Talk:Killian documents controversy/Archive 9

message: Instead of removing bits of the discussion and combing through BLP and NPA violations, I've just archived it all in hopes that this will help inspire the participants to start fresh. Some things to keep in mind: 
* Do not start new sections that serve no other purpose than to complain about or attack another user.
* Do not use this talk page to expound upon your opinions about or to needlessly restate facts about the controversy or its participants.
* Attacks on other users or on living individuals will not be tolerated and will be removed. 
Thank you. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page dispute 

message: As you can see from the above debate, a large number of unsubstantiated rumors and outright falsehoods regarding the memos are in wide circulation, especially among the right wing/conservative media and blogosphere. I think it would therefore be very wise, as well as save on needless, unending debate, to create a new section that lists at least the most common of these misperceptions along with a description of where and how the misperception originated and then contrast that to what the actual verifible evidence indicates. I think that would help alleviate much of the circular bickering this topic tends to cause. 
:The documents are forged, the forgery is proven, and trying to pretend otherwise is highly POV.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.157.14 (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything I've typed is supported and cited. What are these "unsubstantiated rumors" and "outright falsehoods" you speak of? 74.77.222.188 19:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Callmebc added a similar section to the Talk page of Killian documents authenticity issues and is also editing that page.  (SEWilco 19:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a "Commonly believed misconceptions" section? 

message: Gamaliel, and colleagues, I was going to explain how this argument over the intro has come and gone at least once or twice before, but reviewing the archives of Talk I see Gamaliel was in the thick of it about a year before I started editing this article in 2005, over two years ago.  On a practical level, regarding the introduction:  The statement "As no original documents have been produced, it is difficult to ascertain their validity," could be more precise.  Without originals it is impossible to positively authenticate the documents.  However, more than a few document examiners concluded the docs were forged, including as we all know the expert retained by the Thornburgh-Boccardi investigation, on the basis of typography, abbreviations, content, and uh, the fact that it matches a Microsoft Word document (gee, what are the odds on that?).  On the other hand, it is not factual to assert the docs are definitively forged; this has not been "proven."  MOST people upon reviewing the chain of extremely unlikely events, timing, provenance, and physical characteristics such as typography and content associated with these documents will conclude they are not authentic, but it is not our job to conclude this in the article.  This is despite whatever legitimate criticisms may exist about the GWB military service issue.  I disagree with CallmeBC's position regarding authenticity BUT I am not against linking to GWB military service controversy - I think we used to have that link in there and it is part of the context.  Let people read about GWB's military service problems if they want, and let them also read how CBS and Mapes were so desperate to get Bush before the election they went to air with basically no evidence and then lied about it for two weeks. So what can we do to unlock and edit the article? Kaisershatner 14:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait for the inauguration of the next U.S. President? ;) I hope that once the topic becomes history rather than politics passions about this page might cool. htom 17:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is President Bush a primary candidate in your state?  (SEWilco 03:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't matter, I live in Minnesota; we haven't voted for a Republican since 1972 (Nixon). htom 04:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, so the article should not be blocked in Minnesota.  Unless Dan Rather runs for office.  (SEWilco 04:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coming around again 

message: Shouldn't there be a note that Richard Thornburgh, one of the two people appointed to head CBS's review, was Attorney General under George H.W. Bush? Since this whole controversy ultimately concerns George W. Bush's service in the National Guard, it seems relevant that someone so close to George W. Bush's father was appointed to investigate Dan Rather for investigating George W. Bush.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.242.145 (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CBS put someone on the investigation who was likely to be sympathetic to the critics of the story. Organizations do that sort of thing when they want a fair investigation. Gazpacho 05:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review Panel Section 

message: The image in the article is tagged as fair-use. However, since the document is asserted to be US military document, aren't they supposed to be public domain?
I'm sorry if this has cropped up before (and I'm half-sure if it has): If it has, I'd just like to have a brief clarification on what exactly is the copyright status of "documents alleged to be work of US government" for as far as Wikipedia's copyright rules are concerned. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See U.S.government works Basically if it originates with the US government and not, say, some private subcontractor working for the government, it's in the public domain. Obviously, this doesn't include classified docs you stumble upon, but once declassified or obtained via FOIA, you're good to go. -BC aka Callmebc 16:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, basically what I suspected. So assuming this was a released document, it'd be good to go, but right now, we're in a stalemate where no one dares to sue anyone over a copyright infringement / posting private material so it's Fair Use. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually your question gave me an idea: upload a bunch of Bush's relevant military records, which are inherently public domain, into Wikipedia Commons. Bush's military records are at this DoD site, but the "good stuff" is buried in very poorly organized and unindexed PDF collections. And even then, copies of individual documents show up randomly here and there in a wide range of quality, some copies barely readable. Someone should find the best copies of Bush's key records, copy them from the PDF's into individual image files and just upload them all into Wikipedia. Right now, the only extensive image copies of Bush's records are here and here, both of which some Pro-Bush folk might take exception to even linking to for reference. While this would be most useful for the George W. Bush specific wikis, I can see some use for them in the Killian ones. Ya think? -BC aka Callmebc 19:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A quick question regarding the copyrights 

message: I was going through to fix a bunch of mistakes individually, but there were just so many issues I came across that I corrected as many as I could as part of more logical, more comprehensive, fact and ref-based restructuring. If I made any errors, please post them here for discussion. Thanks. -BC aka Callmebc 22:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discuss your proposed changes one at a time instead of making tangled edits.  (SEWilco 03:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  By your logic, if there was a Wikipedia article somehow involving a widespread claim of how back in the early 70's, cherry blossoms were yellow and purple, but not pink, you would object to including any sourced pictures of pink cherry blossoms from the early 70's because "we wouldn't know how such random pictures are related to this article." [personal attack deleted] -BC aka Callmebc 22:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It means that when discussing the cherry trees of Washington, D.C., a picture only shows that something which looks like cherry trees are there; for information about the diplomatic and emotional reasons why the cherry trees are there I'd have to cite sources which describe why the cherry trees are there. Or if the article is about the biological classification of those trees I'd have to cite an authority which identifies the type of those trees. (SEWilco 04:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Where the hell do you get off calling me a sockpuppet? Read those refs again. 74.77.222.188 05:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: There are so many things wrong with your edit that I agree that it was better to revert it and discuss it. Given the history of this article you should have known that doing a big change like that would only start a revert war. Let's start at the beginning with the intro section. I think that your deletion of the "Background and Timeline" section, moving all that content in altered form into the intro, was a retrograde step. It makes the intro far too long and wordy. Look at the intro to a featured article like 1996 United States campaign finance controversy for example. Three succinct paras that lay out the essentials without going into excessive detail. Your quotes from the contents of the memos, for example, are way too much detail for an intro. For what it's worth I would argue that the current version's intro is also too long.  Dcxf 01:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are so many things wrong with your edit -- really? Do tell. Whatever, the overall article was/is currently a disinformational nightmare. I debated about how much of the "highlights" of the memos to stick into the introductory paragraphs, and in retrospect, I maybe should have done so as bullet points for a better visual. The important thing, though, is the corrected intro is far, FAR more accurate in both content and context , yes? And  my original intention was indeed to do a series of smaller updates, but since I was getting into a series of absurd revert wars over even small, indisputable issues with hostile, politically driven editors in a variety of guises, there was little incentive to not just try to fix a whole bunch of overt problems all at once as a starting point. Makes sense, no? If people had played nice, or at least nicer.... -BC aka Callmebc 22:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't want to go into everything that is wrong with your edit because that will start another long, rambling thread that goes nowhere. Please address the point. How do you justify having such a long intro? The place for the details of context and content is in the body of the article, not the intro. And please consider that if small changes start a revert war, what do you think large sweeping changes will do? Dcxf 22:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Participants should be aware that User:Callmebc thinks these articles are part of some sort of war , has stated an intent to cover these articles with changes , and expects to break 3RR a lot more .  Meanwhile, he erroneously challenges one small issue (Talk:Killian documents authenticity issues#"Mother's Day") and pretends he expects us to resolve many entangled alterations.  I have to admit he did produce one amazing work at User talk:Charles Matthews#SEWilco - Revising quotes and diffs to hide a lie (yes, he notified administrators of it).  (SEWilco 03:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the main article 

message: Dan Rather's daughter was a leader in the Democratic party in Austin, TX.  The person who originated the Killian Documents lived near Austin.  Coincidence?  I think not.  Shouldn't this at least be in the story?  --Glenn, TX, 11/07
: Have some reliable sources on this topic?  (SEWilco 05:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Ellington Air Field is also in Texas, so was Killian, so was Bush's dad, and even Bush and Cheney hang out there sometimes  -- it's all one big Texas conspiracy.... -BC aka Callmebc 06:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rather's Daughter