Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:05, 7 October 2007

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Killian documents controversy. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Killian documents controversy at the Reference desk.

Archives

Archive 1 up to September 22, 2004 Archive 2 through end of 2004 (includes article name vote) Archive 3 up to April 15, 2005 Archive 4 up to December 2005 Archive 5 up to March 2006 Archive 6 up to September 2006 Archive 7 up to April 2007 Archive 8 up to September 2007

Talk page dispute

Instead of removing bits of the discussion and combing through BLP and NPA violations, I've just archived it all in hopes that this will help inspire the participants to start fresh. Some things to keep in mind:

• Do not start new sections that serve no other purpose than to complain about or attack another user.
• Do not use this talk page to expound upon your opinions about or to needlessly restate facts about the controversy or its participants.
• Attacks on other users or on living individuals will not be tolerated and will be removed.

Thank you. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Article title

Why is this article titled "Killian documents" when these memos are widely considered as not originating from Killian at all, including by his own family? I think this article should be called "Burkett documents" since Bill Burkett is the sole source for these six documents. 74.77.222.188 02:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A reminder:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Killian documents article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

-BC aka Callmebc 02:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your reminder doesn't pertain to the subject I am raising at all. I'm obviously discussing improvements to the article. 74.77.222.188 03:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL -BC aka Callmebc 03:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI 74.77.222.188 04:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's stay on topic, please. The title should reflect the most common term used to refer to these documents, not the one which we personally think is the most correct or accurate. There is no evidence that the phrase "Burkett documents" is in widespread usage, so it should not be used as the title of the article. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 03:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. But, then, the previous title of this article, "Rathergate", is in far more widespread usage than "Killian documents". 74.77.222.188 04:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that is true. I certainly haven't observed any widespread usage of "rathergate", much less a usage significant enough to change the title of the article. That is not the only consideration, however. On Misplaced Pages, we favor more formal, neutral, and dull titles, as opposed to loaded, colorful, slang titles, e.g. White House travel office controversy instead of "Travelgate". Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 05:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a way to see what redirects and titles get the most traffic? "Rathergate" redirects here. How many times does that get typed into the search box vs "Killian documents"? I certainly agree that "Killian documents" is more neutral than "Rathergate", but I don't think it's neutral enough, in the sense that it implies Killian wrote them, which, as we all know, is very widely considered to not be the case. No one disagrees, however, that the documents came from Bill Burkett. Just food for thought. 74.77.222.188 05:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Misplaced Pages is keeping such statistics. For the Google test: "Rathergate" 484,000, "Killian documents" 15,200, "Burkett documents" 348. Burkett documents doesn't seem to be common usage. (SEWilco 03:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

See Article naming -BC aka Callmebc 07:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Corrections and improvements needed for the opening paragraph

1) For one thing, there is no key background or context whatsoever given for CBS's airing of the story, most especially in not mentioning that CBS's report was only one of many press investigations into Bush's Guard service, not just in 2004, but also notably during the 2000 presidential campaign and during Bush's run for Governor of Texas in 1994 . In fact, just the day prior to the CBS story, Sept. 7, 2004, there was another major release Bush's Guard records and these too showed that there were issues with Bush's Guard service . CBS's interest in obtaining the Killian documents was a direct result of these longstanding questions, stirred up even further by Sen. Kerry's Vietnam service and his later antiwar activities being heavily targeted by right wing groups.

2) It is patently misleading to claim that "Many media sources have asserted that the memos are forgeries" -- those "Many media sources" are actually almost exclusively conservative/right media sources and especially blogs hostile to Kerry, CBS and Dan Rather. A quick Google shows this.

Articles and programs from The Washington Post, CNN, USA Today, and numerous other mass media sources, have characterized the memos as probable forgeries. 74.77.222.188 03:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITE; Neutrality_and_verifiability

74.77.222.188 05:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, I clicked on the first few and did a search on any word beginning with "forg" and only the 3rd mentions forgery, but only the context of quoting what someone else believed, and that someone was right wing fave, Joseph Newcomer. Could you please find some mainstream, reliable refs that actually say the memos are "probable forgeries"? That is what you're claiming, is it not? -BC aka Callmebc 05:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought you could read between the lines. You could try the other links, but if you want major mass media sources blatantly calling the documents "discredited", "now-discredited" and "widely discredited", here you go:

See: WP:SYN

So, let me get this straight, does this mean you're totally fine with the article stating that major mainstream media organizations have categorized the memos as discredited? 74.77.222.188 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You're probably the kind of guy who likes to split hairs, but the reason they're considered discredited is because they're considered to be phony. In other words, forged. 74.77.222.188 06:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, for obvious reasons, I have to be super careful. But as far as your assertion goes, see and again: WP:SYN -BC aka Callmebc 07:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no synthesis in stating that typography experts quoted in various major mainstream media sources have concluded that the memos are forgeries. There are zero experts claiming that they are genuine. 74.77.222.188 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching for a MSM report saying that the documents are forgeries, and I haven't seen one. There are plenty of news items, op-eds etc hinting that they documents were forged, but that doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's requirements. So, until/unless the NYT or WaPo or someone similar says explicitly that the documents are forged, Misplaced Pages should use terms like "alleged forgeries". Citing this 2004 CNN report lets us use "discredited", but even then we'd need to be cautious. (BTW, this is an example of Misplaced Pages's rules working properly.) Cheers, CWC 16:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with "discredited". Even CBS itself characterized them as such. Of course, they're considered discredited in the first place because of the likelihood that they're forgeries. 74.77.222.188 19:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

3) The comment "aired by CBS on September 8, 2004, less than two months before the 2004 Presidential Election" falsely implies that this was somehow a singular effort by CBS in order to cast questions on Bush's service, when in fact other media outlets, most especially the Associated Press, were also raising the exact same questions using official Guard records. In fact obtaining the Guard records from the DoD was an effort in itself, causing the AP to file an FOIA lawsuit that resulted in those records that were released on Sept. 7 .

It doesn't imply that at all. It's a factual statement and it explains exactly why the story was so explosive and part of why it became so infamous. 74.77.222.188 03:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Information suppression

Considering your record of deletions on this talk page, you are the last person who should be bringing up information suppression. The story aired on CBS in the middle of a presidential election. That is crucial to the story. Your attempt to excise that information is unconscionable. It doesn't falsely imply anything. The idea that CBS had no idea their reporting might impact the election is, of course, absurd. 74.77.222.188 05:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, was there something factually wrong with my 3rd point? Were there not a lot of other press investigations about Bush's service record all year long, up to and and even after the time of the memos ?And in regards to your last comment, see . -BC aka Callmebc 06:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC) An -BC aka Callmebc 06:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, you can't possibly be suggesting that this page not focus on CBS. Can you? Those documents are a CBS story. It was their scoop. They aired it. 74.77.222.188 05:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

How would giving a mention of the context of CBS's story change the focus away from the memos? I do believe tt's called introduction and background. -BC aka Callmebc 06:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's called muddying the water. This is a clear story. CBS went ahead with a story hinging on documents they failed to authenticate. It has nothing to do with the Associated Press. 74.77.222.188 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

ISTM that those words ("aired by CBS ...") do imply an effort to hurt Bush politically (which we know Mary Mapes was trying to do), but not a singular effort. So I'm happy to leave them in. CWC 16:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

4) Given the above, not including a link to the George W. Bush military service controversy right off the bat along with Killian documents authenticity issues also shows a lack of proper context and backgound.

A logical, accurate, and fair assessment, no? -BC aka Callmebc 02:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Argh! Of course we should link to George W. Bush military service controversy, preferably in the lede section. Thanks for spotting this, BC. CWC 16:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Having a bias does not disqualify a person from editing here. Most editors can keep their biases out of the articles. CWC 16:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. I think your one man crusade is in direct violation of WP:COI since you are the creator of this website. You have a clear bias and as such have no business editing this article. 74.77.222.188 03:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Having a bias does not disqualify a person from editing here. Most of us find it fairly easy to keep our biases out of the articles. CWC 16:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of us, but not User:Callmebc. Have you seen what he's tried to do to the lead? Check his edit history. 74.77.222.188 20:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Let the facts speak for themselves

-BC aka Callmebc 03:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Facts

1 - The originals have never turned up to date.

You are stating this without a source. Also none of the DoD docs are originals either, plus Xerox machines were plentiful even in those ancient days.

Without a source? You must be joking. The originals turning up would be a news story on a par with the Ark of the Covenant turning up. As for your other point, there is obviously a huge difference between copies coming from the Department of Defense and copies coming from Bill Burkett. 74.77.222.188 07:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out that you keep saying "This happened, and that happened, and he said, and she said, and so on, and so forth...." without citing stuff refs to back up each item. Getting refs for every assertion may be a pain but you need to do it. While some things may be generally known and have been discussed as length at in newpapers and on TV, some others may be just questionable stuff "discussed" on places like "Hannity & Colmes" and circulating in right wing blog sites. I've always done this regardless as good research, and Misplaced Pages requires it, WP:CITE. Stirring in sketchy stuff and opinion with known facts just makes for a sketch and messy argument.

And why should it be that the DoD is allowed to use copies and nobody else, especially given DoD's behavior in releasing the records, from "accidently" destroying records to having a judge intervene. That judge bit is especially significant because the files that were released because of that, the ones labeled "Documents Released on September 24, 2004" located on the DoD site contained the only proportionally printed record in the whole DoD collection, along with a couple of other funkily formatted documents. The Sept. 24 date is especially curious when you look as what had happened just before then: and . But regardless of this, Xerox machines and such were indeed common then, a point of mine you failed to address, along with microfiche and microfilm machines for archiving documents. If you look through all the DoD copies of Bush's records, not only will you see vast differences in quality (the flight logs are particularly bad) but even multiple, variable copies of the same records that had been stored in locations unknown. The memos also show similarly highly variable quality, especially when you try to do the Times New Roman match-up trick -- actually a couple are so bad that they look much more like they came from microfilm/microfiche as well ,

It's insane to hold the Department of Defense and Bill Burkett to the same standard. The DoD released one proportionally spaced document out of over a hundred pertaining to Bush's service. It did not come from Killian. It did not come from that TANG office. It does not match the type of the disputed documents. One out of over a hundred. But it's believable that all six of Burkett's memos are proportionally spaced? Please. 74.77.222.188 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

2 - The supposed author of the memos, Jerry Killian, is dead.

Yeah, so is Harris. Sad. But wait -- isn't Bush still around? Gosh, maybe if someone just asks him if the memos are real or not, we could end all this bickering and maybe have a beer. I for one would be happy to be proven wrong -- the idea that the President would just let people like Mapes and Rather dangle in the wind for no good reason....makes me nervous.

The story from the White House has always been that he did his duty fully and honorably and the official documents from the DoD support that. 74.77.222.188 07:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Read that back to yourself out loud. Also check out what then White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett gave to "Stephen from Colorado Springs" when asked about the CYA memo during an "Ask the White House" Q&A session. That really cleared up matters, eh? I should mention also that Bartlett knew Burkett and was one of the people Burkett named as having been involved in scrubbing Bush's records about 10 years ago -BC aka Callmebc 13:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Bill Burkett's story has been backed up by no one. Not one soul has verified it. He has changed his story on multiple occasions and backtracked saying his story was "not accurate" and "overstated". You're probably going to ask me to cite that, too, but it's all in the cites contained in this locked article. Try reading them. 74.77.222.188 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

3 - Jerry Killian's wife and son say he didn't write the memos and that the content of the memos reflect the opposite of his true opinions of Bush.

Hmmmm...that's funny, Marian Knox, who was actually working at the base, says otherwise: . Also from I know personally, family members are often if not pretty clueless about what the dad does at work, especially military guys. But you say you're an ex-Yeoman -- your significant other knew all about what you were doing?

Killian's son was also in the Guard. He says no officer in his right mind would ever write memos like that. He also says Bush requested to go to Vietnam. Twice. As for Knox, the record says otherwise. Actually authenticated Killian documents say that Bush is "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot." 74.77.222.188 07:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

And how would Killian's son know that Bush requested to go to Vietnam twice? And you're being deliberatelyh a teeny bit misleading about what the "record says" -- you're quoting an older rating report from when Bush was apparently still mostly doing his service acceptibly well. His last rating report, which was done amid all the skethy and questionable stuff, says quite the opposite: . -BC aka Callmebc 13:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Killian's son knows Bush requested Vietnam service twice because his dad told him so: Also, you apparently don't know what the word "opposite" means.74.77.222.188 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

4 - The only source of the documents is a notorious Bush basher and a man who admitted to lying about where the documents came from.

"notorious Bush basher"? I think you have to remove this as per: WP:LIVING

He's notorious for bashing Bush. That's just true. 74.77.222.188 07:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

5 - After being caught lying, this known Bush basher and admitted liar said he got the memos from a mysterious woman.

Again I think you have to remove this as per: WP:LIVING

6 - This mysterious woman has never been identified.

Sort of like using anonymous IP addresses, eh? Intriguing, but this has to do with...what now?

It illustrates that Bill Burkett is the sole source for the documents. 74.77.222.188 07:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

7 - When pressed about the originals, the known Bush basher and admitted liar said he burned them.

Again: WP:LIVING

8 - No one has been able to reproduce the memos with technology from the time period. If you can do it, there's a $50,000 reward in it for you.

I checked and the offer is no longer there. I doubt that they would have paid up anyway -- I could only find functioning daisywheel printers going back to the early 80's. There is this 1973 document I have that's in that faux Arial font , but that's not Times Roman. Oh well....

Oh well. Of course, according to your website, daisywheel printers might be found in law offices, but not the TANG. 74.77.222.188 07:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

9 - The source of the memos said on Democratic websites and email lists prior to the airing of the story that "down and dirty" tactics were justified to keep Bush from winning election.

WP:CITE

74.77.222.188 07:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

10 - He also said that he and others had "reassembled" documents damaging to Bush a few weeks before the CBS story aired.

I hate to be a nudge, but: WP:CITE

74.77.222.188 07:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what those facts say to User:Callmebc, but they speak loud and clear to most of us.

Hmmm....

LOL! That's a good one. But, come on, Bill Burkett's history and statements have to give you pause about the veracity of the documents that he is the sole source for. They couldn't have come from a less credible source. 74.77.222.188 07:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

74.77.222.188 05:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it for you to remove your personal attacks on Burkett -- see . -BC aka Callmebc

I'd remove them if they were untrue. A prerequisite of libel is that the information is false. Bill Burkett is famed for bashing Bush and is an admitted liar. 74.77.222.188 07:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Again: WP:CITE and WP:LIVING -BC aka Callmebc 14:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Geez Louise, have you read any of the cites in this article? Do you know anything about the story that you so badly want to edit? 74.77.222.188 19:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to repeat your opinion of Burkett over and over again. Please refrain unless directly relevant to the immediate discussion. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• What exactly are we fighting about? A forensic expert stated that they were "probably forgeries", which is cited in the article. CBS admits that they have never been able to authenticate them, which is also cited. It isn't necessary, nor is it proper, to use Misplaced Pages's voice to state that the ARE forgeries. There is enough factual information for most people to be able to draw the conclusion that they are probably forgeries. The same goes with the Burkett characterizations. If there are reliable source statements about his character or motives, then cite and attribute them. But it's not proper to for Misplaced Pages's voice to state those allegations as fact. - Crockspot 16:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The language in the lead that stood unchallenged until User:Callmebc showed up was: "Subsequently, a number of expert forensic document examiners concluded that the six memos are almost certain forgeries." Why he has a problem with that, I have no idea. Oh, wait, it's because he (or she) and Mary Mapes are the only people in the entire world who think that they're genuine. Even Bill Burkett doesn't vouch for their authenticity anymore. 74.77.222.188 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What if the "almost certain" was changed to "probably"? That sounds more neutral, and more in line with the sources to me. - Crockspot 19:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"probably forged", "most likely forged", whatever. Except that some of these experts flat out said that they're definitely forged and certainly forged, so I think the original language in the lead saying they were found to be "almost certainly forged" is all the softening of an absolute needed. 74.77.222.188 19:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any expert saying "definitely" forged, except maybe on blogs and other not-quite-Reliable venues. IIRC, they all say "probably" or "almost certainly" forged. I like Crockspot's suggestion: "probably forged". The current wording ("Many media sources have asserted that the memos are forgeries.") is far too strong (and uncited ... oops). Let's fix it. Cheers, CWC 16:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Newcomer said they were definitely forged and was widely quoted in the mainstream media. I agree with your assessment of the current wording. 74.77.222.188 19:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding a "Commonly believed misconceptions" section?

As you can see from the above debate, a large number of unsubstantiated rumors and outright falsehoods regarding the memos are in wide circulation, especially among the right wing/conservative media and blogosphere. I think it would therefore be very wise, as well as save on needless, unending debate, to create a new section that lists at least the most common of these misperceptions along with a description of where and how the misperception originated and then contrast that to what the actual verifible evidence indicates. I think that would help alleviate much of the circular bickering this topic tends to cause.

The documents are forged, the forgery is proven, and trying to pretend otherwise is highly POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.157.14 (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

And please follow Misplaced Pages policies when objecting or debating this suggestion or specific issues with it. The above "Corrections and improvements" section is actually in violation of several Misplaced Pages policies, but I for one will leave it alone. But any further unsourced assertions (including using refs that don't specifically support the contention) or personal attacks on living persons will be summarily removed as is done in the discussion pages of other controversial wiki topics such as Global Warming. Remember, as the masthead says: This is not a forum for general discussion of Killian documents. Any such messages will be deleted. along with This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Killian documents article. -BC aka Callmebc 14:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Everything I've typed is supported and cited. What are these "unsubstantiated rumors" and "outright falsehoods" you speak of? 74.77.222.188 19:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc added a similar section to the Talk page of Killian documents authenticity issues and is also editing that page. (SEWilco 19:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

For future reference, Callmebc's source for his "no proof" assertion is the Columbia Journalism article by Corey Pein, which specifically addresses the question here:

On September 11, a self-proclaimed typography expert, Joseph Newcomer, copied the experiment, and posted the results on his personal Web site. .... Red flags wave here, or should have. Newcomer begins with the presumption that the documents are forgeries, and as evidence submits that he can create a very similar document on his computer. This proves nothing — you could make a replica of almost any document using Word. Yet Newcomer’s aggressive conclusion is based on this logical error.

There are several problems with just this brief exerpt.

1. Newcomer is not a "self-proclaimed typography expert." He developed the typesetting software for one of the earliest laser printing systems, and co-wrote a published article about it; he created computer fonts and font-editing software; and he wrote about Windows font technology for a published book. Pein's snide remark borders on libel.
2. Newcomer did not "begin with the presumption" of forgery. He read about the experiment on LGF and, instead of blindly accepting the results, decided to repeat the experiment himself. This is known in some circles as "the scientic method."
3. Pein, on the other hand, provides no experiment or data to support his falsifiable claim that Word can be used to duplicate any document. The claim is wrong; Word's typography is quite rigid compared to systems like Postscript or TeX.
4. In any case, Newcomer has said clearly that he did not have to fiddle with the documents in Word to make them match. He just typed in the paragraphs using the default settings.

Pein fundamentally did not do his homework, and it reflects very poorly on the CSJ staff that they accepted his article. Metro newspaper reporters who have done their homework have confirmed that there is beaucoups evidence that the documents faxed to CBS are not photocopies of original memos. Certain unfortunate people like Pein, Rather, and Mapes may choose to set their standard of proof on an ad-hoc basis to get the desired outcome, but that is their problem. This article is not going to deny that the evidence exists. Gazpacho 00:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Coming around again

Gamaliel, and colleagues, I was going to explain how this argument over the intro has come and gone at least once or twice before, but reviewing the archives of Talk I see Gamaliel was in the thick of it about a year before I started editing this article in 2005, over two years ago. On a practical level, regarding the introduction: The statement "As no original documents have been produced, it is difficult to ascertain their validity," could be more precise. Without originals it is impossible to positively authenticate the documents. However, more than a few document examiners concluded the docs were forged, including as we all know the expert retained by the Thornburgh-Boccardi investigation, on the basis of typography, abbreviations, content, and uh, the fact that it matches a Microsoft Word document (gee, what are the odds on that?). On the other hand, it is not factual to assert the docs are definitively forged; this has not been "proven." MOST people upon reviewing the chain of extremely unlikely events, timing, provenance, and physical characteristics such as typography and content associated with these documents will conclude they are not authentic, but it is not our job to conclude this in the article. This is despite whatever legitimate criticisms may exist about the GWB military service issue. I disagree with CallmeBC's position regarding authenticity BUT I am not against linking to GWB military service controversy - I think we used to have that link in there and it is part of the context. Let people read about GWB's military service problems if they want, and let them also read how CBS and Mapes were so desperate to get Bush before the election they went to air with basically no evidence and then lied about it for two weeks. So what can we do to unlock and edit the article? Kaisershatner 14:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait for the inauguration of the next U.S. President? ;) I hope that once the topic becomes history rather than politics passions about this page might cool. htom 17:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Is President Bush a primary candidate in your state? (SEWilco 03:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

That doesn't matter, I live in Minnesota; we haven't voted for a Republican since 1972 (Nixon). htom 04:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, so the article should not be blocked in Minnesota. Unless Dan Rather runs for office. (SEWilco 04:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

A cupla comments

I'm back. I actually have to finish other wiki matters before returning to dealing with informational train wrecks that make up the Killian wikis, but I can make a few comments.

1) All of the information originating from right wing blog/conservative blog site regarding the memos, starting at the very beginning with "Buckhead's" pile of factlessness, , are demonstrably, factually confused, wrong or outright fabrications in either their entirety or in their key assertions. Feel free to challenge me on this, but under the condition that all I have to do is just show at least half the "points" in whatever claim is being made to be wrong to discredit the entire assertion. Some right wingers are under the impression that if they make, say, 10 allegations, the burden is on you to disprove all 10 of them -- no. If someone tells you 10 things and you discover that the first 5 are wrong, you've already got yourself a completely discredited source if not outright liar.

"If someone tells you 10 things and you discover that the first 5 are wrong, you've already got yourself a completely discredited source if not outright liar." Would that be like Bill Burkett? From what I read he made some discredited claims about being transferred to Panama etc. and CBS itself considered him to be of dubious credibility prior to his involvement in the Killian thing. Kaisershatner 13:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"From what I read"? Be careful to source your allegations when dealing with living persons as per Misplaced Pages policy . This long interview with Burkett doesn't exactly portray either a bad man or a cunning forger, . Burkett claimed he lied to protect his source, and given all the angry fuss the memos had generated, any source would have been wise to not be named. Also these types of memos are personal notes and not official records, so they had to have been stored off base all this time, and given their likely possible locations, I can't think of any circumstances where these types of documents would have been obtained with permission. Meaning that whoever took them or copied them did so illegally. Also please don't put an entry like this and mark it as a "minor" edit. -BC aka Callmebc 15:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, I am free to write that "I have read Burkett is a completely discredited source" on a Talk page without providing a footnote for myself. I am not asserting it as proven fact on his WP entry or to this WP article either. And FWIW I am referring to the previous Burkett/Bush incident, involving his "transfer to Panama," IIRC CBS itself considered him an unreliable source. Just wondering if based on your logic of proving the first 5 things wrong, in this case his original accusations, you also think Burkett is a bad source for his latter ones. Kaisershatner 16:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

See Thornburgh-Boccardi report pp49-54, esp p. 50: "The various interviews and statements revealed inconsistencies in Lieutenant Colonel Burkett's allegations, which led to questions regarding his credibility and whether his claims could be proven." Also on p. 53 "As in 2000, Lieutenant Colonel Burkett made claims during this time period that he soon retracted." He also changed his story about the provenance of the documents (that is objective fact as documented in this WP article with footnotes), and the fact that he "destroyed the originals" (what possible reason could he have for that?), and I'm wondering whether he meets your "if someone tells you 10 things and the first 5 are wrong" test. Kaisershatner 16:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Aside from this getting away from the question of the Killian documents themselves, how are you counting to "5"? And if you're going to bring up the incompetent Thornburgh/Boccardi panel to attack Burkett's credibility, then I'm entitled to do the same with then Col. Bobby Hodges, the former base commander during Bush's last years, and then Major Rufus Martin, the personel officer who seemed heavily involved in blocking an official USAF inquiry into Bush's missing rating report , .

Hey, BC. Are you saying you literally meant 5 out of 10 things? Strange. I thought you were pretty clearly indicating that a person's historically inaccurate statements allow one to doubt the credibility of their subsequent ones, to save you the time of point-by-point refutation. I can't say I agree with your logic, since even a proven liar might later be right, but I would say their history should color your judgement or perhaps prejudice you against finding them wholly credible in the future. But if you can't concede that either Burkett has some credibility problems as evidenced by his history of changing claims about Bush, or even that CBS itself was concerned about his credibility problem, OR that the T/B report was competent to judge Burkett's credibility at all, OR that a reasonable observer might at least have some concerns about Burkett's credibility, then it probably isn't productive for us to argue at all. Are you saying that nothing at all makes you the least bit suspicious about the source of these documents, Burkett's changing story about their source, and his decision to destroy the originals? Kaisershatner 20:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a debate into who's the biggest liar, but let's look at some of the people involved in this mess and see how credible or honest they may or not be. While it's true that Burkett did indeed gave CBS a couple of explanations for where he got the docs,, if he was indeed protecting the source of them and was not comfortable with dodging questions, his confused and contradictory responses for where they came from would make sense for someone who is not use to lying, even to protect someone. As I just pointed out, Hodges and Martin have a few "things" to explain regarding their responses to the CBS panel investigation. "Buckhead," the originator of the forgery charge, was laughably completely wrong in his assessment of 70's (and earlier) office tech with his first post . That could have been attributed to him just shooting his mouth about stuff he knew little about, which isn't really lying-lying; but in a later post, , he portrays himself as an expert on office tech, which he obviously isn't, thereby then crossing over into the liar zone. Charles Johnson was able to replicate just one of the 4 memo's in Word on his Mac, but still went ahead to proclaim all the "documents" -- plural -- as being forged . He like Buckhead could also just have been shooting his mouth off about things he knew little or nothing about, but he too ended up portraying himself as an expert , meaning that he either lied about his credentials or else misrepresented his results (the other 3 memos recreate poor to not at all with Word, which he should known and discussed if he was true, legitimate expert). Then you have the conservative/right wing mediasphere as a whole churning out piles and piles of confused and utter nonsense, like that Mother's Day anecdote, as "proof" of forgery. I'm not so sure to characterize it as lies or as just groupthink confusion, but the end result was widespread misinformation regardless. And then you have Bush acting very, very guilty in his disingenuous avoidence of officially commenting at all on any of the documents , even though he is by far in the best position to attest for their authenticity or lack thereof. In some respects, his silence was the best indicator that the memos were dead on.

It's simpler and less problematic, though, to just focus on the memos, their contents, context and appearance, and it's those aspects of this whole messy business that should be the primary focus. I think. But what do I know.... -BC aka Callmebc 22:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least we can agree on the last bit. Since I am not a document examiner, I can rely only on what's published on that subject, and of course per WP policy all of us shouldn't be doing our own research here about their authenticity, just reporting what has been written about them. Doubts about Burkett's credibility were a part of the Killian documents story- a major part of what distinguishes the Killian episode from the broader GWB military service controversy is CBS' being way out on a limb without authenticated proof of their allegations (Rather "taken from Killian's personal files"?!). In my view, suspicion about Burkett's reliability, as noted by CBS itself prior to 2004 and as noted in the T/B report, sets up the rest of the narrative. I'm not sure that Hodges or Martin's credibility has the same importance to THIS story - maybe more on the entire issue of GWB military service? Finally, the last time I was day-to-day active on this article, the GWB military service controversy was linked in the intro and I say again I think it should be in there. It is certainly part of the background and context of this story. Kaisershatner 14:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Much of this section is really just "FYI" because I'm trying to work within the Misplaced Pages rules, in this case in regards to WP:OR. Presumably anyone wanting to edit/add stuff in any of the Killian memos related wikis may have some interest in what a deep analysis of records and comments (or lack thereof) show if you know where to look. While you can argue that Burkett's credibility has been questioned by the mainstream press far more than anyone else in relation to this matter , I can also very clearly demonstrate that the mainstream press didn't exactly delve very deeply, if at all, into key details and overall made a complete botch of factchecking things related to the memos and even to the applicable DoD records themselves. Only the AP made that much of an effort, especially in filing an FOIA lawsuit to force a very, VERY reluctant release of more of Bush's military service records the result of which was kind of lost amid all the CBS Killian memos turmoil, .

Whatever, as tempting as it might be to just put all this stuff into the main Wiki article, that wouldn't be playing by the rules. I certainly can, however, try to deal with the malicious/clueless nonsense akin to the "Mother's Day" fable. And the omission of the background into CBS's Killian story and having no immediate links to the Bush service "controversy" just shows that the wrong people have been "overseeing" the Wiki for far too long. Another problem, perhaps, that needs to be dealt with. We shall see.... -BC aka Callmebc 20:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

BC, I'm actually heartened to read what you wrote. Yes, it is a fundamental issue with WP:NOT that if the press didn't delve into the story as much as you might like, we are nonetheless limited in the article to report what they did do. Any more would simply be injecting your (prodigious) original research. For what it's worth, as I have said, I agree with you that the GWB military service controversy should be linked in the intro, as it used to be. It is as much part of the context as the presidential election timing. As a final note, please do your best just to omit statements like "the wrong people have been 'overseeing' the Wiki..." It doesn't help your case and it doesn't help make the article better. Don't make it personal. We're all volunteers. Best, Kaisershatner 13:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

On page 154 (by the PDF count) of the report , there is this little jewel of apparent fabrication by both those two: in a discussion of the August 1, 1972 Killian memo, , where Killian notes his verbal suspension of Bush, the panel report states, "the Panel was told by both Major General Hodges and Colonel Martin that this document refers to the Commander ("Comdr") of the "Hq 147 FTR Gp" who had issued the verbal order suspending Lieutenant Bush. Although Major General Hodges had no specific recollection of issuing the verbal order over 30 years ago, he was the commander of the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group at the time. Further, the order suspended Lieutenant Bush solely for failing to take his annual physical. No other reason for the suspension, such as failing to perform to TexANG standards, was provided in the official Bush records. This is another indication that the August 1, 1972 memorandum may not mesh with the official Bush records.

How does this catch Hodges and Martin in a fabrication? Well: 1) Killian was Bush's immediate commander, so by normal military chain of command, it would have been his responsibility to suspend Bush and not the base commander; 2) Both Hodges and Martin signed off on the order in an official record dated Sept. 5, 1972 (and stamped on Sept 19) to suspend Bush, , but there is no mention of a "verbal" order being given by Hodges, yet Aug. 1 is referred to as the date of the order; 3) the National Guard Bureau notes the order for Bush's suspension as having been a verbal order given on Aug. 1, 1972 ; and 4) the actual wording in the Killian memo, "I conveyed my verbal orders to commander, 147th Ftr Intrcp Gp with request for orders for suspension and convening of a flight review board IAW AFM 35-13." matches up exactly with the sequence in the records -- Hodges was indeed the "commander, 147th Ftr Intrcp Gp" and would be the one to sign off on the verbal suspension, just as the records show that he did over a month later.

Also the claim that "Further, the order suspended Lieutenant Bush solely for failing to take his annual physical. No other reason for the suspension, such as failing to perform to TexANG standards, was provided in the official Bush records." is overtly highly suspect POV pushing by someone on the panel -- a pilot failing to take the annual physical was very serious business in and of itself, as the referred-to "AFM 35-13" USAF regulations clearly describe: .

Ergo, Hodges and Martin lied to the panel. Also Hodges's claim of having Hodges had no "specific recollection of issuing the verbal order over 30 years ago" laughably improbable in both the face of all the available memory-jogging records available, and in the context of Bush's dad being a very big shot at the time and then Vice President just several years later, , not to mention the later activities of Bush himself . I personally would love to see Dan Rather's lawsuit get Hodges, Martin and maybe some of the panel members on the witness stand with a sharp lawyer, and use best evidence rather than going through all this tedious sleuthing stuff. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 18:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

2) A very good example of #1 is the "Mother's Day" anecdote that was stuck into the Killian documents authenticity issues by SEWilco -- it originated in a Washington Times column written by alleged old Bush military bud, William Campenni,, and he uses one of the Killian memos dated May 4, 1972, , to make a series of claims: the address on the memo was wrong; Killian ordered Bush to take a physical on a Mother's Day weekend, May 13-14, 1972; the base was closed on Mother's Day weekend and May 20-21 was the next drill weekend; Killian would have known all this; therefore the memo is a forgery. However virtually nothing in Campenni claims check out as factual: that same "wrong" address also shows up in the DoD records ; Killian had ordered Bush not later than the 14th, which according to this DoD record, was Bush's last day before he "cleared" the base on the 15th to head to Alabama (or parts unknown); Bush's flight logs at the DoD, , when matched with an appropriate calendar, clearly shows that as pilot who had to fly regularly to maintain certification, Bush was taking flights all through the week and month, and not just a weekend or two as described by Campenni; the memo in question was from a commander to a pilot under his command on the same base -- it would have just been put in the pilot's mail box at the base mail room, meaning that Bush would have gotten the memo Friday morning, May 5, 1972, at the very latest, meaning that there is was another full weekend for drilling, May 6-7 (if that had mattered), and not May 20-21 as claimed by Campenni; and if Campenni was indeed an old military buddy of Bush, he would have known all this, meaning that either he had fabricated his relation to Bush, , or else fabricated everything in his Washington Times column (feel free to try to explain it any other way).

3) The "expert retained by the Thornburgh-Boccardi" is Peter Tytell whose expertise is really just in old typewriters and NOT document forensics per se. Indeed, in that Thornburgh-Boccardi report appendix he contributed , he shows extremely poor forensics research: no print samples from the Executive typewriter he claims to have examined, and not even a mention of the proportionally printing word processing systems that were commonly available at that time .

4) Claims that the memos match Microsoft Word document recreations are also false if you consider all the memos: Charles Johnson only recreated in Word just one of 4 memos CBS used semi-well (I won't go into why it was far from perfect here), which should have begged the question about whether one could do this trick with the other 3 memos CBS used for its story, nevermind all 5 remaining ones that CBS had in its possession. Maybe because the results were decidedly mixed, to say the least: and not to mention my little contribution

5) Given what happened when certain editors and their buddies from here and the other Killian wiki decided to pay a visit to the Global Warming wiki to apply their "reasoning," , I suspect any admin would be very wary to lift a full block here that soon.

6) Also, I can't really go into too much detail here because it's way too much original research, but....if you assume that all of the memos as group are either real or false, meaning that if you prove one of them as being forged, they were all forged, and likewise if you prove one to be authentic, they are all authentic, then the memos could not have been forged under any circumstances thanks to an issue with the shortest of the memos, , that CBS didn't even use: the bit involving Killian's concern for Bush's and Bath's flight certification could only have been forged via an analysis of Bush's flight logs, which do show a very sharp rise in training flights just after the date on the memo. The problem is that the flight logs were not released by the DoD until after just a couple of days after CBS had obtained the memos, and there isn't even a hint otherwise in the rest of the DoD records indicating an issue with Bush's flight certification. A short summary is here . Yes, that is original research, but anyone can dupe it. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 02:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

2) Discuss "Mother's Day" in the Talk page for the article where the material exists. (SEWilco 03:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

I clearly used that as an example in regards to misinformation appearing on both the main Killian wikis, and in more direct response to misinformation presented in recent discussions on this talk page . Hence it's in regards to improving the quality of both articles and quite relevant.

Hmmm....I'm sorry, but I still don't see "to report for a flight physical not later than May 14" is being used by Campenni in this reprint, , which you yourself said was "a copy of the Campenni column." Perhaps it might help if you could copy and paste it in this discussion (which is, of course, highly germane to both Killian wikis, I do believe.). -BC aka Callmebc 14:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Material above stricken due to being in wrong place. Moved to existing discussion in Talk:Killian documents authenticity issues. (SEWilco 19:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Review Panel Section

Shouldn't there be a note that Richard Thornburgh, one of the two people appointed to head CBS's review, was Attorney General under George H.W. Bush? Since this whole controversy ultimately concerns George W. Bush's service in the National Guard, it seems relevant that someone so close to George W. Bush's father was appointed to investigate Dan Rather for investigating George W. Bush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.242.145 (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

CBS put someone on the investigation who was likely to be sympathetic to the critics of the story. Organizations do that sort of thing when they want a fair investigation. Gazpacho 05:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes to the main article

I was going through to fix a bunch of mistakes individually, but there were just so many issues I came across that I corrected as many as I could as part of more logical, more comprehensive, fact and ref-based restructuring. If I made any errors, please post them here for discussion. Thanks. -BC aka Callmebc 22:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Discuss your proposed changes one at a time instead of making tangled edits. (SEWilco 03:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

"Proportional Spacing", "th", and ignoring experts

I have an article in The_Guardian this week examining the recent lawsuit. In it, I make some hopefully semi-original points, notably proportional spacing comes in degrees. It's not as if all "proportional spacing" is equivalent. A common mistake - one that creeps into this article - is to confuse the crude version of proportional spacing found on a few old typewriters with the modern fine proportional spacing of word-processing, say they are both "proportional spacing", and so have the error that the crude version is the same as the fine version. The same mistake is made for superscripts.

Unfortunately, there should be no reasonable doubt the documents are forged, and I use the word "forged" in my article. No contemporary record has been produced that has fine proportional spacing and a true superscript. The only thing people have done is found much rougher versions, and confused that via the category itself.

I don't want to put my article in myself due to WP:COI issues, but people may find it a WP:RS -- Seth Finkelstein 01:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

A quick question regarding the copyrights

The image in the article is tagged as fair-use. However, since the document is asserted to be US military document, aren't they supposed to be public domain?

I'm sorry if this has cropped up before (and I'm half-sure if it has): If it has, I'd just like to have a brief clarification on what exactly is the copyright status of "documents alleged to be work of US government" for as far as Misplaced Pages's copyright rules are concerned. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)