Talk:Killian documents controversy/Archive 4

message: I moved this text from the article.  To me it seems more appropriate to put under George W. Bush military service controversy.  This article is about the documents themselves, including their presentation, provenance, content, portrayal, and consequences, not about what other evidence may or may not exist to corroborate their allegations. (Such as testimony from people who think the content of the documents is true regardless of their validity).  I think this may also reduce the article size below 60k.  (Kaisershatner)
Here's the text-
Brigadier General David L. McGinnis (ret'd), who once worked for an assistant Secretary of Defense, said that the documents proved that Bush did not complete his national service commitments, even if the records showed that he had been paid during this time. Lawrence Korb said that a truthful evaluation by Killian would have resulted in Bush's being drafted for active duty in Vietnam. The two men made these statements immediately following the CBS broadcast, apparently on the assumption that the documents were genuine.  Aside from the documents newly publicized by CBS, however, Korb, who was an Assistant Secretary of Defense during the administration of Ronald Reagan, had already concluded, based on undisputed records, that Bush did not fulfill his Guard obligations and could have been ordered to active duty as a result. 
Marian Carr Knox, Colonel Killian's secretary at the time, has denied typing the memos, but insists they reflect the truth about Lieutenant Bush.
:Corroborating evidence is extremely important because it would nullify the very controversy over the documents.  Since this article has info on the CBS and Dan Rather side of controversy it certainly has to include allegations and evidence the documents accurately reflected Killian's criticisms of Bush. zen master    T  17:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Military service arguments

message: Zen, when you write "recreated from originals" I assume you mean someone created documents that were not authentic but would appear to be authentic.  Isn't that the definition of forgery?
Kaisershatner 14:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Kaisershatner, I think your assumption is incorrect. I believe Zen means to imply that someone (Karl Rove and his minions) had the authentic originals but created copies that appeared to be fake, so that people would think the originals were not authentic, when actually they were. Anonip 16:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Recreated from originals"

message: There's rather too much weasely speculation of the "some say", "some think" kind in this article, in my opinion.  We know the blogs and whatnot are full of silly conspiracy theories on either side--statements from blogs that have had a significant effect should be reported, but idle statements that amount to no more than speculations have no place in this article except where we report on who voiced them and what effect this had.
Hard facts are sometimes missed, too.  It should be in the lead that the White House initially accepted the documents as authentic (presumably trusting the journalists to get things right) and this was taken by NBCCBS as confirmation of their authenticity, which at that time had not been sufficiently determined.  Armed with the confidence that White House communications director Dan Bartlett wasn't challenging authenticity, NBCCBS made a bad call and went to air with it story, shorn of a section where Rather interviewed a handwriting expert. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Speculation and fact

message: Creating a section to address this, since Zen has made changes but doesn't reply to my concerns listed above.  To reiterate, I have repeatedly asked that the "corroborating evidence" he alleges exists be indicated.  Since the Carr testimony in my OPINION is not corroborating evidence, but in Zen's view IS evidence, I suggested a compromise - rather than a subjective claim that there is evidence, let's print the OBJECTIVE facts: that Knox thought the docs were forged but that they reflected in her opinion, Killian's view of Bush.  That would appear to resolve that dispute, wouldn't it?  Kaisershatner 21:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Zen was posting reply to my talk page when I wrote that:  The change you made to the intro to mention the secretary by name, include her agreement with the finding of forgery, and then clarify she is the corroborating evidence was a good change.  Separately, I think changes you made earlier today have resulted in there being two redundant "Background and timeline" sections.  Can you clean that up?  zen master    T  21:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Corroborating Evidence

message: I removed the section:  (1) the documents' supporters and detractors are documented in the body of the article, along with their political leaning, (2) the validity of the documents is a separate question from what partisans on either side thought, which in any case is already addressed in the body, (3) the Pajamahadeen section is already in the body, (4) the Thornburg/Boccardi info is already in the body.  Kaisershatner 15:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partisan interests 

message: Here's another proposal:  Move the all of the typographical and other authenticity issues to a subpage, linked from the first paragraph via something like "a detailed analysis of the typographical and other authenticity issues is HERE," making the article under 70k, and allowing the addition of some pictures.  My thinking is that the average reader isn't interested in the microdetails of typesetting and font widths, etc., especially since at this stage, the fact that the documents were forged isn't disputed much at all (in my research on this article I found that even DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe calls them forgeries).  Since all of the typographical & content issues are still quite important, I thought maybe giving them their own page would be possible.  I may try to make a trial subpage if I can figure out how to do that, to provide an example, but do you guys think this is a horrible idea?  Kaisershatner 16:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it makes more sense to keep typographical concerns here.  It might kind of make sense to move the typographical details to a sub page if the main page pretty much concludes that the version of the docs aired by CBS are indeed fake (so the details are redundant).  But in the interest of being fair and balanced, and the need to present all sides of the issue, I think the typographical details should remain in this article.  Though there is likely a huge potential for deverbosification if article size is a concern. zen master    T  18:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Typographical and Other Issues Sections

message: Referring to these "documents" as documents adds a false patina of legitimacy. The heraldy, provenance and genesis of the source papers from which these images of faxed photocopies were (we've been told) created, has never been established. Rather, what has been established by the preponderance of the evidence is that these so-called "documents" are forgeries. When one forges paper money, one ends up with a piece of paper, but that paper is NOT money. Likewise, when one forges documents, one ends up with papers, but those papers are NOT documents. By calling them anything other than purported or so-called, we are framing the debate as if the papers have been established to be genuine. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   04:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there are plenty of illegitimate documents out there.  A piece of paper with writing on it doesn't cease to be a document just because the writing is false, or is falsely presented as having been created at a time and by a person other than the actual time and author.  On the right-wing website Little Green Footballs, where they agree with your view of the authenticity, they addressed the issue under the topic heading "forged documents".    Our article makes abundantly clear that Wikipedia is not asserting the authenticity of the documents. JamesMLane 07:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again I point out to you, when the legitimacy of a document is in question, it is better to refer to that document as a "document" so as to make clear to the readers, that we as editors are not putting any patina of legitimacy about so-called documents being anything other than "documents". As for "asserting", you missed the point; the current language infers, it does not assert. Even so, I am opposed to any inference that these so-called documents are anything other than so-called "documents". As you surely must know at this point, there is nothing which exists in the public dialog on this topic to indicate that anything other than multi-generation (faxed) photocopies of some papers of some sort (of unknown origin) may be in the hands of some people in the media. But, as to where they actually came from or who truly originally created them, nothing has been proved. As a result, by calling them documents instead of "documents" if they are (as most seem to agree they are) forgeries, we helping the forgers aim by adding a patina of legitimacy to them. In fact, I want this page to be renamed to: The Killian "documents" controversy. It would be a more accurate title. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   18:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  These are only so-called "documents" 

message: Can be found here: Lucy Ramirez. Please do not delete this wiki link. Thank you. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   07:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The [[Lucy Ramirez]] page