Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:40, 14 February 2008

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months

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

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11

Index

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Unprotected

Hello. Happened to stumble this way. Since the article has been protected for a while, and there's not been a whole lot of talk page activity lately, I'm assuming everyone's heads have cooled appropriately. Feel free to protect if things go boom again =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion with 67.168.86.129

I'm sure you mean well, but can you explain why you reverted my edit of the introductory sentence?

In your private message you said:

Your "improved intro" removed the reference to there being 6 Killian memos in total.

The original version (which you restored) said that the controversy involved "four of six memos". That doesn't make sense. If the other two of six weren't involved, why are they being mentioned?

Well for one thing, it wasn't a "private message" -- I had posted the reasons why on your Talk page. Also, there are 6 Killian memos, not 4. Also as I had already mentioned above, while CBS used 4 of them for its report, USA Today published all 6. Are you disagreeing with this? "Being involved" has nothing to do with how many Killian documents there are, don't you agree, especially for an encyclopedia article on the subject?. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed the article to simply eliminate the awkward reference to "four of six" documents, retaining the "four" in reference to the documents aired by CBS. Of course it's appropriate to discuss the additional documents in the body of the article.

The article is about the "Killian documents" and there are 6 of them. To say there are 4 is factually incorrect. What is "awkward" about being accurate? That CBS used 4 of the them for its report has nothing to do with there being 6 Killian documents, especially since USA Today published all 6 shortly after the CBS report. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Your private message also said:

your add of "and many media organizations concluded that the memos were forgeries" is actually misleading, if not outrightly false. Pretty much only the right wing/conservative media "concluded" that the memos were forgeries. The general media has only only described the memos as not having been authenticated for the most part.

But the original version (which you restored) had said:

Many media sources have asserted that the memos are forgeries.

I simply changed "sources" to "organizations" and "asserted" to "concluded". How is that misleading? Your claim that "only right wing/conservative media" concluded the memos were forgeries suggests a biased viewpoint. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

When someone says "concluded," that implies that research was done, evidence gathered, and a conclusion reached based on this information gathering. Assertions are primarily opinions based on rumors and sketchy, incomplete or even outrightly false information. The forgery claims originated with right wing/conservative blog sites, starting with The Free Republic, Power Line and Little Green Footballs. It's not exactly bias to label these sites as right wing/conservative media. Blog sites are not considered reliable sources by Misplaced Pages for good reason. Indeed much of Buckhead's orginal post on the Free Republic, which started the forgery charges, is factually wrong. And to this day, it's still only the right wing/conservative media using the word "forgery" in regards to the memos. As I also mentioned on your Talk page, "Since this is a volatile topic with much misinformation floating about on the Internet, especially on blog sites, it's usually best to propose any suggested changes on the Talk page in advance and get some feedback on that."

Hope this clarifies things enough. I very much encourage you to use the Talk page first before making any further edits. As I said, there is a lot of disinformation floating about on the Internet, and I'm sure you would agree that we should strive to keep that sort of stuff out of Misplaced Pages articles at least. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The conclusions of forgery by typewriter and typography experts are clearly based on evidence and professional expertise. Your opinion that "it is difficult to ascertain their validity" has no place in the article. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're the one trying to justify making a the change from "assert" to "conclude" and we're talking primarily about media sources like blog sites, and not so much typewriter and typography experts. It's a substantial change and you should be willing and ready to justify it rather than inaccurately and baselessly claim that the existing article text is somehow my opinion. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't be sorry. I changed "assert" to "conclude" because experts in typewriters and typography have in fact concluded, on the basis of their relevant expertise, that the documents are not authentic. We are not talking primarily about media sources like blog sites (at least, I'm not), but about expert conclusions concerning the authenticity of the documents. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do try to be civil and courteous to others wanting to improve the quality and accuracy of the article, and also be aware that your opinion about these matters is still only an opinion. You made 5 edits to the introduction, all with the same edit summary of "improve intro," despite my efforts to get you to discuss your changes beforehand. Your last edit was fairly minor, but your prior 4 were not, and I think none of them improved the article at all. You may disagree, but that's what the Talk page is for. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of incivility or discourtesy to others wanting to improve the quality and accuracy of the article. My edit summaries were not expansive because the changes were not extensive and could easily be seen in the diff. I think the changes were generally self-explanatory, but I'm happy to explain them on the Talk page in response to specific objections, as I have done. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that "you" have returned, coincident with my returning from my block. I won't discuss what that implies, but I should point out that to "improve the quality and accuracy of the article," it would be helpful to be more collaborative, that is to discuss your proposed changes first before making them. Also it is actually against official Misplaced Pages policy to make an undiscussed change and then try to force other editors to justify removing it -- WP:PROVEIT clearly states that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." I'm sure we're all here to make the article as clear, as accurate, and as informative as possible, so it's just a matter of following Misplaced Pages guidelines and collaborating in good faith, no? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Add content summaries for all the memos?

I notice that the "Content of the memos" section only discusses 4 of the 6 Killian memos. While the 4 are the ones that CBS featured in its report, both CBS and USA Today had 6 memos in total, each set obtained separately from Bill Burkett, and that USA Today had published all 6 shortly after CBS report as described here. Consequently I think content summaries of the remaining two memos should also be added. Agree/disagree? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The article states that "Four of the documents were presented as authentic". -- SEWilco (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You're off-point -- the article is about the "Killian documents" and there are 6, not 4, of those. Why not have content summaries of all 6? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You're off the article. The other two documents are barely mentioned (search for "USA Today"), as this article is about the controversy around CBS's material. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like you are claiming that this article should not be so much about the Killian documents per se, but only CBS's story involving four of them, and that USA Today and the other 2 Killian documents are too inconsequential to bother with. I don't know...but if you strongly feel this way, I suppose you can always create another fork from the article. But since the summaries are relatively short, wouldn't it be easier to just add two more to make them complete? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"Of doubtful authenticity"

I don't think this little POV add-on belongs in the lede -- any objections to removing and making things a little bit more neutral? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a fact that the authenticity is doubted. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That the documents are of doubtful authenticity is not a "POV add-on"; it is an essential fact. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It could also be claimed to be an "essential fact" that many, if not most well-informed people consider George W. Bush to be a liar and among the worst presidents we've ever had, if not the worst, but does that belong in the lede in his Misplaced Pages entry? And in regards to the Killian documents, the "doubtful authenticity" issue was raised and driven by inherently unreliable sources -- conservative bloggers. A more neutral lede tone would be to simply note that the Killian documents are 6 memos purportedly written by Bush's former commander, used in news stories by CBS and USA Today, and that their authenticity became an issue starting with claims of forgery originating from conservative/right wing bloggers. Agree/Disagree? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree strongly. The doubtful authenticity of the documents is an essential fact concerning the documents and the controversy they created. It clearly belongs in the opening sentence. Please consider, in view of your evident animosity towards Pres. Bush, whether you are capable of objectively assessing the neutrality of this article. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What "evident animosity towards Pres. Bush"? Since the documents involve him, I simply used his Misplaced Pages article of as example. Let me use instead a perhaps more applicable article, Global Warming. As you may know, many if not most of the same people who firmly believe that the Killian Documents are forgeries also believe man-made global warming is a myth or conspiracy. But does the lede in the Global Warming article start off calling it a "doubtful theory"? No. The skepticism is given mention further down, but the article simply starts off as a neutral description of what "Global Warming" is. Does it then not follow that an article about the "Killian Documents" should simply start off with what they are, 6 "controversial" memos purportedly written by Bush's TANG commander, that were used in part of an ongoing media investigation of Bush's military service? You already have the word "controversial" which is much more neutral and accurate, so sticking in "doubtful authenticity" clearly crosses the line in sticking in a personal POV. Agree/Disagree?

Disagree stongly. There is no serious question that the documents are of doubtful authenticity. That is an essential fact about both the documents and the controversy. The Global Warming topic is not comparable. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read this section from WP:NPOV. A neutral article at the least starts off describing things in a "neutal" tone as possible, and while "controversial" is neutral, "doubtful" is not. Also do I need to point out that the contents of the memos are quite in keeping with all other analyses of Bush's service record? Perhaps you should visit George W. Bush military service controversy and read through that first to understand better the context here. Every single serious analysis of Bush's records shows discrepancies, and the memos fit in perfectly timewise and in content. The forgery charges started with right wing/conservative blog sites, not exactly pillars of accuracy and fairness, and indeed Buckhead's original post, which got the forgery charges rolling, is factually inaccurate in several ways -- should that be in the lede? And this is directly comparable to the Global Warming article -- the only difference is that Global Warming has a sufficient number of responsible editors guarding against constant attempts to insert right wing/conservative POV's into it, whereas here...well... If you want to use this page to examine in detail the merits of the background material that you are using to try to justify keeping "doubtful authenticity," I'll be happy to oblige, but I suggest you might want to consider compromising on the word "controversial" and move on. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that I take another look, there are actually several problems with the lede aside from the "doubtful authenticity" comment:

• Many media sources have asserted that the memos are forgeries. Actually only right wing/conservative media sources have been using the term "forgery". Go Google this if you don't believe me.

• Four of the documents were presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes Wednesday broadcast aired by CBS on September 8, 2004, less than two months before the 2004 Presidential Election falsely implies that this was some sort of individual, politically-based attack by CBS (and perhaps USA Today) when in fact it was just one of many media investigations into Bush service records. In fact CBS's story came on the heals of FOIA-forced releases of Bush's Guard records here and here obtained by the Associated Press, and with more coming later. Another actively investigative media source, the Boston Globe, published a reexamination of Bush's record the very day of CBS's broadcast. I think this complete lack of context badly hurts the integrity of the article. Agree/Disagree?

• Also the lede falsely implies that the CBS report was only about the Killian documents when in fact they were only a relatively small part of a larger report on Bush's Guard Service record that also included a lengthy interview with Ben Barnes, some DoD records, an interview with Dan Bartlett and such. While the Barnes part is is mentioned in the article, it is falsely portrayed as a minor side issue to the memos. The full 12 1/2 minute 60 Minutes II segment is located in MOV video format in two parts here and here. If you download/play both parts, you'll see that the Killian memos don't even get mentioned until near the end of Part 1, and then only take up the beginning of Part 2 before the segment moves on. There is also sort of a condensed version of the full 60 Minutes report here. Note that the Boston Globe is also mentioned here as well. Given all this, shouldn't the lede be completely rewritten to make it more accurate and honest?

• I'm less sure if this is a lede issue so much as an overall article problem, but subsequent FOIA releases of Bush's records and the ensuing news reports on them were completely overshadowed by the Killian memos controversy, but this is not mentioned anywhere in the article. This should also be addressed I think. Agree/Disagree?

I think that's enough stuff for people to mull over for the time being. Agree/Disagree... -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You asked, so: Disagree. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, but it's lacking a little bit in detail. I think I laid out my points and evidence rather clearly and succinctly, so all you and other parties interested in improving the article need do is address each of those points. Fair enough, no? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with you though that providing some of the context surrounding the other examinations of Bush's record is helpful background. The usually stripped-down version of events makes a lot of it hard to comprehend -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the claim "Actually only right wing/conservative media sources have been using the term "forgery". ", that is incorrect. My own article states "And there should be no reasonable doubt that the material used ... was indeed forged". I am not right-wing and The Guardian is not conservative media. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm....you're on tricky ground here: you're representing yourself as a neutral party and the article you are referencing seems to be a newspaper blog -- essentially an opinion piece. You and I had a discussion before -- lets just agree to disagree, unless you want to reopen that little prior discussion again.

Just for correction's sake, the piece I wrote referenced above is a full-fledged newspaper column, not a blog post. As in, it is vetted by a professional editor according to the standards of an institutional publisher. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The link ends with "blogging1" and reads like an opinion. And when I look at the other pieces printed in the "Read Me First" section, I find only personal opinion columns like these: . This is obviously not hard news. And what sort of "vetting" process are we talking about here -- did Andrew Brown's editor really verify that "Netmanage panicked when Microsoft Outlook came along as a "free" part of the Office suite" and that "This story doesn't really have any particular villains, except perhaps the people at Netmanage who drove the product into the ground"?

Also, any thoughts regarding those tampered with/missing DoD records I had pointed out just below this? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It ends with "blogging1" since the headline-writer gave it a "bloggers vs. journalists" spin (which, by the way, was NOT what I intended), hence about blogging. The columns get vetted for, as, the saying goes, being entitled to my own opinions, not my own facts. Note it follows British rules, not US ones, which means I am not constrained to write "Republican assert the Earth is flat while Democrats dissent contending it is round". Regarding the records, if something can be explained by an accident or oversight, it'll take a lot for me to believe it's tampering or deliberate cover-up. Just as a general comment, there's so much paranoia and conspiracy mongering that I can't check out every charge. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, opinion is opinion, whether it's in a nice British accent or not. About the other matter, I can only point out that it was two separate PDF files, both of which touched upon a topic that was being discussed in another Misplaced Pages discussion. And it is a DoD website, so you would think data security and integrity would be a little bit tighter than normal. But I'm just some random dude on the Internet, so what could I possibly know.... -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Look at how much effort has to be expended on this tiny item. Your original claim was "Actually only right wing/conservative media sources have been using the term "forgery". I believe my Guardian column is a WP:RS which disproves this claim. Now you seem to be dismissing it as not a good enough source, because it's "opinion". However, it is not right-wing/conservative opinion. And regarding a DoD website, anyone running a website can make mistakes. There would be no way to establish conclusively it was indeed a mistake. See why charges must pass a high bar to be worth looking at? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Again what you wrote is an opinion column and nothing more -- it isn't the Guardian that is claiming "forgery," it's you. Neocon/Right Wing pundit William Kristol now writes a regular OP-ED columm for the New York Times -- a few weeks ago he wrote this column where he claims that there has been progress in Iraq and "that success has been achieved under the leadership of ... George W. Bush". Can you then state that it is the New York Times that claimed this, and put a ref for it in a Misplaced Pages article?

About the DoD thing, I'm not making any charges, I'm just pointing out some little oddness, and was asking for your opinion. The site material has not been updated for years, and it took lawsuits to get a good chunk of that material there in the first place, and the now missing PDF files were the last ones "found". But if it's your opinion it could mean anything, well....I'll just leave it at that. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, as a writer, you might find this interesting: the DoD repository of Bush's records apparently got tampered with coincidental with a discussion on the George W. Bush military service controversy talk page regarding whether Bush continued to receive "Flight Status Incentive Pay" after have been suspended from flying. The tampering apparently involved the two documents listed under "October 5, 2004 State of Texas Release." By "chance," though, I happen to have a mirror of the DoD site here. Those two documents never seem to have had anything particularly noteworthy before, but I thought to take a closer look under the circumstances and found something curious: check out carefully the upper section of page 2 of this now missing document. At first I thought it was a copying artifact, but now.... It's pretty funky stuff in any case.

Actually, now that I write that, I'm reminded again of how Bush's guard records really need to be extracted out of the messy (and now suspect) DoD PDF files and placed on Misplaced Pages for better reference. Assuming nobody else here is interested in doing that, I'll do it. This will mean I will have to take a break from these discussions. I suggest those of you genuinely interested in improving the article go look at my major points above, view the entire original 60 Minutes II broadcast as well as the short version (links are above) and see if the entire article really is a bit of mess in terms of accuracy, content, and balance. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi BC, welcome back. I would like to share my view of your points above, but first, a quotation from your user page: "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." Above, where you say "Global Warming has a sufficient number of responsible editors guarding against constant attempts to insert right wing/conservative POV's into it, whereas here...well... " - this strikes me as against the spirit of your new viewpoint - don't let's go back there. My response to your suggestions follows. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, you might have a point on the chiding tone of the "...well...." bit -- but I have been polite in the face of provocation, and I have been keeping a neutral tone, even when having to restate a point several times over in attempts to get a straight response. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As for your points above - I disagree with your view of the lede, which you would have written as "the Killian documents are 6 memos purportedly written by Bush's former commander, used in news stories by CBS and USA Today, and that their authenticity became an issue starting with claims of forgery originating from conservative/right wing bloggers." I think the proponderance of the facts, including typographical evidence, the suspicious provenance of the documents, and the lack of originals, all weigh strongly in favor of fraudulent documents - this is left out of your lede. Regarding the ongoing media investigation into Bush's guard service, and the focus of the CBS segment on it, this is covered in GWB military service controversy and is linked from this article. This article is about the documents, not about the CBS news segment. Regarding the mention of timing relative to the election, this is an essential part of the story - if it had been 2002 for example, CBS might have taken enough time to listen to its own document experts before portraying the documents as "from Killian's personal files," or might have looked closer into Burkett's history of making anti-Bush claims, or any of another dozen things (remember the "rush to air" that is mentioned in the internal CBS investigation). So the timing is significant and not only as an implied anti-Bush move by CBS, but also to show how their rush to put it on TV helped them ignore their own standards and practices about authentication. Finally, the burying of subsequent FOIA related Bush stories - I don't think that's a lede subject for this article about the Documents but I think it could be included in the article if it can be supported with a citation. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that lede suggestion was only an outline of the basic facts as to why the documents became controversial -- it was initially strictly a blogger driven thing, that's not in doubt. Then it spread and supposed experts of highly variable expertise came out of the woodwork. Most of the information still floating around regarding the memos is blatantly false -- that's not arguable. The remaining info mostly becomes dubious at best under any serious scrutiny. And in regards to timing, are you arguing that the CBS story wasn't just part of -- and not even a particularly big part relative to what the Boston Globe and AP were doing -- an overall media investigation? Well? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

PS- by the way, I think I may have initially accidentally deleted your posting(s) when I was responding to Seth Finkelstein, and there was a messy edit conflict where I think I may have overlooked your post trying to sort it out. Sorry 'bout that. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Now you're bringing in "Operation Fortunate Son". But these documents are still "Of doubtful authenticity". -- SEWilco (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

???? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The DNC and Boston Globe were involved in the path which led through CBS and examination of the Killian documents. SPECIAL REPORT W/ BRIT HUME, How the Blogosphere Took on CBS' Docs, Friday, September 17, 2004 I thought you'd been studying the CBS situation? -- SEWilco (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Brit Hume? Like most FOX commentators, he's not exactly a neutral source when it comes to matters like this -- can you come up with a slightly more credible source than Mr. Forgery Expert? Also your comments, again, appear to be unconnected with the ongoing discussion. It really would help matters if you could stay on point. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite on your currently wandering point. You brought up what the Boston Globe was doing which was connected to CBS' story, and as you have collected some documents on the subject I expected you knew about it. And Brit Hume is not the one who speaks about "Operation Fortunate Son" and the Boston Globe. If you're having trouble reading it, maybe they sell a recording of the show. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

??? I have no idea what point you are trying to make here -- you insert a broken Wiki link and make odd comments -- but it appears to have nothing to do with the discussions I'm having with the others. This is not helpful. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, BC. Thanks for taking my comments in the spirit in which they were intended. I do understand your lede was a general proposal, not meant as literal text. I think we agree that initially it was strictly a blogger thing - this is reflected in the intro under "The authenticity of the documents was challenged within hours on Internet forums and blogs, with questions initially focused on alleged anachronisms in the documents' typography and content soon spreading to the mass media." As far as your point that "most of the information still floating around..." being false, I guess I'm not sure, but in any case that's beyond our control - we need to make sure that the information floating around this article is true. As to your opinion that the remaining info "mostly becomes dubious" when scrutinized, etc., if there are reliable sources that reflect this, we should consider them. My understanding of that situation is somewhat different than yours, but in any case the article should reflect what reliable sources have published. Finally, with respect to timing, I am not really making an argument- I am stating that I think we agree that the Killian documents and associated controversy arose from a CBS News segment, which was part of ongoing investigations of Bush by various media outlets (and which are detailed in GWB Military Service controversy). As I mentioned above, I think the timing is significant from at least two perspectives and should be noted: one, the "they were out to get Bush before the election" argument, and two, the "they were rushing the story to air ASAP because of the election and this time pressure led them to make a number of egregious journalistic errors." There may also be other significant arguments to make about the timing, but I can think of at least two reasons to include it. Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

One can argue that the rush to air was no more than a "me-too" effort by CBS -- the Whitehouse and DoD were stonewalling all year on the promised release of all of Bush's Guard records, and it was taking FOIA lawsuits by the Associated Press to force the release of them. Do you think it was a just coincidence that CBS aired the story the day after another release of documents from an FOIA lawsuit and stories like this?

As far as your comment "As to your opinion that the remaining info "mostly becomes dubious" when scrutinized, etc., if there are reliable sources that reflect this, we should consider them," this brings up an interesting issue: 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? What takes precedent in terms of "best source" for purposes of an encyclopedia? A specific example would be this Washington Post comparison of some of the memos to DoD records. The issue is that they were comparing "Memorandums for Records" (aka "apples") to official records (aka "oranges"). The standard USAF Military writing guide, the Tongue and Quill, as well as all other similar types of memos found on the Internet show that the Killian memos followed the correct format despite multiple claims to the contrary. I tried to put this info into the Killian documents authenticity issues here and here, but of course this information was later reverted while I was blocked. If you check the current state of that section of the article, you will note that the lede now starts off with wholly unsubstantiated and unref'd claims, as well as having a pile of "citation needed" tags throughout. Since a number of the people who edit that article also edit here, is it the consensus here that claims found on the Internet, claims that are not only unsupported but are directly contradicted by whatever evidence can be found, belong in a Misplaced Pages article? Well? I should point out that one Wikipedian familiar with these issues has stated that the inclusion of military documents does NOT constitute WP:OR. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have forgotten that The Tongue and Quill didn't exist at the time the memos were supposedly written, and that there were other style guides (although not Air Force wide style guides that did.) htom (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

We covered this already, didn't we? If you recall, nobody came up with a backing ref to support Some of the formatting of the Killian memos is inconsistent with the Air Force style manual in effect at the time, especially in regards to that mysterious "Air Force style manual." And if you also recall, The Tongue and Quill, which is indeed the defacto "Air Force style manual" has its origins to 1975, just a few years after the memos. And lastly, you may also recall that those other military memos I found were not only contemporaneous to the Killian memos, but some predated them as well -- and they all generally showed the same formatting as shown by the Killian memos and recommended by the Tongue and Quill. So basically there is no supporting evidence or references at all to support the lead paragraph here, yet this version somehow ended up replacing one that had multiple supporting evidence and refs. I'm a little fuzzy on what was the reasoning for this -- could you explain it for my benefit and others? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

....Discussion of WP:OR moved to separate section below

doubtful - proposed change break

Whatever you're doing in Africa, I think you've wandered off point. Just what is your proposed change to "Of doubtful authenticity"? -- SEWilco (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

?? I stated it at the very beginning: "I don't think this little POV add-on belongs in the lede -- any objections to removing and making things a little bit more neutral?" And there is an ongoing discussion regarding this. If you wish to participate, please do so, but without sticking in random comments and section breaks in the middle of exchanges. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

So you don't have a proposed new phrasing, only removal of those three words? And my comments and section breaks were relevant at their level of indentation and topic; I'm sorry if you couldn't track the wandering, perhaps you can better classify the segments. It is customary to insert subsection markers as best they fit. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

<personal attack removed> -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the question about "of doubtful authenticity" -- I don't think this conclusion belongs in the article at all and certainly not in the introductory section. The objective fact is that the authenticity was challenged. It might or might not be accurate to qualify it further, whether "widely challenged" or "challenged by some bloggers" or something in between, but the description should relate to the objective facts, not to the conclusion that some Misplaced Pages editors draw. JamesMLane t c 14:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not totally averse to this. I think I am more comfortable with the formulation "the KD were six documents critical of GWB...and that were presented as authentic...." which would be the result of deleting "of doubtful authenticity." Let the reader decide based on the fact if they think the authenticity is doubtful. Returning to the above subject of including further primary sources in a sec. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, actually, technically, CBS never outrightly presented the documents at being "authentic" -- if you look at the transcript, Dan Rather introduced the documents (again the documents were just part of an overall segment regarding Bush's Guard service) this way: "60 Minutes has obtained a number of documents we are told were taken from Col. Killian's personal file." And then later stated "Col. Killian died in 1984. 60 Minutes consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic. Did you view the video of the entire original 12 1/2 minute segment? I had provided links for it above. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

BC, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." IF, as you assert, the article(s) in the WP, NR, or other sources were so off-base in their analysis of the documents in question, then the way to demonstrate this is with secondary sources that make this point. Show me a few, or even one. But using a primary source to refute the conclusions of the WP is analysis. If it is in fact, so simple and clear, that it has stripes and could only be a Zebra, then I'm sure someone in the mainstream media will have connected the dots. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I just had this thought about your zebra analogy- wouldn't that mean that if someone with a history of making false accusations against George Bush presented photocopied documents with numerous inconsistencies and which failed numerous examinations by professionals, lied about the source, and "destroyed" the originals, you'd have to conclude they were likely forgeries? Just wondering :) Kaisershatner (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I hate to be a nudge about this, but I had already excerpted a full Misplaced Pages 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 tangental 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) 16:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The World Book Encyclopedia 2005 Yearbook calls the documents "forgeries" (p. 381). No reasonable person can dispute that the documents are of doubtful authenticity. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, bringing up one word does not even a quote make, ever mind a reference. Could you provide the full context of the quote and under which topic article it appears? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The World Book Encyclopedia 2005 Yearbook article on "Television" calls the documents "forgeries" (p. 381):

Dan Rather, a broadcast journalist for CBS television, apologized to viewers following the revelation that documents he used in a "60 Minutes" report in September about United States President George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War(1957-1975) were forgeries and could not be authenticated.

Of course, this is just one example. No reasonable person informed about the topic would dispute that the documents are of doubtful authenticity. This is not a close call. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I see - so it's not in the actual encyclopedia itself, it's in the Yearbook -- does it reference the source for that quote? It's a strange reference since virtually no major mainstream news source has characterized them as "forgeries," just as being controversial, unauthenticated, or such. I'm not too sure if it matters though in any case since I don't think an encyclopedia can use another encyclopedia as a reference. Also, as far as your comment, "No reasonable person informed about the topic would dispute that the documents are of doubtful authenticity. This is not a close call," that's strictly your personal opinion and personal opinions have no bearing here. And not that it also matters, but I'm perhaps a tiny bit more informed in this situation than most, and frankly it looks to me that all the forgery claims have major discrepancies with the best available evidence regarding common early 70's office technology, the past use of proportional typefaces, how well (or not) one can replicate all of the memos with Word, proper format for military memorandums for records, content, and so on. You would likely be quite surprise about how many commonly held beliefs related to this topic are flat out, well, wrong. But that's neither here nor there for the purposes of this particular discussion. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

As I have said, no reasonable person informed about the topic would dispute that the documents are of doubtful authenticity. Because of this, further discussion with you seems pointless. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I perhaps shouldn't be telling you this, but you might want to take a look at this. Just don't tell anyone I told you, wink, wink, and it's not for ANY discussion here. It's just a teeny bit of misc info for your own personal consumption. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Anon 67.168, if any "reasonable person informed about the topic" would agree with you, then why don't we just assume our readers to be reasonable and inform them about the topic? In other words, the article should certainly summarize the major facts relied on by those who've concluded that the documents were forgeries. Once we've presented that information, it seems, on your view, that stating the "obvious" conclusion wouldn't add anything to the reader's knowledge. JamesMLane t c 21:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The function of the introduction is to introduce the subject by briefly summarizing the essential facts. An essential fact about the so-called Killian documents is that they are of doubtful authenticity. This should be stated clearly in the opening. The details concerning the authenticity question should of course be included in the body of the article (or in a separate article), but many readers will not need to read further for those details. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You are merely restating an opinion you had already stated and that had been addressed -- the idea is to be neutral and factual. Think "Jack and Jill went up the hill" and not "Crack Jack and Evil Jill ran cowardly up the hill". Perhaps it would be helpful if you would look up some Misplaced Pages guidelines like this and this. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a fact that the documents are of doubtful authenticity: experts who examined the documents for major news media said that the documents were probable forgeries. That is more than sufficient to establish that the documents are of doubtful authenticity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.86.129 (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Again you are just restating your opinion, ignoring the Misplaced Pages guidelines that were presented to you, and generally not really helping the discussion along. I'm not too sure what else I or anyone else can say to you. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

BC, I think I am responding. I think asking the reader whether primary source military documents from the 1970s are consistent or inconsistent with the Killian documents is asking for analysis. Therefore, a secondary source is required. And since your contention is that it is wholly obvious that the claims made in the newspapers are false, it should be really easy to substantiate this by providing a secondary source that has independently discovered the same thing you say is self-evident. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you clearly are not. I had previously included a large excerpt from WP:OR that seems to clearly indicates that basically if the info in the primary source is obvious and "easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge," that can be used. But you didn't address any of the points nor any of the analogies I used to try to better illustrate the points. Instead you waited until this section to simply restate your opinion, completely ignoring my prior efforts, and causing me to yet again redundantly restate and restate my points. Do you really think this is conducive to a productive discussion? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I am not making this clear. I disagree with you that this is an instance where a primary source can be used and that the info is obvious and easily verifiable. In my opinion, as I state above, using other (ie non-Killian document) government documents from the time period to make some kind of point about the WP or NR or other reporters' work being wrong would require analysis on the part of the reader. I am attempting to answer your desire to include such additional primary source documents: I think it is original research, yes, despite the material you have pasted from WP:OR. I am directly replying to your contention "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". I disagree that this is a case of the above. And as long as you are throwing around accusations that I am ignoring your efforts, how about this one, I think it is the third time I am asking you to find a secondary source - since your argument is essentially that it would be obvious to any observer that additional primary source documents will show how the WP or NR was wrong in their analysis, and in fact, so obvious that it is not a violation of WP:OR to include such evidence, then why won't you or can't you provide a secondary source that makes that point? If it is so clear, and so simple, where's the newspaper or reporter who has skewered the WaPo? Why no secondary source, and why no reply from you about that? Kaisershatner (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I'm just misunderstanding you or I'm not making myself clear, but again you seem to be not responding to my full argument and instead now are parsing out bits from them. You also seem to be saying that what appears to be obvious is not obvious to you, and what appears to be "easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person" requires analysis in your mind, but without explaining why in either case. Here, instead of my again restating my entire original argument, which you never responded to, all over again, I'll just move it to its own separate section below. Please read through the entire piece and address at least the major points if you could. Also your request to find another secondary source is besides the point -- I had clearly (I thought) laid out a situation where a primary source contradicts an implication from a secondary source, specifically a Washington Post graphic. This is a singular case that was evidently not looked into by any other generally recognized reliable source. So you asking for another secondary source appears to be both disingenuous and not really connected at all with my whole basic point. I'm not really throwing out accusations -- I'm merely pointing out how I've been having to restate, restate, and restate some more my points and arguments given the off-point/off-topic responses I've been getting. You and some others here might want to look at JamesMLane's comment further up as an example of how to respond on point and on topic. -BC aka Callmebc (talk)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

doubtful authenticity

Kaisershatner, your claim that characterizing the documents as being "of doubtful authenticity" violates NPOV is ridiculous. Experts who examined the documents for major news media said that the documents were probable forgeries. None have asserted that the documents are likely authentic. What more is needed to demonstrate that the authenticity of the documents is doubtful? 67.168.86.129 (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to be understanding the basic concept of NPOV -- it just means you let the facts speak for themselves without you editorializing. Try reading WP:ASF. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I've replaced "of doubtful authenticity" with "characterized by some experts as probable forgeries". How's that? 67.168.86.129 (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that hews much closer to the objective facts, but I would be interested in JamesMLane's view as well. Kaisershatner (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...."much closer to the objective facts"? I'm not so sure. Look at it now:

The Killian documents controversy (also called Memogate, Rathergate or Rathergate) involved six documents, characterized by some experts as probable forgeries, which purported to be contemporary documents critical of President George W. Bush's service in the United States National Guard. Four of the documents were presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes Wednesday broadcast aired by CBS on September 8, 2004, less than two months before the 2004 Presidential Election, but had not been properly authenticated by CBS. Many media sources have asserted that the memos are forgeries. This has also been suggested by some typewriter and typography experts . As no original documents have been produced, it is difficult to ascertain their validity.

It's in the wrong place, and mostly seems to just show how badly written and awkward the entire lede is. How's this as an alternative:

The Killian documents controversy (sometimes called called Memogate, Rathergate or Rathergate) involved six military memorandums containing comments deemed critical of President George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard, and purportedly written by then Bush's former Guard commander, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian. Four of the memos were presented during the CBS news show, 60 Minutes Wednesday, on September 8, 2004, as part of a segment covering Bush's long controversial military service. USA Today published all six memos the day after the CBS broadcast. Some conservative bloggers began claiming within hours of the CBS broadcast that the memos were forged due to their being proportionally printed. The major news organizations eventually took note of the blogger claims, and it later turned out that the memos had not been fully authenticated by CBS. The CBS personnel responsible for the segment were later fired after a highly critical independent panel review, but the question of whether the memos were forged or not was never fully resolved: some reporters and military people see the contents of the memos fitting in with what's known about Bush's Guard service while some typewriter and typography experts see the font used in the memos as suggesting forgery.

A wee bit more accurate, balanced, and neutral I think, and one could only hope.... -BC aka Callmebc (talk)

How about this:

The Killian documents controversy (sometimes called called Memogate, Rathergate or Rathergate) involved six documents, which some experts characterized as probable forgeries, purportedly written by President George W. Bush's former Guard commander, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, containing comments critical of Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. Four of the memos were presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes Wednesday broadcast aired by CBS on September 8, 2004, during the 2004 U.S. Presidential election campaign. USA Today published all six memos the day after the CBS broadcast. Some conservative bloggers immediately questioned the authenticity of the documents, and major news organizations eventually reported significant doubts about them. The CBS personnel responsible for the segment were later fired after a highly critical independent panel review, which concluded that the memos had not been fully authenticated by CBS.

I think it's very important for the opening sentence to make the doubts expressed by experts about the authenticity of the documents clear. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It should note that no originals have ever been shown nor that is there a chain of custody establishing a link to Lt Killian. It should not imply that the only question was concerning their typography since there are many other issues. Jmcnamera (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That first sentence is kind of long and complex. How about replacing 67.*129's first sentence with: The Killian documents controversy (sometimes called called Memogate, Rathergate or Rathergate) involved six documents critical of President Bush's Vietnam era service, which some experts characterized as probable forgeries. They were purportedly written by President George W. Bush's former Guard commander, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, and contain comments critical of Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

How about this: The Killian documents controversy (sometimes called called Memogate, Rathergate or Rathergate) involved six documents, which some experts have characterized as probable forgeries, that concerned President George W. Bush's Vietnam-era service in the Texas Air National Guard. They were purportedly written by Bush's former Guard commander, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, and appeared to provide contemporary evidence supporting controversial allegations critical of Bush's performance in the Guard. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages guidelines, you need to use reliable sources as references for any claim, and you just want to let the facts speak for themselves. And you want to be accurate of course. Since no major news outlet called the memos "forgeries," it's editorializing to mention this right off in the lede. While this version is actually much better than your other suggested versions, I think it still has bias problems and is lacking context and some key bits of info. Try this:

The Killian documents controversy (sometimes called called Memogate, Rathergate or Rathergate) involved six memos concerning President George W. Bush's Vietnam-era service as a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. They were purportedly written by then Bush's Guard commander, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, and appeared to provide additional evidence supporting other investigations and long standing allegations regarding Bush's military service. Four of the memos were used by the CBS news show, 60 Minutes Wednesday on Sept. 8, 2004, and all six were printed by USA Today the following day. However the appearance of the memos, especially their proportional typeface and superscripts, led to doubts of their authenticity. A subsequent, highly critical independent panel review commissioned by CBS found many problems with the authentication process and the CBS personnel responsible were later fired. The question of whether the memos are genuine or not was never fully settled: while their contents generally fit in with what's known about Bush's military service, some typography and document experts see their formatting and appearance as suggesting possible forgery.

I should mention that I am very appreciative that there finally seems to be some headway here in finally having a real discussion regarding improving the article. I had consulted with some admins in regards to what appears to have been repeatedly obstructive behavior here especially in regards chronic episodes of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I will hold off on the possible remedial steps that were suggested to me if this discussion continues on point. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

How about this:

The Killian documents controversy (sometimes called called Memogate, Rathergate or Rathergate) involved six documents, which some experts have characterized as probable forgeries, that concerned President George W. Bush's Vietnam-era service as a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. They were purportedly written by Bush's then Guard commander, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, and appeared to provide new evidence supporting long-standing allegations critical of Bush's military service. The documents were presented as authentic by CBS anchor Dan Rather in a broadcast aired toward the end of the 2004 U.S. presidential election campaign, but the appearance of the memos led to doubts of their authenticity, initially by conservative bloggers and later by experts contacted by the mainstream media. An independent panel review commissioned by CBS found that there were substantial questions regarding the authenticity of the documents, which had not been properly authenticated by the producers of the broadcast segment, leading CBS to fire the personnel responsible.

For the source of the term "forgeries", see the next section. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Way too biased. You eliminated the "contents" bit, which counteracts the forgery claims, as well as removing the reference to the other media investigations, falsely implying that this was some sort of lone act by CBS News. And it's awkwardly worded. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"forgeries" usage

I'll just put put another major media reference here: CBS 'voice of God' goes with a whimper " Although the network scored a small scoop by persuading a former Texas lieutenant governor, Ben Barnes, to admit on camera that he had used influence to get Mr Bush into the Texas Air National Guard, it also relied on forged documents." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure this is very germane. You are again referring to the British "Guardian" newspaper and like your first reference, which was an opinion piece you had personally written, this appears also to be only an opinion column, especially with it having a title of "CBS 'voice of God' goes with a whimper" -- hardly the title appropriate for a vetted journalism piece. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You keep moving the goalposts. I think we're up to it must be not written by a conservative, not come from a right-wing source, not be British (must be US?), not be "opinion". Sorry, I don't have hours and hours to spend on this while you find another reason to move the goalposts again. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Moving the goal posts?" I apologize if I didn't make myself clearer -- what you wrote for the Guardian appeared to be only an opinion column. This second reference also appears to be an opinion column. As I pointed out earlier, Neoconservative William Kristol writes columns for the NY Times, and there is no reason to think that the UK Guardian columns you referenced reflect the Guardian's news coverage anymore than how Kristol's columns reflect those of the NY Times. Does this not seem logical? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian article is in the "News" section, not the "Comment" section, and was written by Suzanne Goldenberg , the US correspondent of the Guardian, an award-winning journalist. If you had bothered to actually look at the reference provided by Seth you would know this. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Seth Finkelstein had already pointed out that the rules are different for UK publications. And I had already pointed out that a column with the title of "CBS 'voice of God' goes with a whimper" is hardly appropriate for a vetted journalism piece. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have already noted above that the World Book Encyclopedia Year Book for 2005 refers to the documents as "forgeries". The term is also used by USA Today in the report referenced by footnote 21 in the current Misplaced Pages article. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Your Worldbook reference was already addressed. As far as that USA Today article, "forgeries" appear relative to what others were claiming, including Scott McClellan and Dan Bartlett of the White House. The comments by McClellan and Bartlett actually seem to be a bit disingenuous -- CBS had faxed all the memos to the White House for comment a day before the report aired, and the White House simply released them to other news organizations. Since Bush should have been able to tell at a glance if the memos were real or not, that was a seemingly odd thing they would have done if they truly believed the memos had been forged. I suppose I should point out that Bush has never to this day commented on whether the memos were real or not despite the massive coverage the story generated and him knowing more than anyone else still alive if they were accurate or not. Actually, now that I think about this -- shouldn't this seemingly not trivial point be mentioned somewhere in the article? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In what way do you think you "addressed" the World Book reference? It clearly refutes your claim that no reliable source has called the documents forgeries. And please take another look at the USA Today article, which clearly reports that its experts said the documents were probable forgeries. Your comment about Bush is off-point, but his spokesman also called the documents forgeries. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll just repost my earlier response, which you did not respond to: "I see - so it's not in the actual encyclopedia itself, it's in the Yearbook -- does it reference the source for that quote? It's a strange reference since virtually no major mainstream news source has characterized them as "forgeries," just as being controversial, unauthenticated, or such. I'm not too sure if it matters though in any case since I don't think an encyclopedia can use another encyclopedia as a reference." And again the USA Today article was just quoting numerous people -- the article itself was about CBS pulling away from the story.

The source of the quote I gave you is the World Book Year Book itself. And please read the USA Today article again, more carefully. It clearly reports that its experts said the documents were probable forgeries. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think my comment about Bush is exactly off point -- since you seem rather insistent on the "forgery" issue, can you name anyone else in a better position to have determined if the memos were real or not? Well? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out, Bush's spokesman said the documents were forgeries. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Look more closely at the full statement -- Scott McClellan is not claiming that the documents are forgeries, he's saying instead (falsely, I should add) that it's what CBS is claiming, and he then uses that as a straw man to then refer to the memos as forgeries. Big difference. The White House has never officially commented on whether the memos were real or not, even when directly asked, as was the case here -- check out Dan Bartlett's "answer" to "Stephen, from Colorado Springs, CO". FYI. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, this discussion is off-point. But since you ask, why would Bush waste his time examining the memos, and his personal (probably uncertain) recollections, when the documents were already being scrutinized by outside experts who would clearly have more credibility with critics and the media? Moreover, I don't think the White House (or most of the public, for that matter) considered the long-standing allegations about Bush's conduct as a young man to be of any real concern, even if true. Yes, they were a big deal to Bush's opponents, but so what? They weren't going to support Bush in any case. And would it have made the slightest difference to them if Bush had said that based on his personal recollections the documents must be forgeries? Of course not. But again, this discussion is not relevant to the issue at hand. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Why would Bush waste his time examining the memos"! Because they were highly controversial, were used as an excuse for nasty personal attacks against Dan Rather, embarrassed a major news network, got people fired and maligned, and in general caused all sorts of turmoil in an election year. They were only 6 short memos, readable in a minute or two, and they mostly involved a major incident in Bush's life, his being suspended as a pilot. The odds of him not remembering at least the key details with the documents in hand is nil, especially with his dad being a prominent politician at the time, as well as a one time decorated pilot himself. With Killian and Harris dead, that left only Bush knowing completely what happened then. His behavior in maintaining a code of silence on the matter by itself strongly suggests that the memos are indeed genuine. If they had been forgeries, do you honestly believe that the White House, especially Karl Rove, would not have noted this and directly crucified CBS for it? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This page is not a forum for general discussion of the Killian documents controversy. Please limit your discussion to the suggestions on how to improve the content of this article. (See top of page.) In particular, please respond to my citation of the USA Today article which reports that its experts said the documents were probable forgeries. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You asked and I simply answered. In regards to the USA Today article, it goes Two former FBI forensic document specialists enlisted by USA TODAY to examine the documents said they probably were forgeries. However, you also have this Boston Globe article stating otherwise. Since the Globe, along with the Associated Press, was one of the lead news organizations investigating Bush's service record, this article has at least as much weight as the USA Today one. If you want to be truly balanced, consider well what I wrote as part of the lede suggestion: The question of whether the memos are genuine or not was never fully settled: while their contents generally fit in with what's known about Bush's military service, some typography and document experts see their formatting and appearance as suggesting possible forgery. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The suggested wording, "which some experts have characterized as probable forgeries", is documented by the USA Today article. The Boston Globe article does not contradict the USA Today reporting. If you wish to balance the opinion of experts who concluded that the documents are probable forgeries with the opinion of other experts who believe the documents are likely genuine, please cite your sources. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you not read that Globe article? There is a section that goes: But specialists interviewed by the Globe and some other news organizations say the specialized characters used in the documents, and the type format, were common to electric typewriters in wide use in the early 1970s, when Bush was a first lieutenant. Philip D. Bouffard, a forensic document examiner in Ohio who has analyzed typewritten samples for 30 years, had expressed suspicions about the documents in an interview with the New York Times published Thursday, one in a wave of similar media reports. But Bouffard told the Globe yesterday that after further study, he now believes the documents could have been prepared on an IBM Selectric Composer typewriter available at the time. Also document archivist David Hailey wrote up an extensive study showing the memos are not from any modern word processor. For what its worth, the claims of evidence for forgery starts off as a big pile, then strips away to almost nothing once you fact check everything. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I read the Globe article carefully. It did not say anything about the examination of the documents by the two former FBI forensic document specialists who said they were probably forgeries, as reported by USA Today. Nor did it mention any other document specialists who examined the documents and concluded to the contrary that they were probably authentic. Bouffard did not say that he believed the documents were probably authentic, and his views on the Selectric Composer were clarified in a NYT follow-up: Dr. Philip Bouffard, a forensic document specialist in Georgia who has compiled a database of more than 3,000 old fonts, said people who bought the I.B.M. Selectric Composer model could specially order keys with the superscripts in question. Dr. Bouffard said that font did bear many similarities to the one on the CBS documents, but not enough to dispel questions he had about their authenticity. Hailey is not a recognized expert in document authentication, and the credibility of his self-published studies is comparable to that of your own. Your personal opinion as to the validity of expert opinion that the documents are probably forgeries is not relevant. Please understand that the question being discussed here is not whether the documents are for certain actually forgeries (which obviously cannot be resolved here), but whether experts have characterized them as probable forgeries. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"Recognized expert" is a slippery slope. Being an "expert witness" for the purposes of court cases just means you have some history of expertise in a particular area, and it covers a pretty wide range of expertise -- you just need to basically know a bit more than the average person. In Hailey's case, he packs a pretty impressive resume, hence his opinion is quite relevant. The bottom line, though, and you have to accept this, is that there truly are arguments for both sides of the authenticity issue, and the truly NPOV (as well as fair) thing to do is just be neutral and not promote one side over the other. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact, there isn't a single item in Hailey's resume that is related to document authentication (other than his self-published "study" of the Killian documents). He is an (associate) English professor in Professional and Technical Communication, with a BA in Creative Writing, an MA in Professional/Technical Writing, and a Ph.D. in "Language and Rhetoric, Theory of Criticism." He has no qualifications or experience in forensic document authentication. And not only is Hailey no expert; he has never said that he believes the documents are authentic. Your personal view that there are arguments of equal weight on both sides of the authenticity issue is irrelevant; you need to provide evidence that there are in fact experts who believe the documents are probably authentic. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I said earlier that Hailey was an "archivist" -- meaning he has a strong familiarity with old documents, records and such -- and archiving is listed in his resume. including getting a "$27,000 Sandia National Laboratories Research Grant" for a "multimedia archive for a nuclear weapons assembly process". And at the end of his analysis of the Killian memos, he lists his applicable credentials as "Dr. Hailey’s particular research interest has been in preservation and archiving processes and critical skills since 1992. More recently (1997), with the advent of digital archives, his research has focused on digital document authenticity and reliability. His experience in producing and examining documents ranges from mechanical traditions typical of the mid-sixties to the digital books typical of the 21 century. Currently, he teaches document design issues at graduate and undergraduate levels." Isn't it well past the time for you to give up this less than fruitful stand and move on? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

To repeat, nothing in Hailey's resume indicates any qualifications or experience in forensic document authentication, and in any case he has never said that he believes the Killian documents are authentic. But it is definitely time to move on; until you can provide evidence that there are in fact experts who believe the documents are authentic, there is little point in having you continue to restate your peculiar view that it somehow violates NPOV to call attention in the opening sentence to the clear and important fact that some experts have characterized the Killian documents as probable forgeries. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Umm, the question is whether they are documents from the early 1970's, which makes his archival expertise highly relevant, which would make him an expert in any court of law, and which also trumps whatever your opinion is of his qualifications. Plus even Thomas Phinney has admitted that Hailey has the best copies of the memos, which means that they are better than those your touted "recognized experts" had to examine. And as far as your claim that Hailey "never said that he believes the Killian documents are authentic.", from page 12 of his report, They cannot have been done in Times New Roman, so the argument that they were done digitally has no logical support. That little statement, without any interpretation I believe, directly attacks the whole forgery notion. Look, I know (along with more than a few others) personally that the memos could not have been logically forged and all six demonstrably cannot be replicated accurately with any modern word processing system -- you would have to resort to tedious advance Photoshopping to mimic closely their appearance. But that's personal knowledge based on WP:OR stuff to the extreme. All I can bring to this table is to point out violations of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines regarding NPOV and encourage a balanced article based on solid, well-sourced, information, and not so much right wing silliness and bad reporting. For what it's worth. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I know it is very frustrating to you that your personal research which proves the Killian documents are authentic cannot be used per Misplaced Pages policy. But that's the way it is. Misplaced Pages must be based on the facts as reported in reliable sources. And it is a fact so reported that experts have said the documents are probably forgeries. Bringing this fact to the attention of readers does not violate NPOV simply because you are personally convinced that the experts are wrong. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

--Outdent-- "Misplaced Pages must be based on the facts as reported in reliable sources." -- that's exactly what me and some others have been trying hard to make you understand. It's OK to mention that some experts think that the memos are probable forgeries -- just don't stick it in people's faces at the beginning as though that's the entire story -- that would be grossly in violation of Misplaced Pages guidelines involving NPOV. There is no serious disagreement that the contents of at least some of the memos match up with official records and what media investigations have shown -- even the not so investigative investigators on the that CBS panel report had to admit that -- and you have to admit that pretty much counterbalances the forgery claims, which were indeed primarily blog driven. And I have to caution you that it's a bit unreasonable for me to spend so much time here simply trying to get you to follow WP:NPOV. If you persist, I will have no recourse but to inquire into RFC's and such. One thing you should perhaps ask yourself is "Will what I'm attempting to do be of benefit to users coming to this article seeking accurate and balanced information?" -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 13:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV does not require that fringe theories be given equal weight with expert opinion. If you want to "balance" the fact that some experts say the documents are probable forgeries with your idea that "match up"s show the documents are authentic, you'll need to cite a reliable source which shows that some experts support your views. When you can do that, we can discuss further. Otherwise, I suggest you proceed with your RFC. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Fringe theories"? What does that have to do with you wanting to lead with the forgery charges? That's what this discussion has been about -- what you wanted to do, your so-called "essential fact". Perhaps you should consider moving on for the good of the article. Currently the lede doesn't even have Bush in the correct service branch -- it has him being in the "United States National Guard" when it should have been the Air National Guard or Texas Air National Guard -- he was a pilot, not some one weekend a month Guardsman. I know I had it as the Air National Guard at one point (earlier I had it as Texas Air National Guard, but Air National Guard has a more complete Wiki entry) so I went looking at the history. Indeed my last revert before I was blocked had it correct. At the time it was mostly SEWilco, along with HiramShadraski, who kept reverting my stuff, including putting back the wrong service. So basically from October 7th of last year to this very day, the lede has had blatantly and elementary wrong info that nobody has bothered to fix. Indeed it was my suggestion for the improved lede above that had the correct service branch back again. Of all the current regular posters, it appears I seem to be the only one who seems genuinely interested in actually improving the article the way Misplaced Pages intends. For all the verbiage spent on this page stonewalling my suggestions, the bottom line is that all this has accomplished was to keep the article an embarrassing mess. You should ask yourself -- "What have I actually done, and what do I intend to do, that will actually improve the article?" -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 01:40, 14 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 Misplaced Pages 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)