typewriters/bush.html; the relevant paragraph is probably

Now, however, I have no doubts left: the documents are definitely fakes. In order to prove this, one has to get into the nitty-gritty of sophisticated early-seventies typewriters. The man to do this is Fred Woodworth, an Arizona printer who despises computers and still produces several periodicals on a Varityper. I will let Woodworth speak for himself (with his permission). His letter to me on this topic, handsomely written on an IBM Selectric Composer, is available here as a three-page PDF file (400K). We are presenting this information solely as a matter of technical interest, not as a political statement (for the record, I'm a Democrat, and Woodworth is an anarchist). I take no position on who produced these fakes and on whether the allegations against George W. Bush are true.

How the document was transformed from paper to the web is not revealed.

(I have reformatted the preceding block of text, written (but not signed) by htom/OtterSmith, and have corrected the URL he references.) Mark Shaw (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that Polt is referenced on this issue by a source already acknowledged to be reliable. Perhaps he (specifically, the URL provided by htom just above), should be substituted for Woodworth. Mark Shaw (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mark, then my view is this: the direct link to the letter as a stand-alone link is probably unnecessary. I would support a footnote that makes reference to Polt's stated view via the Weekly Standard citation. This footnote could include a secondary link to Polt's letter, but even that might be unnecessary. Given the wealth of reliable and published sources documenting the Killian hoax, I'm not sure I would contort myself just to include this one external link. Unlike the Newcomer analysis, it is not central to the story, but rather a peripheral piece of supporting evidence in the exposure of the hoax. So the link can probably go, even if, as you correctly note, Hipocrite's manner has made this more difficult rather than easier. I would also welcome htom's opinion in case he thinks I am missing something significant here, given his significant experience with this page. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes, Mark, and good find, Kaisershatner. Newcomer's writing on the topic, for me, was definitive (the memos had seemed "off" to me from my experience in the military, but I knew enough to know that that impression could have many causes}; but I've been involved in digital typography, off and on, mostly as a use of TeX, since Knuth's first book (TeX and Metafont) on the topic. Others don't know of Newcomer (or Knuth, for that matter), and may not have the background that made Newcomer's article so compelling for me, which is why I find Woodworth's explanation a good citation; I think it is clearer for someone who has not dealt much with typographical issues. Leaving the reader to find it through a link to Polt is acceptable, I suppose, if a direct link becomes difficult. htom (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the change has been made. Mark Shaw (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

OR

A huge section of this article was WP:OR. It basically said "look at this document. It looks different than this other document." That's not acceptable. Hipocrite (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Peters observation

The following unreferenced material was lifted from the article on Ralph Peters. "Years later, during the 2004 Killian documents controversy (also known as Memogate or Rathergate), Peters pointed out that in his front-line division in 1977, five years after the memos in question were allegedly written, only the general's secretary had an electric typewriter." I've added it here for purposes of preservation and discussion. Perhaps someone can find the source of the comment -- and perhaps it adds some light to the controversy, which will improve the article. For my part, the subject is way out of my lane, so I'll defer. --S. Rich (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The direct recollection of Marian Carr Knox, secretary at Ellington Air Force Base to Lt Col Killian, that she had a manual typewriter at that time and did not have an electric typewriter until after GWB had left service, is more germane to the issue than such general observations on typewriters in use at other military offices in the 1970s. Naaman Brown (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is Johnson's GIF here?

Why is Johnson's GIF here? All he proved was that at a low resolution a Word font designed to mimic a typewriter font appears to mimic a typewriter font. There is no mention that standard resolution images shows unlevel character height alignment, never found on modern Word documents but a characteristic of typewriters of that era. Elemming (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It shows that Word's pretend typewriter is only a toy pretend typewriter. One of the persistent claims has been that the documents were from Selectric typewriters, which have a level type line. (Someone who knows how please move this to the bottom. tnx htom) htom (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

(Okay.)

Can a Selectric Times ball make a reduced superscript "th"? —Tamfang (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hard to say, there were hundreds of specialty Selectric balls made. There was a tool (Select-Type?) that I used on a typebar typewriter that could insert such a character (it didn't match the typeface exactly, there were many engineering, chemical, and language glyphs available) and I think it could be used on a Selectric. The secretary said somewhere she didn't use it. htom (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Gawd.... This "discussion" captures how truly ignorant people, including especially the press, were and still are about common office technology from the 50's on through the 70's. Johnson's GIF is an ode to ignorance about Times-Roman fonts and their lookalikes, as well as proportional printing (which was apparently common in pre-Selectric typewriters) in general, which existed well before the PC era. Here, why don't some of the supposed typewriter experts here comment on this forensics piece from the 50's. Wikipedia really should add a "rolling eyes" symbol. -BC aka 209.6.92.99 (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"Typ-It" was the name. Proportional printing existed, but not via typewriters that would have been used in the purported documents. There were typewriters that could do somewhat proportional spacing, but they were not nearly as common as you seem to think they were. htom (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The point is that you are not anywhere close to being an expert, but you've pretended to be here and on the other Killian Wikipedia article, including joining in undermining any attempt to show how common proportional printing actually was throughout government going back to the 50's (among other things...) As far as your contention proportional printing wasn't that common, I just spent all of about 2 minutes to Google up this, which is about two minutes more of research than what anybody in the press did when this was a hot topic.

The news outlets collectively did no real research nor hired any real document forensics experts, including even CBS when they commissioned that supposed independent panel to look into matters. And "Buckhead," who got the forgery charges rolling, basically admitted in 2008 he no idea what he was talking about. Charles Johnson is/was a musician who did some programming back for the old Atari computers and then later website development -- there is absolutely nothing in his background showing him to be any sort of export in document forensics. Indeed his little GIF overlay trick only works -- barely, if you look closely enough -- on only one of the 4 Killian memos that CBS used: it doesn't work at all with the longer, more complicated documents, which is what you would expect if it really wasn't the same font in the first place. If it was as easy as Johnson claimed it would be, why didn't he do the others? Because not only he couldn't but nobody could. For all the talk, you and the others pretending to be experts here have never, ever posted any link to any source that wasn't just confused nonsense. -BC aka 209.6.92.99 (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That Buckhead doesn't understand his own accusation doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the accusation. That Jensen Motors had typewriter that did non-monospaced typing is irrelevant; show other documents from that office at that time that match that memo. It should be easy, since all of those memos were typed on that typewriter. Do you have any other examples showing that proportional typing from that office? htom (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Geez, you said "There were typewriters that could do somewhat proportional spacing, but they were not nearly as common as you seem to think they were," and it took me all of about 2 minutes to prove you wrong. What, just because some small car manufacturer in England was writing proportionally printed letters to its customers in 1970, that has nothing at all to do with how the forgery accusations started over memos being proportionally printed in 1972 and 1973? And what "office" are you talking about, actually? Killian's? The office typewriting pool? The base commander's? How about the Texas Air National Guard's Adjutant General at the time, Ross Ayers? It certainly looks like he personally had something that could rather cleanly proportionally print around that time, at least according to this sample. How many times over do you have to be proven wrong in every single one of your "points" before you admit that you have no clue whatsoever about any of this stuff? Seriously. -BC aka 209.6.92.99 (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? Yes, I think you're serious about your complaint about the article. I also think your opinion about the article is incorrect. Seriously. htom (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, my link to Ayers's letter didn't post correctly, but you replied anyhow without noting it, as well as ignoring my main point that you have yet to provide a single shred of real evidence to support any of your points. Obviously I have real complaints with both of the Killian articles -- they're disinformational garbage. There isn't even a link to this Texas Monthly article that casually upends some key points the research-challenged pro-forger nutcases and news media dummies had made. But I know better than to touch anything on the articles themselves -- the usual gang of anonymous IP's and nutcase, weaselly & uncomprehending editors will show up and deliberately obstruct anything that might make either article less garbagey. -BC aka 209.6.92.99 (talk) 11:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"Interesting, my link to Ayers's letter didn't post correctly, but you replied anyhow without noting it, ...." Cause, effect? htom (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Back to surreal comments, are we? Yeah, what possible relevance could a clearly proportionally printed 1973 letter from the Texas Air National Guard's Adjutant General have to do with whether proportional printing was available to Texas military people in 1972 and 1973? Geez... This was suppose to be a section about Johnson's GIF, which Elemming (talk) noted as having a characteristic not of modern word processors. That's because it was not created with a modern word processor, although instead of some typewriter (or as some people call it -- a "Selectric"), it may have been printed out with one of the many word processors coming to market during the beginning of the 70's (and which IBM began making way back in 1964,) all of whom I should mention could also store documents on magnetic cards or tapes to be printed later (and on different equipment). But I'm just a random dude on the Internet, so what do I know.... -BC aka 209.6.92.99 (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete the Opinion of an English Professor on whether a typewriter could produce the Times New Roman-like font

The opinion of an English teacher is not reliable on the topic of typewriters and what they can produce. The mere fact that an opinion is mentioned in some secondary source, does not justify it as reliable. Thus I have deleted this material which came at the end of a paragraph as if the definitive conclusion. If someone wants to put a statement like that, he needs to quote a typewriter expert. (EnochBethany (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC))

When exactly was the 1973 era?

... comparing what CBS claimed to be a 1973-era typewritten memo with a proportional-spaced 2004-era Microsoft Word document ...

It's hardly unique to this article but— Is the suffix –era necessary, helpful, or even meaningful? Is it there because someone worried that the numbers might be taken as cardinals ("hey, it's only one memo, not thousands") rather than dates? —Tamfang (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

What office equipment from the early 70's could and couldn't do apparently was one of those riddle wrapped in a mystery kind of thingys as far as the 2004-era news media was concerned. Evidently researching things so far back in time was totally beyond the primitive resources that were available in 2004, with very low-powered computers running obsolete operating systems, and a barely functioning Internet that would struggle to even download a low-rez picture. Today, though, practically everyone has access to high powered, modern computers and can use something like "Google" to quickly search a much faster Internet, allowing anyone to easily come up with samples of 1970's documents like this. It's just unfortunate that the news media in the early to mid-2000's did not have the technical resources we have today; otherwise, the story might have had a different ending. -BC aka 209.6.92.99 (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The question has never been what office equipment could do in the 1970s in general, or in Washington, D.C.; the question is what could the office equipment in the office at TXANG in Texas do then? htom (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Ummm, no -- that's been your unanswerable question. As a reminder of how this whole "controversy" started, see this 2004 Seattle Times article. The question was never about what office equipment was physically present at TexANG (although someone there could proportionally print personal letters), it was initially all about how supposedly unusual proportional printing was in those days. That's what drove the forgery claims -- along with the news media unable to bother with gathering up typical samples of military and government memos and letters from around that time to see if proportional printing really was very unusual then and hence suspect.

Actually, since I at least have found few problems finding proportionally printed letters and memos from not just that time period, but from well before then, including from an Adjutant General of the Texas National Guard, then the correct question should be, "Why wouldn't there be any office equipment on base that could proportionally print if best evidence shows that it was not at all uncommon in those days?" If you are accusing someone of forgery, lying, or such, the burden is on you to back up your claims, and not for the accused to prove innocence. And if the initial "evidence" for supporting the accusation turns out to be rubbish, well....

But since you've so far ignored all evidence indicating that proportional printing was not at all that unusual back then, along with how the formatting of the documents is totally compliant with all other similar memos from back then (as well as in keeping with military guides on the topic), I can no doubt safely assume that you will ignore all this to make another completely unsupported, random comment, eh?

This Killian documents business shows the fatal flaw in Wikipedia's democratization of knowledge: if you have enough ideologues who can push through a version of reality counter to best evidence, they will try, especially if it's related to a "sensitive" topic. Given the sorry state journalism has been in for a while now, it's not at all hard to troll for bad, poorly researched info from supposedly reliable sources in order to cook a Wikipedia article. And Wikipedia's depreciation of primary sources relative to secondary sources has greatly aided this. But whatever, it is what it is: there is, and has never been any good evidence for forgery in this case. -BC aka 209.6.92.99 (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Your beliefs are not evidence. htom (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

??? You're the one with all the beliefs and not one shred of evidence whatsoever to ever support them, remember? I'm the one with all the links and samples, including some from TexANG, showing proportional printing was not at all unusual at that time, as well as to this Texas Monthly article showing that the main instigator of the forgery charges, "Buckhead" aka Harry MacDougald, was a liar. Did you not ever realize that clicking on the colored text in my posts would take you to magical places? -BC aka 209.6.92.99 (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Topic drift, gotta love it. It doesn't often happen so completely so quickly! —Tamfang (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Proof?

Your graphic showing how the text printed on a computer was very close to the text printed on the "forged" documents was very interesting.

I would expect the type faces to match. That is what using a defined type face is.

Someone back in England in 1931 spent a lot of time to pick characters, line widths, and extra details called serifs and character widths to to make this set of attractive characters.

Then along came typewriter manufactures who worked very hard to exactly copy this set of drawings into their keys. Likewise there were newspaper people that worked hard to exactly copy this set of characters into their type setting machines. Later computer people also worked very hard to exactly copy this set of characters, or this type face into their printers. Again this is what a defined type face is.

Now you seemed surprised they match. They are supposed to match. I would be very surprised if they did not match. Perhaps I am missing something but please tell me why this is proof of a forgery? Arydberg (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 11:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I found this which got my curiosity way up - http://www.martypearce.com/wordpress/about/ This woman describes herself thus: I am a certified forensic document examiner, with over 30 years experience in handwriting & typewriting identification. And guess where she got some training? The Institute of Graphological Science Workshop, Buckhead, GA 1993 Strange coincidence. I wonder if she is the mysterious Buckhead? I have emailed an inquiry. Txantimedia (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I just spoke to her on the phone. She didn't deny that she was Buckhead but suggested that I contact the FBI for assistance with typewriter fonts. Txantimedia (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Killian documents controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060619025429/http://www.boston.com:80/news/nation/articles/2004/09/15/for_the_record/ to http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/15/for_the_record/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091002082508/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/nm/20090929/tv_nm/us_rather_cbs_1 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090929/tv_nm/us_rather_cbs_1

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal commentary

Read this: http://www.wsj.com/articles/dan-rather-still-wrong-after-all-these-years-1445295792 98.118.62.140 (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a pretty nonsensical opinion piece that only echoes the equally nonsensical claims by the original group of right wing bloggers. Its reference to the CBS panel report as an "exhaustive, and ultimately devastating, independent review of the affair that would become known as “Rathergate” showed, the segment had a way of ignoring facts that subverted its viewpoint" is also nonsensical -- that panel report was highly criticized, and it was particularly devastatingly taken apart in this "review" in the New York Review of Books. The two people who headed up the panel; report, Dick Thornburgh and Lou Boccardi, took issue with the review, which led to this exchange that also showed how poorly the panel "investigated" matters. To this day, there still isn't any seriously substantiated evidence for forgery, and serious critiques like that in the NY Book Review, and this extensive Texas Monthly article from a few years back (which also revealed that the infamous "Buckhead" blogger didn't actually know anything at all about what he was posting about) have showed little reason to believe the forgery claims.

Wikipedia rules pretty much don't allow primary sources to be used, which means that Wikipedia articles are dependent on sources like the WSJ for entering content, however poorly researched (if researched at all) they might be. Years ago I tried to introduce old proportionally printed memos like this, but they were all removed. The same with military writing guides and references to how common, old office tech wasn't exactly all about typewriters. Whatever -- history, shmistory. -BC aka 209.6.92.99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That Seattle Times article debunking "Buckhead" overlooks something: as a lawyer, one of his specialties was authenticating questioned documents so in fact he did actually know what what he was posting about. That article was a hatchet job attacking his politics and says nothing about his qualifications as a document examiner. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

??? Authenticating questioned documents is a [specialized skill] that few if any lawyers have -- that's pretty much always done by outside experts, and even Buckhead himself *never* pretended to be anything like that. His only claimed "expertise" was that he worked in offices that had computers, printers, and such. You could say the same of any average secretary who's been around for a while. -BC aka 209.6.92.99 (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Killian documents controversy. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://onlinejournal.com/bush/031903Burkett/031903burkett.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Dan Rather's Interview With Marion Carr Knox

Under External Links, I have added Dan Rather's September 15, 2004 interview with Marion Carr Knox at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqVaNSzEgEw . Knox stated: "I did not type those memos," which had been shown on the broadcast. "However, the information in those is correct." I am wondering if these quotations should be incorporated in the article itself. Italus (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I've made a few substantial edits on that paragraph. I came to the talk page to see if I should start a new section, but seeing your comment, I can see why the paragraph was confusing to me. Probably because you inserted some statements after someone else had written most of the body of the article, the tone of the paragraph when I read it was rather bizarre; it was confused about her motivation, and it didn't sufficiently indicate that her claims were controversial, which was heavily discussed in two of the cited articles. It also neglected to mention Rather's most notorious phrase ("exactly correct"), which later became part of the controversy about his conduct/behavior (see the report). I've tried to put these facts into the existing paragraph with minimal disruption to its flow and use of sourcing; let me know if there's anything problematic. 73.61.22.238 (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Biased

This article has become biased propaganda again in defense of uninformed right-wing bloggers and CBS covering it's ass. Most of the language used needs to changed to revert to neutral and nonpartisan. If you go back through the archives of TALK you can find the links to articles that do not support the present tone have been removed in the edit wars which the conservatives appear to have won. I am sure if I start changing the article correcting the tone and adding neutral comprehensive articles it will just set off another edit war. Elemming (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Killian documents controversy. 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/20070927230255/http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/21939.html?cprose=5-39 to http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/21939.html?cprose=5-39
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060210152055/http://onlinejournal.com/bush/031903Burkett/031903burkett.html to http://onlinejournal.com/bush/031903Burkett/031903burkett.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0904/19bushguard.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070809230831/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002039080_buckhead18.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002039080_buckhead18.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.is/J6DPu
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.is/GYENp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517145336/https://archive.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/03/09/rather/index.html to http://archive.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/03/09/rather/index.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

"Truth" (movie)?

Read this:

http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/30/the-truth-about-dan-rathers-deceptive-reporting-on-george-w-bush/

98.118.62.140 (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)