Talk:George W. Bush military service controversy/Archive 2

message: I put in a more exact sequence for the Killian stuff, as well as what was going on, along with the best refs I could find. It often if not usually gets omitted that the CBS story that used the Killian documents came right in the middle of releases of Bush's official records by the DoD (under the duress of an AP FOIA  lawsuit) -- records were released the day before the CBS story and then more a few days later. The initial press reaction was to treat the CBS memos as part of the overall media analysis of those official records, and that analysis was showing lots of unexplained discrepencies. Once the forgery assertions took up the attention of the media, however, there was little further analyses or coverage of the official records. 
Also there is a lot of confusion regarding the forgery claims about what was "proven" or not: while it's taken as a gimme on many if not most of the conservative/right wing blog sites that the memos were "proven" to be fakes or forgeries, when looked into, the "proven" bit turns out to be little more than taking unproven -- and often demonstably false -- assertions appearing in the conservative media at face value, and/or "extrapolating" on what the mainstream media and some experts actually said. Claims of what common 1970's office technology can or can't do have turned out to be pretty much completely false according to any authoritative journal or book on the subject; claims that the memos could be easily replicated with Word also turn out to be false -- only one of the four memos CBS used (the "CYA" one) can be reasonably recreated with Word; all claims of discrepencies in the formatting of the memos are contradicted both by Air Force writing guides like the "Tongue and Quill" (aka AFM33-337) and by copies of other memos around the time of the Killian memos and even earlier -- go look carefully at this declassified military "Memorandum for Record" dated June 11, 1959; and likewise all claims that the contents or wrong with addresses and dates and such are contrdicted by the official records maintained by the DoD here. So when all of the nonsense is cleared away, what is left is that CBS did a very poor job authenticating the memos; the rest of the mainstream media didn't really do much if anything to help clear up matters; and the conservative media showed that no rumor or unsupported assertion is bad enough not to be presented or recycled. 
The last bit is probably too much POV on my part, but I left that off in the section update. I did   put in a little "teaser" at the very end linking to a few things that should have been brought up at some point in all the press coverage of the Killian memos saga, but weren't for some strange reason. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 13:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good edits. Dlabtot 15:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I was thinking of going back and adding more info into the refs (date of publication and such), but nobody else is doing that. I'll try to return and add refs to other sections of interest to me. Tedious, but I suppose necessary. -BC aka Callmebc 16:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OTOH, I would support removal of the entire "Critics of... " paragraph as constituting too much original research. Dlabtot 17:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, too much he said/she said.... -BC aka Callmebc 23:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killian section updates 

message: There seems to be the September 24 release missing -- and that's the one containing the only  proportionally printed document in all of Bush's service records. Will try to fix quickly. -BC aka Callmebc 14:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Preceding editor was including original research and has been blocked from participation.  Don't know what he intended to fix.  -- SEWilco (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release of military records 

message: This has gotten rather large with stuff which is not being discussed.  Archiving will begin shortly.  -- SEWilco (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: :: I have another question, although not quite directly related to the above. Bush's Air National Guard records are maintained by the DoD here, but the individual records are deeply embedded in PDF files, often unsorted and with multiple copies of varying quality. Specific records of particular interest like the "Not Observed" one I referenced are mostly collected by sites that might be viewed as being POV-pushing, however factual and accurate they are in content, regarding Bush's military service, like the glcq.com site I used and this one as well, which I personally maintain. My site evidently has the best copies of individual DoD records, and glcq.com has some otherwise very hard to find info on regulations cited in the DoD records. Since this is all federal government/US military stuff in the public domain, wouldn't it make more sense to upload any relevant files to Wikipedia if they are going to be referenced rather than  having to link to a site like glcq.com? The only other method I think of that would involve not using a site like glcq.com would involve having to point out the PDF page numbers of which DoD file the record appears. But that is somewhat cumbersome given the size of the PDF's and that a given record may take up 2 or more pages. Thoughts? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are verifiably (apparently not a word)  in the public domain, the best option may be to upload them to Wikisource.org. I'm not an editor there, but reading their inclusion policy leads me to believe this is precisely the content they host. Once stored over there, a link could be provided within this article. Again, I'm not an editor there, so you may want to ask them for yourself. - auburnpilot talk 05:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the input -- I'll ask. -BC aka Callmebc (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 18:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uploading Bush records to Wikipedia? 

message: The Nation is a reliable source. David Corn is the Washington editor of The Nation magazine. These sources were improperly removed as "partisan blogs." Even blogs discouraged yes, but this one is a reliable source. I'm restoring.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Nation 

message: I'm just curious why I've read twice now he enlisted into the guard when you would need to be commissioned into the guard if you're an officer.
97.106.83.170 (talk) 02:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enlisted? You don't enlist as an officer. 

message: The article states that NG units were not used in Vietnam.  I know of one example and their were probably more.  See this and this that document a unit of the Kentucky National Guard that lost several men in Vietnam.  --rogerd (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly, the first cited source says "The 2/138th Field Artillery in Kentucky was one of only two National Guard Battalions in the country to go to Vietnam. The other Battalion was called up from West Virginia."  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 23:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NG units in Vietnam 

message: Please delete the childish comment beginning with the words "Bush is 70 years old..." shown as an independent sentence under the first paragraph.
Thank you.
Delete it yourself. Thank you. 128.243.220.21 (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Childish entry under paragraph 1 

message: I've just reversed an undiscussed move of this page to George W. Bush National Guard service. While I sympathize with the instincts that led to the page move, this is not an article that can be moved without discussion. I invite anyone, including the original page mover, to discuss here whether it would be an improvement to move the page to some other title; however, please don't move the page without discussion here. Thanks. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: There is an existing wiki article titled "Champagne Unit" in which the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group has an entire section.  My intent is not to insert derogatory content into this article, but I feel some brief mention of the "special makeup" of this unit is pertinent and would add value to this article. Possibly a simple link to the other article would suffice. 
It is by no coincidence that the unit included: 
The son of Senator Lloyd Bentsen, the son of CIA Director George H. W. Bush, the son of Governor John Connally Jr., the son of Senator John Tower, and seven members of the Dallas Cowboys.
The section "Acceptance into the National Guard" would seem the appropo location for this addition.
The "Champagne Unit" article does already have an existing link to this article, but there is no reciprocity. 71.29.67.237 (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  147th Fighter Interceptor Group 

message: Shouldn't it be the Dan Rather Military service controversy? ==
He is the one who made up the facts, presented fake documents as real and got found out.  --24.177.6.38 (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  George W. Bush military service controversy? 

message: Weasel words citation template added here:
"Acceptance into the National Guard
It has been said[by whom?], during the 1968–1974 period. . ."  Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words noted 

message: These controversy pages should really be merged with the main articles, other wise it is just gerrymandering.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 20:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page should be merged with the main article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on George W. Bush military service controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061216040554/http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/4271922/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4271922/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060530012148/http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc27.gif to http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc27.gif
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on George W. Bush military service controversy. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/articles/2000/05/23/1_year_gap_in_bushs_guard_duty?pg=full
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on George W. Bush military service controversy. 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/20130117043307/http://www.ng.mil/About/default.aspx to http://www.ng.mil/About/default.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927230255/http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/21939.html?cprose=5-39 to http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/21939.html?cprose=5-39
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on George W. Bush military service controversy. 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  tag to http://liveweb.web.archive.org/http:/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070809230831/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/html/nationworld/2002039080_buckhead18.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002039080_buckhead18.html
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) 08:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified