Talk:Killian documents controversy/Archive 6

Archived talk page through March 2006

Typo to fix on the main page please. George Bush was in the AIR National Guard, not the National Guard. Do you really need a cite for this fix?

Second, I don't know if you have a list of the items that prove the forgery aspect? If so, you can add one more. All US military records since WWI (YES, World War I!) are done the same way when filed. They have two holes punched in the top and are put into those funny folders with the metal "straps" to hold them down. My wife held a job a few years ago transcribing some records from as far back as WWI and they were all like that. Yet the Killian documents did NOT have these holes, and the letterhead text was not effected by the "holes" that did not exist.

Also, one of the proofs of forgery was that the text lined up in Microsoft Word. I can further clarify that. The text lined up in Word 2000 or later, but NOT in Word 97 or earlier. (I tried it both ways). Thus, the computer that created the documents had at least Word 2000 or later on it.

You can wiggle all you want, but to the trained observer, these are forged documents, and not even particularly good forged documents. There are just so many things wrong with them.

Guys this cite is bogus. (It has been thouroughly debunked before, and the author was forging his own images to prove his points). I will have to look to find the debunking, but this guy's tenure was in doubt after it was reported to his academic superiors.

"David Hailey, PhD. The Second of Two Examinations of the "Killian Memos". Retrieved on 2006-03-20. "

Excellent work

Just wanted to say that the writers did an excellent job on this. Very unbiased, very balanced, well sourced and researched. If this comment is inappropriate please delete it, but really guys and gals, excellent work in creating an ideal entry.66.65.57.234 16:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131 02:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Blanking the conspiracy section

Hi, 70.85.195.225 (talk · contribs). I do not agree with your edit on Killian documents and I especially do not agree with your use of a misleading edit summary. Previously 207.44.237.158 (talk · contribs) had blanked an entire section without discussing it on the talk page. When you reverted to the blanked version, you said you were reverting valid edits and accused the reverting editor of stalking. Do you have some relationship with 207.44.237.158 (talk · contribs)? In any case, JoshuaZ was reverting a wholesale section blanking and your edit summary was misleading.

I happen to agree that the section on conspiracy theories is not up to wikipedia's ideal for an article. While it is true the conspiracy theories were mentioned on blogs and that seems to be the justifaction for including them, I am interested in pursuing an edit that would be confined to conspiracy theories that were remarked upon in the mainstream media and/or by notable politicians, and not source any blogs. Would you care to discuss this on the talk page before making another big edit? Thanks. Thatcher131 14:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The ES was NOT misleading and the edit WAS valid. Also, Bebeck needs to stop calling everybody with an IP "shran". That's just a fraudulent excuse he's using to trump up phony accusations. The section which was deleted has no citations and is nothing but original research -and it's POV too. Either clean it up or it's going to keep getting deleted. That section is nothing but uncited speculative conjecture.

• • I'm not particularly interested in the "shran" business other than to note that an awful lot of Texas IP addresses have very similar edit patterns and article interests. After checking JoshuaZ's talk page when he reverted you I found out about it and did list two IP addresses at WP:ANI as suspects, but I also noted that I was willing to try and work with the editor on this article, and I have no interest in becoming part of a larger conflict. If you are acknowledging that you are the same editor referenced above then whether or not you are shran, you are certainly editing from multiple IP addresses which could be seen as an abuse of the process. I am also somewhat concerned about your attitude and expressed desire to continue blanking the page.
  • Regarding the conspiracy section, you say it has no citations but I count 10 footnotes. While it is not appropriate for wikipedians to insert their own speculations into articles it is perfectly reasonable to summarize the speculations of others, no matter how fevered and silly they may be. In this particular case I have two problems with the article. One is that the Rove section is about 5 times longer than the CBS section. The second problem is that while bloggers were an important part of the story regarding the documents authenticity and had a major impact on the outcome of events, there is no special reason to report the conspiracy theories of either democratic or republican bloggers. I do think, however, that we should report about people such as Maurice Hinchey and Terry McAuliffe who are national figures. Frankly I think their spouting of Roving conspiracies makes them look bad. (I direct you to Robert Stanek, an author of bad sci-fi who floods amazon with hundreds of glowing reviews for his books, published by a vanity press he owns. When it became apparent that the article was going to make him look bad, because we were including verifiable negative information about him, he and/or his supporters tried to AfD it. Truth is a two-edged sword, and I think that if public Democratic Party figures want to look foolish we should not stand in their way.)
  • My plan is to post a revised section here in talk and solicit comments, and do a replacement after a few days based on consensus. I intend only to cite such conspiracy theories as are made by notable public figures (not bloggers) and reported in the mainstream press. If it is verifable that they said it, it is worth noting as part of the story, albeit in a more abbreviated format. Thatcher131 03:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

that sounds better that the gunk in there now

Proposed changes to "Explanatory theories" section

Below is my proposed rewrite to the conspiracy section. Regarding the "pro-Bush side" there are a lot of blogger and op-ed opinions but I think it is best to leave it with the panel report's final conclusion. I know there were a lot of op-eds and such afterwards criticizing the panel, including some mainstream papers, but at some point we have to put it to rest and a list of dueling editorials does not seem to be in the spirit of an encyclopedia. Regarding the "Karl Rove mastermind" theories I focused on Terry McAuliffe and Maurice Hinchey—speculation by national political figures is noteworthy, especially when it gets mentioned in many newspapers; speculation by bloggers is probably not. (unlike the authenticity question, where bloggers drove much of the investigation, here it is speculation that ultimately went nowhere. McAuliffe's press release blaming Rove and Stone is no longer at the DNC's web site so I sourced it from both the Washington Times and the Daily Kos. Same thing with Hinchey, his remarks are transcribed on a bunch of web sites so I sourced it from both a conservative (Opinion Journal) and a liberal (Kos) web site.

Please leave comments below. If there are no objections I will switch the sections in about a week. (I will be offline from Mar 23-27) Thatcher131 01:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Was the story politically motivated?

Some critics of CBS and Dan Rather argued that by proceeding with the story when the documents had not been authenticated, CBS was exhibiting liberal bias and attempting to influence the outcome of the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election. The Thornburgh-Boccardi report found that producer Mary Mapes' contacting of Joe Lockhart was "highly inappropriate," and that it, "crossed the line as, at a minimum, it gave the appearance of a political bias and could have been perceived as a news organizations' assisting a campaign as opposed to reporting on a story." After interviewing Mapes, Rather and the other CBS staffers involved in the story, it was the view of the panel that the September 8 broadcast was not motivated by politics but, "primarily…a rush to air that overwhelmed the proper application of CBS News Standards."

Some liberals and Democratic critics of the president suggested that the memos were produced by the Bush campaign to discredit the media's reporting on Bush's National Guard service. The chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Terry McAuliffe, suggested that the memos might have originated with long-time Bush strategist, Karl Rove. He told reporters on September 10, "I can tell you that nobody at the Democratic National Committee or groups associated with us were involved in any way with these documents," he said. "I'm just saying that I would ask Karl Rove the same question." Two weeks later, McAuliffe suggested that GOP consultant Roger Stone and Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie were involved, saying in a press release, "Will Ed Gillespie or the White House admit today what they know about Mr. Stone's relationship with these forged documents? Will they unequivocally rule out Mr. Stone's involvement? Or for that matter, others with a known history of dirty tricks, such as Karl Rove or Ralph Reed?" At a community forum in Utica, New York in 2005, US representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) repeated the claim that the bogus documents originated with Karl Rove, saying "They set that up with those false papers. Why did they do it? They knew that Bush was a draft dodger…once they did that, then it undermined everything else about Bush's draft dodging." No proof was ever offered that the memos originated with the Bush campaign and Rove and Stone have denied any involvement.

leave comments on proposed edit here

I just spotted that one of the references in the article as it is is a blog post titled "Just cut out their tongues." Good heavens. I'm not going to wait until I get back online next week to sub in the new section. If there are no objections I will sub it on Wednesday before I leave. Thatcher131 07:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. These paragraphs are better than what currently resides in "Explanatory theories," which I think is what you are calling the "conspiracy theory" section. One small problem I have is with your use of "However." Yes, the Panel concluded bias was not the motivation, but the way you're stating it makes it seem like this is definitive evidence that bias was not involved. If you drop the "However," and replace w/ "In the view of the Panel, the broadcast was not motivated..." then I would be ok with that. Kaisershatner 15:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• That sounds fine. Note change above.Thatcher131 16:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Did you delete the line from the current version in which McAuliffe is quoted as referring to the documents as "forgeries?" I think that's significant - even the chairman of the DNC thought they were faked, even if he had the idea that they were faked by Bush supporters. Would you mind restoring that line? Kaisershatner 15:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Using google and Lexis/Nexis I did not find the word forgery directly attributed to McAuliffe (or if it was, I missed it). He certainly implied it, and there is a transcript of a cable news show (I forget which one) where the host asked him if he really thought they were repubican forgeries, and he replied something like, I'm just saying it should be looked in to. If you can source the word forgery to him I will put it in certainly, and I will also take another look around the net and Lexis/Nexis before I finalize it. What we really need is a transcript of his comments on September 10 to reporters, since the various newspapers and bloggers who noted them only have selected quotes. He could have been saying, if they are forgeries, we should look at Rove. If he can be sourced to saying on Sept 10 that they are forgeries, a non-conservative agreeing with the forgery arguments on Sept 10 would be a notable addition to the main chronology. Thatcher131 16:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• It's there in the line just above footnotes 4 and 5. Will Ed Gillespie or the White House admit today what they know about Mr. Stone's relationship with these forged documents? However this does not speak to whether McAuliffe knew early on they were forgeries because he made these comments on Sept 21, after CBS' Sept 20 retraction. I will look around again to see if I can find a source that says he used the word "forgery" earlier than that. Of course it can always be added later. Thatcher131 16:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your responsiveness (and while I'm on the subject, thanks for your work with the references!!). To be clear, I'm not implying that McAuliffe "knew early on they were forgeries," or anything about McAuliffe being involved, etc. I am implying that McAuliffe appears to have thought they were forged, something substantiated by his press release you have noted above. It's not a point about a conspiracy or anything, just a side note that "even" someone highly motivated to believe the worst about GWB appears to have conceded the docs weren't real. That's all I wanted in there. Kaisershatner 16:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Before Sept. 20, McAuliffe was asked about the documents in a Sept 10 press conference and possibly other places, I have not found transcripts. I think, based on the way the remarks were reported, that reporters asked him if the documents were forged, and he said (paraphrasing) "if they were we didn't do it, look at Karl Rove, and don't forget that the legit NG records still show he lied about his service." For example, Jack Kelly said in an editorial on Sept 19, Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe has tacitly conceded the memos likely are forgeries (emphasis added). Also read this Washington Times article (no Kerry fans there, obviously). I think if McAuliffe had come out on the 10th saying in his own words that he thought they were forgeries, it would have been reported. I think he was very careful (prior to the 20th) to always say in response to a question about the F word, I don't know but...

Given those constraints, can you think of a way to make your point clearer? Thatcher131 17:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think you have to contort yourself to try to make this point for me. It isn't the main idea of this section anyway, and the quotation itself serves to illustrate McAuliffe's view on the date in question. Thanks, and once again, looking at the work you did on the references, thank you SO MUCH. Kaisershatner 12:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"End Notes" style of links reduces readability

As per this message left for Jimbo, I am deeply troubled by the "end notes" style of links in this article. I am convinced that this style of external links is degrading the quality of the wiki. Merecat 08:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• I read the message and I disagree. Certainly the method using {{cite}} and {{note}} causes confusion and number problems. However I believe the new system described in WP:FOOTNOTE is a great improvement. First, I don't understand your confusion, other than wanting to not have to click twice. The number of the citation in the text matches the number in the note section, so even if the browser is imprecise, it should not be hard to see which note is indicated. Second, the new method is more appropriate for some kinds of citations, like all the cites to specific pages of the Thornburgh report. Linking in the url would create a lot of duplicated text on the page and would be less helpful in finding the proof since it would not specify the page within a 250 page pdf file. Third, an inline url is worthless for any reference that is not on the web (such as the newspaper article under note 56, or a great many books, magazine articles, and newspaper articles from the past). Properly executed, I think the system is a great improvement. Thatcher131 06:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

For linking to web-based articles, "in-line" links are best. Footnotes/Endnotes are ok for hardcopy ref's, but not optimal for web-based citations. Merecat 02:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are used for reference and research. As such, each article should have a bibliography so that a person using wikipedia as a reference or for research (where they will reference there sources), such as is wikipedia's intended use as an encyclopedia, source need to be referened in standard bibliographic format. Kevin Baas^talk 02:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Rachel Corrie to see an extremely high quality article which uses some links at the bottom of the page as well as many links within the body of the article. Perhaps you should tell SlimVirgin (a major editor there) that the link style she uses is wrong because as you say "each article should have a bibliography". Merecat 02:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• I do not think you should have tagged the article since the only discussion here is 2-1 against your view and you also did not get any support when you complained on WP:VPT. However I will not revert the tag as I was the one who converted all the citations in the first place. I strongly believe that even for a web link, a properly formatted footnote is better than an inline link because the footnote provides the title, author, source and date of the citation, which is extremely helpful if the link goes dead. With the source and date, a newspaper article can always be retrieved from a library, but if the link goes dead all an editor may have is a string of meaningless letters and numbers. I have posted a request for comment on WP:VPA because I do not think one editor should be able to deprecate an article's citation style when it properly uses the citation module specifically developed for the purpose. Thatcher131 03:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I refer you again to Rachel Corrie, a much higher quality article, which is much more readable due to better links style. Merecat 04:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Quoted from WP:VPA Inline URLs are not considered proper citations for articles up for featured article candidacy, and What is a featured article? states that "the meta:cite format is strongly encouraged". — TKD::Talk 03:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC) Of course one person's comment is not the end of the story. hopefully we will get some more opinions in the next few days. Perhaps you should make your case there. Thatcher131 05:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What precisely do you mean by "in-line"? I mean links that are at the end of a line, not in the middle of it. I refer you again to Rachel Corrie, a much higher quality article, which is much more readable due to excellent links style. Merecat 05:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• "In-line" refers to the style of link you want, whether it is in the middle of a sentence or at the end; technically an embedded html link. Here is what Wikipedia:Citing sources says about inline links to newspaper articles:

A newspaper article referenced in an article by using an embedded link might be — [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html] — which looks like this. [2] The embedded link is placed after the period, or when placed within a sentence after a clause, then after the comma. Then in the References section, a full citation is provided.

It is particularly important in the case of online newspaper articles to include byline, headline, newspaper, and date of publication, because many newspapers keep stories online only for a certain period before transferring them to the archives. With a full citation, readers will be able to find the article easily even if the link doesn't work.

The Rachel Corrie article has two problems. One, common to this method of citing sources, is that if the web link goes dead, the only way to find out which is the corresponding item in the reference list is to examine the page's coding on the edit page, and that may be beyond many casual users. With respect to that particular article, there are 32 embedded links but only 13 references. That means that the article is not following the citing sources guidelines, because for 19 of those 32 links, the title, byline, date and source are not given, so that if the link goes dead there is no way to find out what article it used to link to.

With the footnote method, the title, source and date are provided at hand even if the link is dead. For online sources you have to click twice to get to it, its true. I do not understand why that is so objectionable.

I note with interest that Wikipedia:Citing sources states that some modern style manuals have deprecated footnotes when used for merely citing sources, in favor of Wikipedia:Harvard_referencing. In Harvard referencing the ref is spelled out in the text by author and date, such as (Scott Hinderaker, September 15, 2004), with the full reference list at the bottom in alphabetical order. That returns to your other complaint, that the reference is separated from the text so that it is hard to find and remove the reference when removing text. Not to mention the fact that you have to add new references in alphabetical order. A hybrid method, such as inline links for on-web sources and Harvard references or footnotes for off-web sources, is possible, but Wikipedia:Citing sources also asks for consistency. Thatcher131 05:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Consistancy over readability is not so good. We make the rules and we can amend the rules. Simply put, several very experienced editors such as SlimVirgin have done much editng at Rachel Corrie and they have produced arguably the best article on any controversial related subject on the wiki. To ignore that model example of in-article links combined with end-of-article references, is to ignore the culmulative effort of many capable editors. I point to Rachel Corrie because it's much more readable than Killian documents. Personally, I feel much of the difference stems from the more easily followable links. Merecat 06:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Are you really just bothered by the fact that the superscript footnote throws off the line spacing? Thatcher131 06:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If a wiki article says to me something like according to the Inquirer "[t]here's nothing superior about Apple hardware." [1], as a reader, I want to be able to click right on the link and read the cited article. Forcing readers to 1st click to the bottom of page before they can read the article, is lame. Also, this method - forcing people to click to the bottom, is being abused on some pages - see Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. On that article, the links to the bottom of the page jump to numbered sub-sections of links. This leaves the reader guessing as to which source is the citation for the assertion they wish to verify/read. That said, although Killian documents does not currently abuse this technique as badly as Rationales to impeach George W. Bush, there still remains the problem of the forced double click and the difficulty of a less skilled editor trying to add some text with a citation via the tradition method of [2]. Suffice it to say, I feel that the blend of link methods used at Rachel Corrie is superior to the single style of links method used here. Merecat 18:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecats suggestion that Rationales to impeach George W. Bush is being abused, can only be described as inconsistent with the truth. What he see as more links to one sentence, in reality is one assertion being backed up by multiple references since Merecat et al, repeatedly assert no source exist for the sentence in question. Nomen Nescio 15:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Nomen, please comment on what I am discussing, not me personally. While I am only guessing at this, I am thinking that English may be your 2nd language. If that is true, then I am inclined to cut you a lot of slack in your word choice. Even so, I'd prefer that you not comment about me personally. Thanks. Merecat 19:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat, I suggest you bring up the issue on WP:CITE and see if you can reach consensus. If no consensus emerges, then you'd be justified in complaining when someone changes over inline links. If consensus emerges in your favor, then you'd be justified in changing over links to the inline style. If, as I suspect will occur, consensus emerges against you, then you should stop. But until general consensus is established, as long as you're the only one holding your position against what seems to be everyone else commenting on the article as well as consensus on WP:FAC, I'd suggest you stop changing things over and putting up notices. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying that the links system used at Rachel Corrie is wrong? Merecat 00:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what Simetrical's opinion is, but my view is that the system used at Rachel Corrie is one of several acceptable systems and the system I have used here is another acceptable system. And, as I have pointed out but you have not acknowledged, since the Rachel Corrie article uses only embedded html links, and since there are only 13 references for 32 embedded links, the Corrie article is not following policy that requires a fully documented reference for each embedded link, for use in case the embedded link stops working. Finally, since this article has footnotes to both online and offline sources, coverting to embedded html would require a hybrid system using both embedded html and footnotes or embedded html and Harvard references. I prefer to keep to one consistent system. Thatcher131 01:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I still think that at Rachel Corrie it's easier to read the supporting citations and I also think that it's easier to edit that article than this one. Merecat 03:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Journalistic hoax?

I disagree that this falls into the category of a journalistic hoax, certainly not along the lines of the other things in that category. Unlike Jayson Blair and other situations, I think CBS was absolutely convinced that they got it right. They were led into a bad situation by their willingness to suspend disbelief and ingnore contrary evidence in favor of what they believed was right. There have been other cases of this phenomenon (Winter soldier for example, or more recently the Iraqi who was reported by the NY Times that he was the one in a famous Abu Ghraib photo even though the Times itself had printed otherwise the year before.) Maybe we can have a category for this sort of scandal but I think the journalist hoaxes should stick to things that were intentionally perpeutated as hoaxes. Thatcher131 02:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

CBS itself, perhaps yes, though Mapes I feel, knows more than she admits. But as the rabid partisan that she is, Mapes still feels she did the right thing. Rather looked the other way, but Mapes knew the documents were smelly. CBS failed because it paid not enough attention - other than to initially blindly trust Mapes and Rather. Merecat 03:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"Hoax" clearly implies knowledge, not merely "paid not enough attention". The same people who are quick to accuse CBS of a hoax in the Killian documents incident would, I suspect, scream bloody murder if the term were applied to the mainstream media's failure to expose the Bush administration's prewar lies about Iraq. JamesMLane t c 10:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This was a hoax, just not a journalistic one. This was a fabricated partisan smear piece. Somewhat like the stuff Charles Colson might have done in his early days. Merecat 16:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't ascribe to malice that which can be explained with incompetence. --71.71.238.231 02:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

False claim: political motivation

I corrected the false claim that the view of the Thornburgh-Boccardi panel was "that the September 8 broadcast was not motivated by politics". The report said that it did not "find a basis to acuse" those involved "of having a political bias". That is not at all the same as what was claimed. -- JPMcGrath 05:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand the distinction but I don't have a problem with your edit. Thatcher131 06:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It's subtle, but I think JPMcGrath's point might be that the panel did not conclusively state political bias was not a factor, but instead stated that it did not find enough evidence to make that accusation, as "bias is hard to prove," in Boccardi's words. In any event, more precise citations are usually an improvement for an article. I think it's a good change. Kaisershatner 13:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Kaisershatner's reply is close, but I would go further. The Thornburgh-Boccardi report did not in any way conclude that there was no political agenda, conclusively or otherwise. It did not even hint that there was no political agenda. The panel concluded that it did not have sufficient evidence of the participants' motivations to make accusations of political bias. In short, it does not say whether or not there was bias. -- JPMcGrath 00:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In contrast

I don't think "in contrast" is a weasel word, its another way of saying, these three experts say one thing; on the other hand, a fourth expert says a different thing. I don't care if it gets left off entirely, I just do see how it's weaselly. Thatcher131 04:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Good article?

I can't find the nomination or promotion for this article as "good" in the page history of Wikipedia:Good articles. I do believe it is Good (and that my own efforts to clean up and verify the sources are at best a minor contribution). However, to be fair I have listed it at Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes for review. Thatcher131 04:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It was never even nominated. The guy who listed it has done that several times now. The other ones got speedy pulled, but this was missed. Derex 05:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Contrast

(copied from Merecat's talk page)

I'd like you to reconsider your insertion of the word "partial". I get your point completely, however "In contrast..." is still true as it relates to the contrast between a computer and typewriter. The problem is that the word "partial" doesn't really make sense unless the reader also has access to your edit summary to get your train of thought. However, it's not appropriate to explicity tag Hailey with a qualifier ( "However, the argument that the docs were produced on a typewriter does not rule out the possibility that they were typed in 2004" ) unless we allow other statements to also get tagged with qualifiers that reduce or negate their impact. (Plus the qualifiers would be the editors' comments rather than describing the work of others) The documents authenticity is analyzed at the other article, this is just a quick summary and pointer anyway. If you think "in contrast" is too broad how about leaving the dependent clause off altogether and starting the sentence simply, "Dr. David Hailey..." It's minor, I know, but I just don't think your change helps much. Thatcher131 03:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no "contrast". I'll consider something else other than "partial", but it's not contrast. Contrast implies rebuttal and the controversy relates to the authenticity. Even if produced on a typewriter, it does not prove that it wasn't done recently and hence, still a forgery. Therefore, there's no "contrast" Merecat 05:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Their conclusions regarding the necessity of computer generation are clearly in contrast. One group says they were definitively computer generated. Another says a typewriter is possible. That's the definition of a contrast. It's not about authenticity per se. Find some other way to flag for the reader that there is a difference, and that will be fine. We're so scared of normal transition words maybe, possibly hinting at some conclusion that the writing here is generally abysmal. Of course, much of it is poor anyway, but there's no reason to make it gratuitously even worse. Derex 19:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Derex, you are in the minority here. Thatcher131, Merecat (myself) and Tbeatty all support the removal of the phrase "In contrast". Please stop bucking consensus. I am happy to dialog with you, but you are jumping the gun in a manner which makes that difficult. Merecat 19:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Let me clarify, please. I think "In contrast..." is a perfectly fine transitional clause that does not connote what Merecat thinks it connotes. I oppose "In partial contrast" mainly because it is clumsy and does not convey what he wants it to convey. I would prefer to leave it in but would not be opposed to taking it out entirely.
• On the further subject of the words tpbeatty took out and Derex has been reverting, those are indeed weasel words. The original sentence "The authenticity of the documents as photocopies of valid originals has been challenged" already conveys the message that some people think they are authentic and some do not. "purported photocopies of valid originals" makes no sense at all because they are acknowledged photocopies, its the orginals whose validity is at issue. What exactly do you want readers to understand after reading "alleged" "purportedly" and "supposed" that they won't understand by reading the version with those words left out? Thatcher131 20:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

First, Tbeatty's edit summary was "In contrast" is weasel words. No, it is not. He didn't say those other words are weasel words. In fact, his edit summary deceptively suggested that the only thing he did was remove "in contrast". Now, "purportedly" isn't a weasel word, it just doesn't make much sense there. "Alleged" and "supposed" are not only not weasel words, they are vital to neutrality. Bloggers have indeed "alleged" anachronisms in the writing. I spent a full day researching and debunking with citations every one of these. (I think that's in a sub-article now). Same with the "supposed" errors in style. I suppose it might be better to use "alleged" there as well. But, those phrases demand qualifiers because they are not known to be fact.

Everyone needs to go take a good look at WP:Weasel words to see what the phrase means; there seems to be quite a bit of confusion. Classic examples are things like "some say", "it is believed", etc. The notable feature is an appeal to some non-specific source or authority. Words like "alleged" are simply qualifiers indicating that the claim is not universally accepted. In other words, if we say "challenged because of errors in style" that signals that there are in fact errors in style. Rather, some argue that there are errors in style; it is an allegation; but it is not accepted fact. I don't care about "purportedly", but some qualifier must be made in the other two places, and I'll fight that fight unendingly. Removing "In contrast", though, is just basically stupid. Derex 21:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Derex, comments like this which you left on my talk page today, are not helpful - primarily because you don't specify what makes you call me an "idiot". Am I an idiot because we've met and you don't like me personally? I think not. Am I an idiot because you are having a bad day? That wouldn't be right either. Oh, I've got it, I'm an idiot because you don't like my song (sung to the tune of Harrigan):

I D I O T

That's my name it's idiot.

Anyway, other than because I may be an "idiot", why get so bent out of shape by two words ("In contrast")? Frankly Derex, I think you are overreacting. Merecat 23:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought I had put a comment here but I can't find it. Here's a similiar comment from my talk page: Au Contraire, there was a plethora of weasel words. The weasel is as ambiguous as he is superfluous. If those arguments cannot stand without the weasel words, they are not sourced properly. The example list is not all inclusive. Basically if the sentence isn't enhanced in any way by the word but is designed to create doubt or authority where none exists (or can be sourced), it's a weasel word. "Contrast", "purported", "alleged" and "supposed" are red flag words. I think all of them are in the examples in some way. Not to beat a dead weasel, but take the opinion by the Utah reasearcher. The term is "In contrast". The idea is that this is needed for NPOV and to give a different viewpoint. "In contrast" is trying to provide that. But in reality, the Utah researchers view needs to stand alone and be valid on it's (and his) merits. He should be an authority regardless of whether he is a minority or majority view. The rules don't change because of viewpoint. The whole idea of eliminating weasel words is to make sure the authority is located in the right place. In this case, the Utah reasearcher is an expert. His view is important, not because it is contrarian, but because he is an expert. Removing the weasel words makes sure that this is the case.--Tbeatty 05:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In this case, the documents are already qualifed with "authenticity is challenged". IT is sourced and it is factual that they were challeneged on a number of grounds. Creating doubt in that challenge is what Wikipeida is doing by adding "alleged", "purported", etc,. Wikipeida should not be doing that and istead rely on the sourced views. --Tbeatty 20:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Derex when he writes ""Alleged" and "supposed" are not only not weasel words, they are vital to neutrality." Gamaliel 22:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for additional qualifiers on a topic that is already qualified by the experts. Heres an example unrelated to this case but explains it: "John Smith was charged with murdering Joe Blow by the county prosecutor" or "John Smith was charged with supposedly (allegedly, purportedly) murdering Joe Blow by the county prosecutor." The first version is the accurate one. It is factual. The second version is weasel words. Even though the crime is still only "alleged" at this point, it is covered by the qualifier "charged" and it is attributed to who charged him. The charge was not "alleged murder", the charge was "murder." SImilarly in this case, the The documents were challengd, not "alleged documents" or any other qualifier. The specific documents that were produced have been challenged on a number of grounds.--Tbeatty 22:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC) \

Let's not allegedly purport to suppose that ostensibly, we feel there might be cause to agree. Let's just agree where possible. On issues like this, let's edit one word at a time, that way there will be no blanket reverts and each edit will stand or fall on its own. Merecat 23:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's another example: "CBS and Rather defended the authenticity and usage of the document for a two-week period." We don't need to put "alleged authenticity" or "purported authenticity" or "supposed authenticity" in this sentence. Wikipedia is only stating that CBS and Rather defended it. They are not stating as fact that the documents are authentic. In fact, adding a qualifier would be inserting unsourced doubt or authority. It is not essential to put weasel words in the article. --Tbeatty 23:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Why no Criminal Investigation of Forgery Source?

The article does not address the question of whether there has been, or why there hasn't been, a criminal investigation into the source of the forgery, which is presumably a criminal offense. It would seem to me the most important question of all in this whole topic, yet no one has ever been charged, and no investigation was ever announced afaik? How can this unless it is to coverup Karl Rove's dirty tricks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.191.250.81 (talk • contribs)

Troll feeding time. I think the "crime" would be really be civil libel or slander of either Bush or Killian. I don't think it is criminal to make up a document that isn't a legal instrument. Heck, half of wikipedia is made up. In fact, your accusation of Rove's dirty tricks is made up yet you haven't been arrested yet. I suppose this is another master plan by that evil genius Rove to discredit wikipedia. --Tbeatty 20:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Not interested. We could write endless articles on the "crimes" of various people that have not been investigated, and then wikipedia would be no better than Free Republic or the Democratic Underground.Thatcher131 21:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Forgery Has Never Been Proven

I added the word "possibly" to the first sentence of this article: The Killian documents controversy (also called Memogate or Rathergate) involved several possibly forged documents It has never been proven that these documents are forgeries.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.65.50 (talk • contribs)

I reverted you, sorry. The degree to which the documents appear to have been forged varies directly with one's political point of view. It is much more neutral just to note they are documents that were presented as authentic (which is unambiguously objectively true) and that they were not authenticated, and that many experts believe they were forgeries, etc. I happen to think they were obvious forgeries, but let's stick to a neutral description. Kaisershatner 15:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Rather still believes they were authentic. Or at least, that they have not been proven to be unauthentic. I added a blurb to this affect to the article, along with Rather's opinion that the story of Bush's service is more important than the nature of the evidence. I'll try to dig up a source for this, it was in an interview from, I believe, last fall, when he won some award. Bjsiders 15:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right but in order to keep that in it should be cited. Kaisershatner 20:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I haven't been able to locate the particular interview. I'll find it. Just probably not tonight. :) Bjsiders 22:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"Possible" vs "Likely"

Anyone who thinks "likely" is NPOV compared to "possible" needs to learn more about the concept of neutrality and refrain from editing articles here until they do. Also, referring to valid edits as "vandalism" is extremely offensive. --SpinyNorman 18:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Should the Evolution article be edited to say that "some scientists" believe in evolution, instead of its many mentions of "many scientists" or "most scientists"? Is "some" more NPOV than "many" or "most"? --71.71.238.231 21:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to do so if you like - it isn't really relevant to the issue at hand. Too many of the "experts" who talked about whether or not the Killian documents were forgeries are not objective scientists but rather professional, political axe-grinders. The only relevant fact is that the documents have not been proved to be forgeries. Everything else is speculation. --SpinyNorman 22:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the memos are forged, as assuredly as they would be if they were found in PowerPoint format. Unless you believe in the existence of 1970's typewriters that could simulate kerning technology that Apple would get patents on in 1990. It is true that CBS's own commission refused to declare them forgeries, but they aren't the arbiters of the truth, especially when the subject is CBS's own malfeasance. --71.71.238.231 23:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that's your OPINION. If you have proof they were forged then feel free to present it. Personally, I think they were forgeries too. But wikipedia is a place were facts (not opinion) are reported. --SpinyNorman 23:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Before bothering to meet your standards of proof (assuming your standards mattered to me), I need to know if you would consider a PowerPoint presentation describing Bush's TexANG record dated in the 1970's to be a forgery. Or if you would say "well, PROVE they are a forgery." That's what we're dealing with here. Technology that did not exist in 1970's. Surely, there is no law of physics that says someone in the 1970's couldn't have created a set of slides that just happened to look like a PowerPoint presentation, but if things that like cannot be accepted at face value as forgeries, then Wikipedia's concerns for the truth is worthless. --71.71.238.231 23:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Your "Powerpoint" question is absurd and unworthy of response. The technology to produce proportional spacing and superscript DID exist at the time and anyone who says otherwise is an idiot. The question of kerning is more complex. However, there is no agreement on whether or not kerning was used in the documents so the point is moot. --SpinyNorman 23:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you think it's absurd. It's a simple mental experiment to figure out just what one would accept as "proof," and when certain people are faced with a result they don't like, they try to pretend the experiment doesn't exist. Glad to see you've thoroughly thought through what would be required as "proof" before demanding it of others. --71.71.238.231 23:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would consider mental masturbation to be "exercise". Asking if a PPT that purported to be from the 1970s is a forgery is a ridiculous question. I believe the documents are forgeries (though there is no evidence as to who forged them or the motives in creating the forgeries - for all we know, Karl Rove could have created them to plant in the hopes that they would be passed off as genuine and could then be "discovered" as forgeries in order to draw attention away from Dubya's appalling conduct in the TANG. It is interesting that when the documents were first discovered, Bush didn't immediately denounce them as forgeries and also that those with knowledge of the events in question say that even if the documents themselves were forgeries, the events the documents describe were real enough. Put another way, if I show you a photograph purporting show the assassination of Abraham Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth, the photograph itself may be a forgery but that doesn't mean Booth didn't shoot Lincoln. --SpinyNorman 06:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Spiny: Technology to produce proportional spacing and superscript did exist at the time, but the specific proportional spacing tech used in the memos did not. The question of kerning is not particularly difficult: the memos are not kerned in the digital meaning of "having adjustments in spacing between particular pairs of letters"; they appear to be kerned in the old metal typesetting sense of "having glyphs that protrude beyond the amount that they push the next glyph ahead" (that go beyond their advance width). --Tphinney 07:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Using "possible" over "likely" is certainly a POV statement if "likely" is more accurate, and in this case, it is. It doesn't say they ARE forgies, only that they "likely" are. And they likely are, as you yourself admit. Your blanking of the rest of the section needs some justification. Also, please stop calling people idiots and insulting people's intelligence. Bjsiders 00:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

And in the context you used it, "likely" is inherently POV. You're talking about opinions... Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, it is a place where objective facts are reported. If you have proof that the documents are forgeries then feel free to report it. Otherwise let's leave the bias and spin of a blatantly right-wing source like The Weekly Standard out of this article. As for the "idiot" comment, what else would you call someone who insists that the typography of the Killian documents is anomalous because it contained superscript or proportional spacing - technologies that were available LONG BEFORE Bush joined his "champagne unit". --SpinyNorman 00:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If there is a 90% chance that something is true, we call it "likely." Hell, if there's a 60 or 70% chance, we usually say it's "likely". If there's a 30% chance, we say it's possible. Listen to the weatherman. If there's so much as a 40% chance of you rain, you can hear them describe it as "likely" or a "fairly good" chance of rain. If there's a 10% chance, you hear, "possible showers tomorrow afternoon." You're arguing semantics here. I'm not talking about opinions, I'm talking about probabilities. Few things are statistically impossible, but that the Killian documents are legitimate is certainly statistically improbably. When that's the case, the proper terminology to describe the situation is that they are "likely" forgeries. I don't have proof. If I had proof, the article would say, "they ARE forgeries." Nobody has any proof. Only very strong and compelling evidence. I would call a person who makes that assertion a skeptic. Indeed, the Weekly Standard is not an objective news source. Neither is CNN.com or the New York Times. I'm not suggesting that the Standard should be given the same level of credence as the Times but as Dan Rather said, if the story is essentially true, the evidence doesn't matter. The Standard quotes a bunch of experts. Should we disregard their opinion simply because of where it was published? Do a google search on "William Flynn" and you'll find plenty of stories by objective news sources in which he is quoted as a documentation expert. Flynn's opinion can also be found on the Washington Post. Another quoted expert, Richard Polt, certainly appears to be authentic. I decline your overtures to reject this information on the grounds that the news source has a political bias. If that's the standard, I'm going to run through all of Wikipedia and delete any information, no matter how accurate, that is quoted from New York Times stories, because it's got a political bias. That is, of course, absurd, as is your insistance on either changing "likely" to "possible" or removing this entire statement. Bjsiders 13:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Reference to The Weekly Standard in the intro

This is a bad joke. TWS is a blatantly partisan publication and has no business being used as an objective reference in this article. To do so is in clear violation of wiki NPOV policy. --SpinyNorman 04:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Media Matters is also politically biased and has been used as a source on Wikipedia. Valid information doesn't stop being valid simply because a politically charged organization reported it. If that was the case, there'd be no such thing as "news" in the world. Bjsiders 13:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

How about the Washington Post? They said the memos were "almost certainly" forgeries. Or does their buy-in into this prove that they are conservatives, too? --71.71.238.231 15:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the East Coast papers all that well, but isn't the Post the "conservative" DC paper and the Times the "liberal" paper? Or is it the other way around? In any case, the experts quoted in the Weekly Standard article can be independently verified to exist and political affiliations can be researched. The article even spells out the political standing of one of them: "Either these are later transcriptions of earlier documents (which may have been handwritten or typed on a typewriter), or they are crude and amazingly foolish forgeries. I'm a Kerry supporter myself, but I won't let that cloud my objective judgment: I'm 99% sure that these documents were not produced in the early 1970s." So it's not like the Standard just hauled out a bunch of neocon Bush fanbois to echo Republican talking points. Bjsiders 15:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of Authenticity

Is there any evidence that the documents were not fakes?? The article seems to be taking a rather weak position on this issue, never definitively stating whether the documents were fake or not. I would think that the typography alone would be proof, as they simply did not have that kind of typesetting then. -- WhiteDragon 19:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody knows for sure, and the article appropriately indicates only what is probable. It's technically possible, however unlikely, that the documents are legitimate. Bjsiders 19:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the experts quoted by the Washington Post, I would say that it is no reason to believe that the documents could be legitimate. I believe I conclusively proved that the memos could not have been produced on an IBM Selectric Composer, an IBM Executive, a Friden Just-o-writer, or a Varityper 1010. In two years, nobody has been able to point to any typewriter or low-end typesetting device available in 1972 which offered the level of spacing precision required to emulate those documents (18 units to the em, for font geeks). When I presented my analysis in a talk to 100 typographers at the St Bride typographic conference in London in October 2004, I offered $1000 cash from my own pocket to anybody who could point to a machine that could have produced the memos, given the issues I pointed out. Nobody has tried to take me up on my offer, which I still consider open and repeat here.

Note that I write this with no political agenda - my political leanings are rather overwhelmingly in the opposite direction.

Thomas Phinney 07:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Even if the technology to do the Psuedo Kerning were available, the Font used was not. This is almost as if we have the round earth, sun centric solar system theory versus the flat earth, earth centered theory. The flat earthers adamantly refuse to believe that a flat earth theory can be disproved despite the mathematical clarity a round earth, sun centered universe provides. The simplicity of the forged documents (i.e. MS Word on a modern computer) vs. the complexity for authentic documents (an Air Force Colonel possessed a unique, expensive and technically marvelous typewriter that can't be produced and that he apparently only used once) is why Occam's Razr was established.--Tbeatty 08:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, the font used was available at the time - just not on a typewriter or low-end typesetting device, as far as anybody has been able to show. (Note that by "the font" here I mean the exact letterforms, and the spacing thereof.) But in theory somebody could have gone to an actual phototypesetting or metal typesetting service and had the memos professionally typeset. Of course, that's an absurd idea, and not even the staunchest defenders of the memos' authenticity suggest it, but yes, the font did exist. Thomas Phinney 20:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Any discussion on the idea that somebody transcribed documents into Microsoft Word and then printed them out, and that result was accidentally claimed to be original documents? It does seem strange to me that a forger with enough care to get the military terms and time line reasonably right would make such a big screwup. There may have been an original version that has been lost, or maybe documents were read over the phone to whoever typed this. Of course that original could be a forgery as well.

That theory has certainly been put out there before (this has gotten so much discussion that few theories *haven't* been discussed!). Sure, that's possible. It's also possible that the documents themselves are forgeries, but the content is true. However, all we have to go on is the docs themselves, and what we can suss out from them. Thomas Phinney 08:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, my musings on the subject of Dr. Hailey's latest report on the memos can be found [[3]]. Some interesting actual new evidence, as he had access to un-faxed copies of the memos - but what it proves is open to debate. Thomas Phinney 08:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Wars: "identified by several experts" vs "characterized by several critics"

The [edit] to the opening paragraph by SpinyNorman seems to me to be questionable NPOV. On the one hand, I think "characterized" is actually an improvement over "identified," and is more neutral. But demoting the experts criticizing the memos to simply "critics" is unreasonable. Folks like me and Newcomer have earned our credentials. I think this reversion should be revised. (There's also a question of correct quantities: it's only "several experts," but if you want to talk about the number of simple "critics" you'd have to say "many critics" or "dozens of critics.") Thomas Phinney 08:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The cited Weekly Standard article refers to several experts. While thats probably simply their partisan take on the matter, since that's the publication that's been chosen to represent this opinion, the sentence should reflect what the article actually says. I think it should be changed back to "several experts", complete with quotation marks to clarify that this is what is stated in the article.Hal Raglan 16:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Arkon 23:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Calling them "experts" is unnecessary editorial comment. Using the more neutral term "critic" is a better way to go. --SpinyNorman 07:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure about that. Not all critical opinions are of equal relevance. If I happen to think they're fake, that's much less relevant than if a typesetting expert with 20 years of experience in forensic document analysis thinks they're fake. I may be a critic, but they are an expert. Possibly "critic" understates the importance of their views.Kaisershatner 18:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Two other folks agreed with my objection, and somebody changed it in the direction I had suggested. Then Spiny reverted it, ummm, because he disagreed. Seems like he doesn't like being outvoted by the community! I see somebody has changed it back already. Next time I will do it myself.... Thomas Phinney 07:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Documents also shopped to Moore and perhaps others?

Apparently, Michael Moore was shown these documents before CBS ran the story and declined to run with them because he thought they might be forgeries:[4]

“ ...Moore was asked during Q&A about the "Dan Rather story." After expressing some reluctance about saying anything, he told the audience that while making Farenheit he had been offered the same fraudulent documents by the same source.... Moore said he looked into it at the time and concluded that they weren't reliable. Not surprisingly, he really didn't seem to have any sympathy for Rather's mistake. He mentioned Burkett's name during the discussion, but never said that Burkett was his source. ”

This says something about Rather's/Mapes' judgement that Michael Moore of all people turned it down. OK maybe I'm showing a little POV there, but should we mention this Moore episode in the article? Are there others on the record as turning down this story? Crust 22:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

I think the recent changes regarding document experts have introduced excessive detail. Flynn wasn't the only expert, and the dispute over his views about apostrophe's is not the main focus of this article. I'd favor cutting this altogether, leaving something like "considered forgeries by a number of experienced document examiners" and in the footnote list them. Alternatively, we could go back to where this was before the mention of Flynn in the introduction. Kaisershatner 15:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I had very similar concerns, but have been too busy to post for the last week. The old version mentioned that there was a general issue and hubbub, and then had a citation or two to back it up. The current version has expanded one *representative* citation into being the whole story. This misses the entire point that there were *many* such articles and several TV pieces criticizing the memos, many from more prestigious sources than the one cited. I believe it should be reverted. Thomas Phinney 07:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Arkon 20:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

SpinyNorman, under "restore balance to intro" you insert an indictment of Flynn, when Flynn isn't mentioned in the intro - he's in the footnote. I moved your "restorative" comment there. Kaisershatner 20:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

superscript "th" impossible source ?

I'm not sure how to put this into the article; FactCheck.org repeats the claim in their article titled "Update: Documents May Be Forgeries" at http://www.factcheck.org/miscreports256.html

...Subsequently, members of Killian's family said they suspected the documents weren't authentic, and experts quoted by conservative websites and mainstream news organizations said the documents could not have been produced by the typewriters in common use in the early 1970's. The memos contain proportional spacing, in which the letter "i" occupies less space than the letter "m," for example. And they contain the "superscript" character "th" (in “Report to 111^th F.I.S. administrative officer” in the May 2 memo, for example.) A feature of modern computer word-processing programs such as Microsoft Word automatically changes “th” to superscript characters when following numerals, but such characters were impossible to produce on ordinary typewriters in use in 1972. ...

and provides quotations from various people about it. And is lessthan sup greaterthan the correct way to do superscript in wiki-land? (LaTeX seems to be overkill!) --htom 04:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)