Talk:Killian documents controversy/Archive 2

message: Notwithstanding that the Lemur is beating a very dead horse, we are noting (if the document is 1971) that a Brigadier General had an Executive Typewriter. Ever hear the term RHIP? However, it goes further to cast doubt on the Killian Memos rather than affirming them. As a typographer whose experience goes back 40 years, I can readily pick out that this is the IBM Executive's serif font, which was a variation of Century Schoolbook, which is much different from Times Roman or Times New Roman. I could go on about the letterforms (Cent SB is very rounded) but for the lazy typographer, just look at the number "9" on the referenced document. Now go into your copy of MS Word and type a "9" in Times New Roman. Easy one. -- Cecropia | Talk 14:17, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Blue Lemur

message: * Andrew Gilligan, Jayson Blair - Accounts of BBC and New York Times scandals of a similar nature 
- I doubt that these scandals were of a similar nature, as neither of them was about forged official documents (as the Yellowcake Forgery was, for example). The intended "similarity" could be that all of these were scandals blamed on perceivedly "liberal" media which the Bush camp would be happy to point at, but I should assume good faith here. Anyway I think that it is hard to make such a list NPOV, so instead of trying to balance it I have removed it altogether. Comments? regards, High on a tree 15:54, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: At Joseph's request, I'm going to stop editing Rathergate and pages that link to it, for the time being.
But just before I got his message, I began to notice that there are dozens of pages each giving a slightly different spin to the same incident. At some point, it would be nice to consolidate all these and/or come up with an accurate and unbiased way of introducing it.
And I agree that Rathergate might not be the best title for the article. I just think that calling forged memos the "Killian memos" gives the impression that they are authentic - which goes counter to the non-Wikipedian consensus out there in the real world. 
How about National Guard memo hoax of 2004? --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 19:25, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Time out

message: OK, I guess it's time to consolidate the arguments. As worked well in other controversies, we have only three choices here, so we can determine sentiment on the current titles. We can then determine sentiment after we've established that basic point.
(0/1/0)
===Killian memos (former title)===
# Gzornenplatz 22:21, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
# Psychobabble 23:10, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title vote 

message: # Gzornenplatz 22:21, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
# Psychobabble 23:10, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Killian memos (former title)

message: #216.153.214.94 06:13, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: CBS Document Forgery

message: Posibilities: CBS-National Guard memo controversy, 60 Minutes forged memos controversy, Dan Rather forged memos controversy, George W. Bush National Guard forged service memos, 2004 U.S. election forged memos controversy, etc.
#   --Uncle Ed (El Dunce)
# Withrdaw vote for RathergateThis is observably the most common usage at this time. The problem with Killian memos is that this is probably one of the lesser known titles as time goes on. -- Cecropia | explains it all ®
#* I'm agreeing that Rathergate is too aggressive if there are better alternatives, but "Killian memos" doesn't do it. Any of the above titles or some other can be more descriptive without being unnecessarily POV. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:19, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Some other title than the above three

message: * As far as I know, CBS has not conceded that the documents were forged, and I think another thesis advanced was that CBS's source had indeed created them in 2004 but had done so by re-creating documents he had seen 30 years earlier.  Regardless of what you think of these arguments, I don't think that "hoax" or "forge" belong in the title.  (Even Hitler Diaries doesn't have those words in the title.)  The title should be neutral.  The article should of course give a full report of all the reasons that have been advanced for considering the documents to be forged.  I don't think anyone can reasonably contend that the article, as it stood yesterday, was at all deficient in that respect.  In this context, the title "Killian memos" will be clear to the reader as meaning memos attributed to Killian.  The very first sentence said "allegedly".  The second sentence stated that many experts disagreed, and the third sentence reported the CBS climbdown.  The whole article gave more attention to the pro-hoax position than to the pro-authenticity position.  (I have no reason to think this was bias.  My impression is that the article, as it stood yesterday, fairly reflected the overall discussion.)  I'll hold off voting to see whether anyone suggests a title that's an improvement on Killian memos.
**Meanwhile, what to do in the interim?  I don't want to get into a revert war but I don't see any basis for saying that an edit that many of us object to has to remain in place while it's discussed and polled.  How about we put things back to where they were yesterday, subject to subsequent revision?  JamesMLane 20:39, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments/argumentation

message: On second thought, with all the tension over the upcoming election, I don't think I can muster the necessary objectivity that an admin ought to have. So, please ask another admin to move the article back to Killian documents or Killian memos or whatever; and feel free to ignore my vote when determining consensus. 
I'd rather err on the side of NOT being forceful enough than take a chance of ruining my near-pristine record as a fair-minded admin. I've managed to tick off more Wikipedians in the last 2 days than in the last few months, so I'm just gonna chill out . . . --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 21:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Any decision on this would be post-election anyway, more than likely. I think we can come up with a better title than either. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:22, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm bowing out

message: A Google search shows significantly more hits for Killian documents than for Killian memos - so I'm going to move the page. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 15:11, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: No, I'm back in