Talk:Killian documents controversy/Archive 3

message: Could these documents have been recreations rather than forgeries?
I read a posting by a vet who said he learned that it was commonpractice for documents to be reformatted in the process of being converted to microfiche.  His experience was that the archived version of some of his service records didn't match his copies.  A lawyerly type told him that's common and that the archived versions were legally considered authentic.  This theory seems like it would be easy to prove or disprove. -- Zappini
:I am a vet of the era who was involved in military administration up to the brigade level. Are you familiar with microfiche and the process? Essentially it's microfilm in a small, flat format. The idea is you take documents and photograph them in order to archive them and throw out the paper originals. (1) There is no point in retyping and doubling your work; the entire idea of microfiche or film is to preserve the original as it was originally created. (2) Memos of this nature would not be candidate for microfiche anyway which also relates to (3) these were allegedly memos which Killian kept in his personal files for no obvious reason. If they had been micofiched, they would have been destroyed. So we're saying Killian then made prints from the microfiche to put in his personal files? Or are you hinting that he kept the allegedly reformatted memos when they were microfiched? Then why wouldn't he have simply kept the originals? And (4) we're now arguing that these documents were reformatted and were then given to Killian to sign again?
:You should also know that when a document was redone for any reason (unless the redoing is exactly contemporaneous with the original document) the fact that it is not the original is clearly noted, and an explanation given as to why this is so.
:Wow, we're really reaching to make a silk purse out of this sow's ear. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:26, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recreations?

message: These documents have been determined by expert opinion to be forgeries. Please inform yourself regarding the subject before editing this article. 63.224.46.19 00:20, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This claim is non-NPOV and a definite overreach, and, barring new developments in the case, will continue to be so, no matter how many times you repeat that same sentence. Give it a rest, already. --Ray Radlein 21:37, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Ray, I asked you to justify your revert. You have failed to do so. Your assertion that my statement about expert opinion is "non-NPOV and a definite overreach" is simply false. Three credible, qualified experts in typewriter and computer typography  (Tytell, Phinney, and Newcomer) have concluded that the Killian documents are forgeries beyond any reasonable doubt. Not one credible, qualified expert has disputed these findings.  If you are unaware of these facts, then you are not competent to edit this article. Please desist. Do not revert again unless you can provide evidence here to support your claim that expert opinion is divided on this issue. 63.224.46.19 22:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: No additional justification should be necessary, given that this has been hadshed out for 50+K of text right above this. You have been repeatedly told, by several different individuals, that the blanket declaration you insist on using is not appropriate. It is factually incorrect, and utterly non-NPOV besides. --Ray Radlein 01:49, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Simply restating your claim that my statement "is factually incorrect, and utterly non-NPOV" is insufficient. Please indicate where specifically in the "50+K of text right above this" you (or anyone else) has provided any evidence whatsoever to support the claim that expert opinion is divided on this issue. Despite my repeated requests, you have failed to name a single credible, qualified expert who has disputed the findings by Tytell, Phinney, and Newcomer that the Killian documents are forgeries. If you can do so, do it now. Do not revert again until you have done so. 63.224.46.19 06:57, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: David Hailey for one. This issue has been dealt with repeatedly on this talk page.  I think the archives contain sufficient evidence that the finding is not unanimous, and in any case it's not the place of Wikipedia to make conclusions.  The article should not state they are forgeries based on what people think instead of know, regardless of how widespread this opinion is.  Unless you can find a reliable source that proves they are forgeries, this article should not make that conclusion. Not "puts forth a strong case", but proves. Bloggers and self-styled experts in 1970s typography do not count.  (For the record, I believe they are forgeries.  But what I believe doesn't matter, just like it doesn't matter what the right-wing blogosphere thinks.) Gamaliel 16:01, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: For example, the Columbia Journalism Review labeled Newcomer's conclusions "agressive", "flawed", and based on a "logical error".   The conclusions of your experts are in dispute, despite your assertions. Gamaliel 20:02, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not going to play dueling experts with you.  The archive is packed with discussions about various experts and their credentials, feel free to read it at your leisure.  Having this article state a fact as if it were not in dispute is incorrect, and you can shoot down the credentials of all the people you want, but that won't make the dispute go away.  Once again, our mission is to report, not to pass judgement.  Reporting that they are forgeries and presenting that as a fact ignores our duty to report the dispute and passes judgement on the evidence, which is not our job. Gamaliel 21:37, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: What's the basis for the assertion that Hailey's study "has been withdrawn"?  According to this link, it's no longer available online but a hard copy will be mailed to anyone who requests it. JamesMLane 07:35, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: James, I said the study had been withdrawn because it was (and is) no longer available online from Hailey's website. I wrote that before the hard copy SASE (street addresses only) mailing offer was made, but I don't think that makes any difference. It is clear that Hailey wants his study to be treated as an unpublished internal report with strictly limited distribution, not a public position presented for critical review. His wishes in this regard should be respected.  Anonip 19:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Gamaliel, I'm sorry my comment was unclear. It is certainly appropriate to include discussion of Hailey's study in a historical review of the controversy, although its significance is not great, and is primarily due to the angry reaction from right-wing bloggers. However, it is not accurate, or fair to Dr. Hailey,  to cite his study as evidence that he now disputes the conclusion of experts that the documents are forgeries. That's the context in which I noted that the study had been withdrawn. Anonip 01:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  However, we should not interpret him withdrawing the paper from the Internet as him withdrawing the conclusions of the report unless he explicitly says that was his intent. Gamaliel 02:28, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forgeries II 

message: I am attempting to contribute a section to discuss the conclusions of typewriter and computer typography experts regrading the authenticity of the Killian documents. Gamaliel has deleted it with the following  justification: "speculation, opinion, draws a conclusion - all of these facts are dealt with in the article in excruciating detail already".
I don't agree with this characterization of my contribution. In particular:
# The section describes and explains the (expert) opinion of the typewriter and computer typography experts and the conclusions they reached. This is appropriate.
# Although some of the information presented here is mentioned elsewhere in the original article, it is presented here in the context of explaining the experts' justification for their conclusion. This is useful.
# Some of the information included here is not mentioned elsewhere.
Gamaliel, please be more specific about your objections. 63.224.46.19 19:46, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand; a logical proof is just a sound logical argument (i.e., a valid argument with true premises).  Is there a Wikipedia-technical use of the term logical proof of which I'm unaware?  (I'm constantly falling into that trap.)As I read the excised material, it was explaining to the reader the reasoning offered by those who rejected the authenticity of the document, and it consisted of a series of statements of fact.  The conclusion constitutes a PoV — but the PoV of the people whose argument is being explained.  That might coincide with the PoV of the editor, but that surely can't be  a sin, even in Wikipedia.If your objection were that the material is repetitive, that would be a different matter (and I'd have to go back to read the whole thing again in orer to judge), but on your favoured objection I still have to disagree. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:09, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gamaliel's Deletion of Authenticity Section 

message: A lengthy debate above concerns whether the article should simply report the conclusion of others regarding the authenticity of the documents. Or, whether the article should itself draw the conclusion that the documents were faked. 
AnonIp has suggested the following lead paragraph
:The Killian documents (sometimes referred to as the CBS documents) were faked memos purportedly written in the early 1970s by President George W. Bush's commander in the Texas Air National Guard (TANG), the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian.  They appeared to support politically-charged allegations that Bush had been derelict in his Guard duties and had received preferential treatment. The documents were portrayed as authentic by CBS News anchor Dan Rather in a 60 Minutes story aired during the 2004 US presidential campaign.  Immediately after the broadcast their authenticity was questioned by right-wing bloggers on the Internet,  and the issue quickly caught the attention of the mainstream media. After a lengthy denial CBS was forced to admit that they could not be authenticated. The documents were ultimately shown to be forgeries by experts in typewriter and computer typography.
Mel Etitis has suggested the following lead paragraph 
:The Killian documents (sometimes referred to as the CBS documents) were memos purportedly written in the early 1970s by President George W. Bush's commander in the Texas Air National Guard (TANG), the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian.  They appeared to support politically-charged allegations that Bush had been derelict in his Guard duties, and that he had received preferential treatment. The documents were presented as authentic by CBS News anchor Dan Rather in a 60 Minutes story broadcast during the 2004 US presidential campaign.  Immediately after the program their authenticity was questioned by Internet bloggers, and the issue quickly caught the attention of the mainstream media. After insisting on the documents' authenticity for some time, CBS instituted an independent investigation; the panel's conclusion was that it was “not able to reach a definitive conclusion as to the authenticity of the Killian documents.” (pdf) Since then no expert has authenticated the documents, and several experts in typewriter and computer typography have declared them to be forgeries.  Public opinion has widely accepted that they are not authentic.
The current lead paragraph is
:The Killian documents (often referred to as the CBS documents during the 2004 US presidential campaign) were memos purportedly written by the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian.  They were presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes story criticizing President George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard (TANG).  After questions were raised about the possibility of forgery, CBS ordered an independent investigation.  The blue-ribbon panel reported it "was not able to reach a definitive conclusion as to the authenticity of the Killian documents." (pdf)  No experts have authenticated the documents, and several regard them as likely forgeries. 
===I prefer AnonIp's proposed lead===
:Let me briefly explain why I've proposed these changes. The lead paragraph should define the subject with a clear and concise statement of the essential facts. It should contain the minimum information that an uninformed reader wishing to know something about the subject would need to know. Readers requiring additional information could read on to the rest of the introduction and the body of the article, but unessential detail in the lead is a disservice to readers looking for a quick summary. Given that, here's what I think needs to be included:
:*The reader should know why they're called the Killian documents. That they were (purportedly) written by someone named Killian is not enough - who is Killian? - and his personal name and rank are minor details. The important identification in this context is his role as Bush's TANG commander.
:*The reader should know why they're significant. The basis of their significance is that they appeared to support the Bush TANG allegations with implications for the presidential campaign. The allegations themselves are dealt with in a separate article, and the details of the document contents would be in the body, but a brief indication is needed here. The current lead hints at this indirectly in characterizing the broadcast, but I don't think that's really enough.
:*The reader should know that they became controversial when reported in a broadcast by CBS's Rather, which explains why they're sometimes called the "CBS documents" and why the controversy is sometimes referred to as "Rathergate". (Indeed, CBS's conduct, not the TANG allegations, became the focus of the controversy.)
:*The reader should know that they were initially questioned by bloggers, ahead of the mainstream media, and that CBS was forced to recant. This points to the role of the documents in the emergence of non-traditional newsmedia, which will undoubtedly be important to some readers.
:*Finally, the most important fact about the documents, indeed a defining attribute, is that they're fakes. Particularly because of the potentially damaging implications of the documents if true, this needs to be made clear at the outset. The final sentence reiterates the point, and indicates the basis of the conclusion. The details will follow in the body of the article.
:*Of course, if the authenticity of the documents were a matter of serious dispute, that would be noted here, with a brief indication of the basis for the dispute. The details of the dispute would follow in the body of the article. But there is no serious dispute (if you disagree, see below).
:An additional introductory paragraph is probably justified to include a few other aspects of the subject, such as the fallout at CBS, what (little) is known of the actual origin of the documents, the involvement of the Kerry campaign, etc. But these seem clearly of second-order importance.
:I recognize that Wolfman's main objection is that I assert as fact that the documents are forgeries. For those who wish to join this debate, I'll ask the same question I've asked Wolfman: If there is some basis for reasonable doubt that the documents are forgeries, what is it? Anonip 21:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then we're both screwed :)--kizzle 01:07, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
===Other===
I prefer the existing version, with the exception that the last sentencea are deceptive in that it lean too heavily and give too much weight to a single statement of the panel yet shrug off the fact that most expert opening is that they are bogus. The panel made it quite clear in the text that almost all indications were that the memo was bogus (with numerous examples) but that they they didn't have the necessary competence and access to experts to say definitively whether they were real or bogus. Also "blue-ribbon panel" is really POV unless we can show that this is what they were commonly called. A better ending would be "The independent panel cast significant doubt on the documents authenticity but reported they were "were not able to reach a definitive conclusion as to the authenticity of the Killian documents." (pdf)  No experts have authenticated the documents, and most regard them as likely forgeries." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A poll 

message: :Let me briefly explain why I've proposed these changes. The lead paragraph should define the subject with a clear and concise statement of the essential facts. It should contain the minimum information that an uninformed reader wishing to know something about the subject would need to know. Readers requiring additional information could read on to the rest of the introduction and the body of the article, but unessential detail in the lead is a disservice to readers looking for a quick summary. Given that, here's what I think needs to be included:
:*The reader should know why they're called the Killian documents. That they were (purportedly) written by someone named Killian is not enough - who is Killian? - and his personal name and rank are minor details. The important identification in this context is his role as Bush's TANG commander.
:*The reader should know why they're significant. The basis of their significance is that they appeared to support the Bush TANG allegations with implications for the presidential campaign. The allegations themselves are dealt with in a separate article, and the details of the document contents would be in the body, but a brief indication is needed here. The current lead hints at this indirectly in characterizing the broadcast, but I don't think that's really enough.
:*The reader should know that they became controversial when reported in a broadcast by CBS's Rather, which explains why they're sometimes called the "CBS documents" and why the controversy is sometimes referred to as "Rathergate". (Indeed, CBS's conduct, not the TANG allegations, became the focus of the controversy.)
:*The reader should know that they were initially questioned by bloggers, ahead of the mainstream media, and that CBS was forced to recant. This points to the role of the documents in the emergence of non-traditional newsmedia, which will undoubtedly be important to some readers.
:*Finally, the most important fact about the documents, indeed a defining attribute, is that they're fakes. Particularly because of the potentially damaging implications of the documents if true, this needs to be made clear at the outset. The final sentence reiterates the point, and indicates the basis of the conclusion. The details will follow in the body of the article.
:*Of course, if the authenticity of the documents were a matter of serious dispute, that would be noted here, with a brief indication of the basis for the dispute. The details of the dispute would follow in the body of the article. But there is no serious dispute (if you disagree, see below).
:An additional introductory paragraph is probably justified to include a few other aspects of the subject, such as the fallout at CBS, what (little) is known of the actual origin of the documents, the involvement of the Kerry campaign, etc. But these seem clearly of second-order importance.
:I recognize that Wolfman's main objection is that I assert as fact that the documents are forgeries. For those who wish to join this debate, I'll ask the same question I've asked Wolfman: If there is some basis for reasonable doubt that the documents are forgeries, what is it? Anonip 21:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I prefer AnonIp's proposed lead

message: #Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I prefer Mel Etitis' proposed lead

message: I prefer the existing version, with the exception that the last sentencea are deceptive in that it lean too heavily and give too much weight to a single statement of the panel yet shrug off the fact that most expert opening is that they are bogus. The panel made it quite clear in the text that almost all indications were that the memo was bogus (with numerous examples) but that they they didn't have the necessary competence and access to experts to say definitively whether they were real or bogus. Also "blue-ribbon panel" is really POV unless we can show that this is what they were commonly called. A better ending would be "The independent panel cast significant doubt on the documents authenticity but reported they were "were not able to reach a definitive conclusion as to the authenticity of the Killian documents." (pdf)  No experts have authenticated the documents, and most regard them as likely forgeries." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other

message: I am amazed there is not one mention of Karl Rove in this exhaustive article!  Seems everyone is distracted by minutiae regarding 'authenticity' but there is no discussion of who sourced the documents and what their motivation would be.  At the time, there was widespread speculation that it was a Machiavellian preemptive strategy of Rove's, and now with the Jeff Gannon Gannongate scandal, it appears these speculations may finally be nearing fruition.
:"Gannon scoop shows White House Forged TANG/CBS memos?!?! by RegenerationMan Fri Feb 18th, 2005 at 09:20:51 PST. It now appears that Jeff Gannon could be the thread that unravels the real story behind the TANG/CBS forgeries.  I have put together a case here that if looked at carefully by the blogosphere would show that the TANG forgeries were made by the White House, probably Dan Bartlett, and then given to Bill Burkett by a former associate of Karl Rove, Roger Stone.  Stone's wife, Nydia, who is Cuban, was most likely the Hispanic lady on the phone who convinced Burkett the documents were real and that he should burn them after copying them to protect her honor. The hot rumor in New York political circles has Roger Stone, the longtime GOP activist, as the source for Dan Rather's dubious Texas Air National Guard "memos." " 
:We're busy fighting World War I here, hunkered down in our respective trenches, expending vast efforts over a few words back and forth here and there: Bringing Karl Rove into this is like opening up a second front by sending troops to Gallipoli. :-)
:There have been whispers (entirely justified on past performance) concerning the long arm of Karl Rove at work in this since the very start, of course; and I've been following the Roger Stone connection myself. For the time being, however, I think all of this is just too damned speculative to go into in this already speculative article. If things develop further, we can always update it then, when it becomes more "factesque" --Ray Radlein 20:12, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
::The Gannon connection is still speculative.  The possible involvement of Karl Rove, however, has been mentioned since the story first broke.  It goes beyond "whispers" and it's now been endorsed by at least one notable person (a member of Congress).  On that basis, it belongs in the article.  I've added a link to a source for the quotation.  The other unattributed statements in the "Theories Regarding the Source of the Documents", however, don't have that kind of foundation.  None of them are appropriate. I'm removing them, with each subject to being restored if someone wants to identify a prominent spokesperson who's endorsed it.  The Rove thing doesn't deserve a section all to itself, so I've added it to the other reactions. JamesMLane 03:10, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theories Regarding Source of Documents, Karl Rove et al 

message: One of the recent edits added the mention of the conservative bloggers adopting this sobriquet to the article in a second place.  I'm not sure which place in the text is the better place to put it, but it should probably be edited down to just one mention. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pajamahadeen (sp?) mentioned twice 

message: I prefer the earlier versions: "The Killian documents are photocopies of unsubstantiated provenance that were central to a controversy during the 2004 US presidential campaign. The memos purportedly were written by the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian and were presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes story criticizing President George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard (TANG)."
JML's meddling has done nothing but gum up the works.
216.153.214.94 22:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "JML's meddling" is one way to look at it.  Another way to look at it is, "Nobody prefers Rex's version except Rex." JamesMLane 00:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  JML, 1st you go around  provoking trouble, then you whine to Neutrality when you get tweaked in return. Certainly you must know that intentionally snide insults such as "Nobody prefers Rex's version except Rex.", only serve to engender rancor, yes? 216.153.214.94 01:22, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain how that is an insult, Rex.  You may not be happy that nobody prefers your version except you but that does not make pointing it out an insult. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st and 2nd sentences 

message: I consider this to be obvious POV vandalism, the anon account disagrees, I leave it up to others to decide for themselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killian_documents&diff=11732659&oldid=11732495
"...rabidly biased partisans make the farfetched and unsported claim..." to me is obvious POV vandalism in an attempt to illustrate a point (which still counts as vandalism). zen master    T  20:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If Rex (the anon) continues to try to insert that POV language, then here's a possible compromise.  We could restore Rex's language, but then add, "Rabidly biased Republican partisans make the farfetched and unsupported claim that Bush fulfilled all his legal obligations during the Vietnam War."  For my part, I agree with Zen-master's removal of the phrase, but if it's to be used to characterize one side, it should be used for the other as well.  Is that what you want, Rex? JamesMLane 20:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: James, I actually think your analysis misses the point kind of, the anon's phrasing was obviously not allowed on wikipedia and the anon made that edit merely to try to illustrate a point he had about the POV of the article (vandalism to illustrate a point).  If there is something wrong with the POV or word choice with any article it should be fixed, if something is presented in "rabidly" POV fashion then neutral terms should be used instead, rather than balancing rabid terms with rabid terms.  In this case the anon just seems to haved believed that a neutrally presented, factually citable sentence is rabidly POV. zen master    T  20:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrasing was obviously not allowed on Wikipedia, which is why I said I agreed with your removal of it.  The point of my comment was that perhaps Rex would be able to understand why it's not allowed if he envisioned the same phrasing being used to deride the position he held. JamesMLane 22:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, ok, I must have given up on trying to use reverse psychology on wikipedia long ago. zen master    T  00:25, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI obvious POV vandalism reverted