Talk:Killian documents controversy/Archive 5

message: Talk was 164k, time to archive again.  For full disclosure, I would like to note that I was personally involved in many of the now-dead threads, some of which were quite contentious.  Kaisershatner 14:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived Talk through Nov 2005

message: This: "Tytell concluded that the documents were not produced on a typewriter in the early 1970s but were produced on a computer in a Times New Roman typestyle that would not have been available at that time."
is irrelevant and should not be listed under the "Panel's view" since the Panel clearly said they would not comment on whether the documents were fake or not.  That is Tytell's view and that panel had the opportunity to accept it and they didn't.  I think it should be either removed, or at the very least, moved.  
After reading some of the comments below, there is obviously someone ediiting who takes the position that the documents wer proven to be false.  That is not only wrong, that is dishonest.
Whoever this person is, they should be banned from editting this section.  
-Rob S.
:Rob, have you read the panel's report? 71.212.31.95 16:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tytell's Conclusion 

message: I ran across this analysis of the documents, which purports to prove that the documents were not products of microsoft word.  The author, a Utah State University professor named David Hailey Jr, concludes that the documents were typed, but he doesn't make any claim as to their authenticity.  I should add that this is a second edition of his study, posted to his website in December 2005.  He claims to have evaluated Original documents (not faxed ones).
Is any of this relevent to the discussion?Jarad 08:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, it's relevant.  but i believe there is already some discussion of Hailey in the article.  if he's updated his analysis, you should search to see where he's already mentioned, and update the article there. Derex 20:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A (relatively) new expert opinion? 

message: I did a little fact-checking last night.  Almost every blog-based claim I checked regarding formatting, spacing, kerning, lingo, signature blocks, quotes, etc was easily disproved with the most rudimentary checking.  Many of these were lifted verbatim from conservative blogs with absolutely no references.  Further, even one claim which the same blogs later retracted (see kerning), remained here undisputed with the lovely weasel words "some argue". This article was a factual embarassment of regurgitated blog spew.  
As a side-note, I had been completely convinced these were fakes, because I read this article.  I was just correcting the proportionally spaced claim, based on evidence recently provided by Mapes.  Then I noticed most of the assertions in the "formatting" section weren't cited, so I checked them out. I'm curious how much better the typographical arguments regarding fonts stand up.  At least those are cited to particular "experts". 
Clearly, there's a problem with the credibility of these documents, given Burkett's deception.  However, it would be nice if Wikipedia and the blogs it parroted had not stooped to the same embarassing level of non-verification as CBS did.  That of course includes me, as an early editor of this article. Derex 18:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No sooner do I go and correct a bunch of factual errors, than someone comes along and "corrects" one of my corrections.  The problem is that the correction is clearly demonstrably false by even *looking* at the memos.  Is that so hard, to even do a completely rudimentary check of your claim?  I am referring here to the "space between glyph & number" claim of Istra.  I have added links to show this is false.  This sort of nonsense is incredibly frustrating, so I am complaining here. Derex 15:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An embarassment 

message: Derex, Please don't take offense. But to be honest, I am doubtful that it will be possible to have a productive discussion with you about this. (As you may guess, I suspect lycanthropy.)
I can try to explain why I believe your simplified wording significantly alters the intended meaning. I will do so if you're seriously interested in understanding the issue. But there's no point in my doing so if you just want to debate. That will only serve to frustrate the both of us.
:Umm, you could present factual references.  That way, there won't be anything to debate.  Why would I take offense about your opinion?  My whole point is that: opinions are often wrong, which is why Wikipedia requires references.  To have a productive discussion, you could start providing some for your claims. Derex 15:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplified wording re font technology 

message: I made some revisions.  As noted in my edit summary, the Panel specifically did not take up the question of authenticity.  Thus saying the Panel did not conclude they were forgeries is potentially misleading.  Also, the intro stated something like "many experts consider them forgeriers or at least improperly authenticated."  I don't think any experts actually consider the documents properly authenticated, and the absence of "originals" is one major reason.  Significantly, zero of the four document examiners used by CBS could not authenticate the documents, and Matley was the only one who opined that the signature appeared authentic.
For a long time I have been of the opinion that the views of Knox and the Killian family, and possibly the authentic Killian memo praising Bush, ought not to be in the intro, but rather in a later subsection that addresses circumstantial evidence and views, but before making a change like that we should discuss.  Last time it came up this proved to be a controversial view...  Kaisershatner 18:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the bot has fixed up the references, I made some changes/additions to the intro.  I still think the final few paras should be moved out of the intro into something like a "opinions about the documents" section.  I will now invite direct comment from User:Derex and User:JamesMLane with a view toward maintaining NPOV and an honest and open revision process.  Kaisershatner 14:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: So you think this article should report as fact claims made on a blog that are not fact?  That would make a lovely encyclopedia.  I should go start a blog. Derex 17:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: btw, the standard for inclusion is citeability.  everything i added, i cited carefully.  no original research means i can't go do a chemistry experiment and report the results here without first having them published elsewhere.  it doesn't mean we can't look at original source material, so long as that material is appropriately referenced here.  and you can't do a much better job of citing than an internet link to the original documents themselves.  taking no original research to the absurd conclusion you suggest would mean i couldn't include what the blog said either, because i went and looked up the blog contents myself. Derex 20:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: I tried to verify Derex's statements to get rid of the accuracy tags, but something's wrong with the endnotes - none of the citations match up with the number in the text.  Can anyone figure out what the problem is?
:not sure, i haven't worked with endnotes much.  it looks to me like maybe kaiserhatner added those, though the edit history is long now.  at any rate, i didn't use endnotes myself, so you can look at this version to verify accuracy.  of course, the endnote thing needs to be straightened out as well.  
:thanks for checking these.  i believe all the sources are here, but if anything is not obvious please drop a note on my __talk page__.  i did verify everything i added, so i can probably quickly clear up any questions by, for example, pointing you to any specific page numbers on originals documents. thanks. Derex 14:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I didn't add the endnotes per se.  I asked User:SEWilco to run his bot that converts inline citations to footnote style citations, and cleaned up some of the dead links and sources that didn't actually support the points to which they were attached.  Although the result is a cleaner format, the problem is that when text is moved around, the footnotes don't move in concert and the numerical order gets screwed up.  In retrospect, it may have been a mistake to use this formatting in an article with this kind of textual volatility.  Kaisershatner 14:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it looks to me like the endnote links are fine, but the numbering at bottom is wrong.  the standard is not to number the footnotes at the bottom, for exactly this reason.  you're supposed to use the hyperlinks to move back and forth between text & notes.  when you click on a ref, the link appears as the top line on your browser (at least in IE).  or, is there a deeper problem i'm missing something here? someone ought to set up the templates so that the ref is actually highlighted. Derex 15:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with endnotes 

message: I think most if not all citations should use the standard URL bracket method, citations should directly link to the source of the info and not go to another subsection within the article when not necessary. Why did someone go to the trouble of creating the Notes section and splatter the {ref} template all over the place? zen master T 22:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes section citation middle layer? 

message: I'd just like to leave a note here thanking all those who have contributed to this page.  This has become a very thorough, balanced, and cool headed account of the situation.  Well done. Arkon 05:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Note 

message: Maybe we should have some talk page discussion before we go through too many more reversions on the "primary source" issue.
FWIW, I think the documents qualify as primary sources.  (See also No Original Research for a discussion of primary vs. secondary sources.)  Calling them "primary sources" doesn't mean that they're not a copy of another document, it just means that the documents themselves are historically relevant, rather than a commentary on historically relevant items or events.  In other words, a link to scans of the Hitler diaries published in Stern or of the handwritten diaries presented to Ster would each qualify as a primary source, because those are the documents that the article is about.  The fact that the handwritten diaries were fake, or that the Stern article was a typeset and edited copy of those diaries, doesn't change the fact that the documents themselves are historically significant to the topic, and therefore "primary."  Commentary about the diaries, OTOH, would be "secondary."  TheronJ 14:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've got it absolutely right; as I said in an edit summary, for George W. Bush military service controversy they are not primary sources, but for this, an article about the documents, they are.  I have some reservations about actually labelling sources as "primary" and "secondary"; can we put them under a header that non-awkwardly marks them as the Killian documents themselves? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Primary Source" Edit War 

message: Yikes.  Rummaging through this article to read the cites is downright painful.  If it is new policy to have them listed this way, consider me to be strongly against it.  That aside, why are there 40 or so more footnotes listed than there are used in the article?  In the next day or so I intend to begin cleaning the dead/random ones out.  Objections? Arkon 04:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: Several are "certain" that the documents are fraudulent.
I don't understand what value this adds to the article, and I'm not sure what "certain" is in quotes. It just strikes me as an odd remark altogther, and I'm highly inclined to just remove it. Anyone want to champion it? M00 09:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd sentence 

message: The best use of a link to an external source is so the reader can quickly open that link to verify the asserted fact. With this new system of pointing in-line links to footnotes, the reader gets confused. Will someone please explain why we are doing it this way? 70.85.195.227 20:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel your pain. Arkon 22:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the new in-line links system stinks 

message: I just wanted to say congratulations to all the editors who have worked on this article.  It seems a fair and accurate account of the controversy, and I hope you all awarded each other barnstars for patience and civility.  I personally think it was a good idea to split the analysis into a new article, and although I think Rathergate and Memogate should redirect here, the present title is the best (mostly because -gate is a trendy and overused neologism). Thatcher131 23:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations