Talk:Pentagon Papers

message: Is "traitor-in-keeping-with-his-kind", added on June 9, 2010, really voice neutral? 75.145.19.1 (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: What's the "credibility gap"? Maybe someone should start a stub for that. Kent Wang 07:07, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Gap

message: There is far more detail to the story behind the Pentagon Papers in Mike Gravel's and Daniel Ellsberg's own biographical articles that I think should be included in this article.--Waxsin (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding the Article 

message: Nixon's reaction was initially calm and then developed into rage as can be ascertained from the White House tapes.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB48/nixon.html
As aired on PBS tonight, Jan 5, 2019, the program mentioned that on the initial day, Sunday, that the papers were published, Nixon on the tapes was interested in how it would negatively impact the democrats, and on the reflection on the presidency of both Kennedy and Johnson, and not necessarily on revealing Nixon's secret bombings, in a few days, by Tuesday of that week, Nixon was in full form, discussing with the Attorney Jon Mitchell about creating an injunction to stop the publication. This page will reflect the source of this podcast [ https://www.npr.org/podcasts/452538775/on-the-media ]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.75.140.124 (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nixon's Reaction 

message: Someone deleted a reference to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in the Papers -- it was my understanding that this was actually covered in the Pentagon Papers.  Is this incorrect?--csloat 18:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was covered, but it did not say that LBJ deliberately fabricated the whole thing. CJK 19:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't the Pentagon Papers reveal that "the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution — which led to increased U.S. military involvement in Vietnam — had been drafted months before the incident for which it was named took place, and that President Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969) had been committing infantry to Vietnam while telling the nation that he had no long-range plans for the war."  ? Johannjs (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also thought the 2nd Gulf of Tonkin incident being falsified, yet was used to justify war, was one of the most important revelations of the Pentagon Papers? Yfrwlf (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gulf of Tonkin 

message: NOTE: I did not mean to move this, but when I was trying to sign my signature I did something wrong. So I'm putting back the original headline that was already here, plus my contribuution. I apologize to the original poster for messing up your stuff. 
This what the original text said with in the headline:
Second paragraph contains:
> the government had planned to go to Vietnam even when president Lyndon Johnson was promising not to
Johnson inherited Vietnam. The US began financial support for the French military there in the 1950's, and I think it was Kennedy who first sent American troops, although advisors etc. may have been sent by Eisenhower.
This is what I added:
You're right. I believe Einsenhower had been involved with some inital activites that got the ball rolling on Vietnam in some aspect or another, but I can't get to my sources right now. As soon as I have some evidential proof, I'll return to ths section and update.
The Pentagon Papers' official title was "The History of the United States Decision-Making Process on Vietnam Policy". This is according to Katherine Graham's A Personal History (1997 Hardback edition p. 444, pp 4). Graham was the daughter of Eugene Meyer, the owner and publisher of the Post. She later became the owner and publisher of the The Washington POst Company was so during this PP and Watergate. This book was a great read for the history of the Washington Post and their involvment with this political controversy. I think this article would do well to elaborate a little on what both the Post and the Times went through to get this out there to the public. This book is a great reference and has a treasury of names, dates, and the emotions and consciousness of the times.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.4.23 (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pentagon Papers 

message: "however, none of the consensus actions recommended on September 7 involved bombing North Vietnam" Oh, yes? Maclear's 10000 Day War (PB, p.124) says the 2-phase bombing plan was endorsed 17 Mar 64....  TREKphiler hit me ♠  06:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gettin' a date

message: In the Impact section there's a list of precentages of reasons for staying in Viet Nam that's tagged with note [7] (the Nixonland book).  It's introduced as a memo from the DoD under Johnson.
Was this list actually part of the Pentagon Papers? If not, it doesn't belong in this article, and should be removed, or made into a footnote itself.
If anyone has insight into the inclusion of this as part of the PP, then please respond.  I'll wait, then do some checking to see if I can find out if it belongs, then move it to a footnote or elide it entirely if appropriate.
198.207.0.5 (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope question 

message: A line notes, "A majority of the justices ruled that the government could still prosecute the Times and the Post for violating the Espionage Act by publishing the documents." This is a patent lie - most of the judges do not comment on that. The source itself is very biased (Airforce Magazine), it states a line earlier that "The Supreme Court decision on the Pentagon Papers had nothing to do with freedom of the press." and yet the opinions of the judges are filled with statements about the intentions of the first amendment and three judges explicitly say that it prohibits any such case. Blahage23 (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further prosecution 

message: I have heard that the New York Times published the Pentagon Papers in a heavily edited (censored) version and subsequently Senator Mike Gravel arranged with Ellsberg to have the uncensored version published by the Unitarian Universalist Church. Senator Gravel also used his senatorial privilege to read the papers into the congressional record, thus making them legally public, so the Nixon administration was unable to suppress publication. Kissinger wanted Gravel prosecuted for treason, but the Supreme Court eventually ruled in his favor.
This info., properly sourced, should probably be included (or made clearer) in the article.173.77.97.119 (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The New York Times published the Pentagon Papers in edited form, as 7000 pages /47 volumes of military speak about the reality and gap between what was happening and what were the objectives would be hard to publish in a daily newspaper. They were not censored, and that is a weasel word. You have heard wrong, and I heard a podcast of both Daniel Elsburg, and the NYT correspondent discussing it. Gravel read it into record so it could not be classified except by act of congress. The copy published by the UUC was 11 words short.
Your timelines are all off.
Nixon initally welcomed them as damaging to the democrats,
then in a few days went into a flying rage to Kissenger and Mitchell, and wanted Mitchell to prosecute Ellsburg for treason. (Nixons call, Nixons words )
Michell got the supreme court to stop the publication by the Times, and the next day, the publication went to the Washington Post, who were also to stop publication, which then went to the Boston Globe. A powerful game of whack-a-mole between Nixons administration and the Press, which Nixon hated.
Ellsburg had arranged to have made multiple copies over the 6 months he had before he gave them to the Press. 
The next event in the Watergate timeline was that Nixon wish to prosecute Ellsburg for disclosure/dissemination of them was that he hired the plumbers to get dirt on Ellsburg, which when Ellsburg eventually went to trial, the charges were not dismissed, a mistrial was declared, leaving open the possibility of a new trial, which never occurred. https://www.npr.org/2018/01/19/579101965/daniel-ellsberg-explains-why-he-leaked-the-pentagon-papers
https://www.nytimes.com/1971/06/13/archives/vietnam-archive-pentagon-study-traces-3-decades-of-growing-u-s.html
Trivia? What were the exact addresses of the copy shop and apartments where the Pentagon Papers were first copied? and wouldn't this be of interest to Boston area tourism and tour guides like the Paul Revere House? The Edmond Pettus Bridge? and the St. Augustine Swimming Pool? and the boat factory that made the Granma?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.200.114 (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  More info? 

message: "("Sensitive" is not an official security designation; it meant that the study's publication would be embarrassing.) "  I would like to see a citation for this use of the term sensitive.  The way it is written now, it sounds like an opinion.  Sensitive, when used by it self usually means a restriction on disemination.  It is unlikely that this report was SCI. Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Top Secret Sensitive 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Pentagon Papers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051204121721/https://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/48.htm to http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/48.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703224833/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07%2F07%2F02%2F1331255 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07%2F07%2F02%2F1331255
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.archives.gov/research/pentagon-papers/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828101935/http://www.nytimes.whsites.net/talk/podcasts.html to http://nytimes.whsites.net/talk/podcasts.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703224833/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07%2F07%2F02%2F1331255 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07%2F07%2F02%2F1331255
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080111014647/http://www.wcbs880.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=851936 to http://www.wcbs880.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=851936
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The two paragraphs about Senator Mike Gavel's actions starting on June 29 should come after the court injunction and the Supreme Court case, which played out earlier in the month.  Telling these stories out of sequence is confusing.  I will work on changing this in a few days.  HowardMorland (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Story out of sequence 

message: How did you review my editd with your volume of edits, 5 in the minute concerned, where was the application of assume good faith? or why not help in the manner I requested? rather than go for volume?121.99.108.78 (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: [[USER:CLCStudent]]

message: This is a relatively minor point. In the section titled "Role of the United States in the overthrow of Diem's regime", the last part currently states: "As early as August 23, 1963, an unnamed U.S. representative had met with Vietnamese generals planning a coup against Diem.[20] According to The New York Times, this U.S. representative was later identified to be CIA officer Lucien Conein.[21]" Citation 20 is to the Pentagon Papers and citation 21 is to the obituary of Lucien Conein in The New York Times. The NYT obit does not specifically state that Conein was involved in the August 23, 1963 meeting, but this statement gives the impression that it was the NYT that revealed that information. Conein's meetings are even referenced a few pages later in that section of the Pentagon Papers, but as far as the August 23rd meeting it only states that Don met a CAS officer.  Even so, it was Conein who met Don (see  and ). Not sure how to fix this, but this was known well before the NYT obit. - Location (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Section "Role of the United States in the overthrow of Diem's regime"

message: This entry claims the Pentagon Papers revealed secret US bombings of Cambodia and Laos ('Operation Menu'). What's the source fot this information? According to my records, it was not part of the New York Times scoop at the time. Nor could it have been: Operation Menu was instigated by president Nixon and happened (1969/1970)after the Pentagon Papers were completed. The Papers covered the American involvement in Vietnam up until 1968. What are the facts here?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lastpak (talk • contribs) 13:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret bombing of Camboidia and Laos 

message: This quotation by McNamara does not support the preceding statement that he accused China of harboring imperial ambitions. It merely states that McNamara feared that China would "undercut" the United States' "importance and effectiveness in the world".
Only part of the preceding statement can be deduced from the quotation. I propose to either find a reference to support the statement that McNamara accused China of imperial ambitions or to modify the first sentence of the preceding statement to correctly reflect the quotation that follows it. --185.13.30.131 (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You're applying a very narrow reading to the quote. I see no reason to change the article text. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument that my reading is too narrow does not quite convince me.  I am pointing out that "looms as a major power threatening to undercut [the US'] importance and effectiveness in the world" or "remotely but more menacingly, to organize all of Asia against [the US]" is not semantically equivalent to "accused China of harboring imperial aspirations". Now, it is absolutely possible that McNamara accused China of imperial ambitions, however, this is not deducible from the given quotation, which the colon at the end of the statement would usually imply. I propose the preceding statement be changed to something accurate, for example "McNamara described China as a threat to American influence in the world like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were. According to McNamara, the Chinese threatened to "organize all of Asia" against the United States:". Are there any objections? --185.13.30.131 (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight inaccuracy in statement preceding quotation by McNamara  

message: This article says that the official title for the document is "The History of U.S. Decision-Making in Vietnam, 1945–1968," but that is wrong. The correct name is "Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force." The mistake happened probably just because of misreading the quoted text: "documents from 47 volumes, that comprised the history of the U.S. decision making process on Vietnam policy, better known as the Pentagon Papers." StaciMore2004 (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Official title of the document is wrong