Talk:Killian documents controversy/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Unprotected

Hello. Happened to stumble this way. Since the article has been protected for a while, and there's not been a whole lot of talk page activity lately, I'm assuming everyone's heads have cooled appropriately. Feel free to protect if things go boom again =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion with 67.168.86.129

I'm sure you mean well, but can you explain why you reverted my edit of the introductory sentence?

In your private message you said:

Your "improved intro" removed the reference to there being 6 Killian memos in total.

The original version (which you restored) said that the controversy involved "four of six memos". That doesn't make sense. If the other two of six weren't involved, why are they being mentioned?

Well for one thing, it wasn't a "private message" -- I had posted the reasons why on your Talk page. Also, there are 6 Killian memos, not 4. Also as I had already mentioned above, while CBS used 4 of them for its report, USA Today published all 6. Are you disagreeing with this? "Being involved" has nothing to do with how many Killian documents there are, don't you agree, especially for an encyclopedia article on the subject?. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed the article to simply eliminate the awkward reference to "four of six" documents, retaining the "four" in reference to the documents aired by CBS. Of course it's appropriate to discuss the additional documents in the body of the article.

The article is about the "Killian documents" and there are 6 of them. To say there are 4 is factually incorrect. What is "awkward" about being accurate? That CBS used 4 of the them for its report has nothing to do with there being 6 Killian documents, especially since USA Today published all 6 shortly after the CBS report. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Your private message also said:

your add of "and many media organizations concluded that the memos were forgeries" is actually misleading, if not outrightly false. Pretty much only the right wing/conservative media "concluded" that the memos were forgeries. The general media has only only described the memos as not having been authenticated for the most part.

But the original version (which you restored) had said:

Many media sources have asserted that the memos are forgeries.

I simply changed "sources" to "organizations" and "asserted" to "concluded". How is that misleading? Your claim that "only right wing/conservative media" concluded the memos were forgeries suggests a biased viewpoint. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

When someone says "concluded," that implies that research was done, evidence gathered, and a conclusion reached based on this information gathering. Assertions are primarily opinions based on rumors and sketchy, incomplete or even outrightly false information. The forgery claims originated with right wing/conservative blog sites, starting with The Free Republic, Power Line and Little Green Footballs. It's not exactly bias to label these sites as right wing/conservative media. Blog sites are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia for good reason. Indeed much of [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1210662/replies?c=47 Buckhead's orginal post] on the Free Republic, which started the forgery charges, is factually wrong. And to this day, it's still only the right wing/conservative media using the word "forgery" in regards to the memos. As I also mentioned on your Talk page, "Since this is a volatile topic with much misinformation floating about on the Internet, especially on blog sites, it's usually best to propose any suggested changes on the Talk page in advance and get some feedback on that."

Hope this clarifies things enough. I very much encourage you to use the Talk page first before making any further edits. As I said, there is a lot of disinformation floating about on the Internet, and I'm sure you would agree that we should strive to keep that sort of stuff out of Wikipedia articles at least. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The conclusions of forgery by typewriter and typography experts are clearly based on evidence and professional expertise. Your opinion that "it is difficult to ascertain their validity" has no place in the article. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're the one trying to justify making a the change from "assert" to "conclude" and we're talking primarily about media sources like blog sites, and not so much typewriter and typography experts. It's a substantial change and you should be willing and ready to justify it rather than inaccurately and baselessly claim that the existing article text is somehow my opinion. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't be sorry. I changed "assert" to "conclude" because experts in typewriters and typography have in fact concluded, on the basis of their relevant expertise, that the documents are not authentic. We are not talking primarily about media sources like blog sites (at least, I'm not), but about expert conclusions concerning the authenticity of the documents. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do try to be civil and courteous to others wanting to improve the quality and accuracy of the article, and also be aware that your opinion about these matters is still only an opinion. You made 5 edits to the introduction, all with the same edit summary of "improve intro," despite my efforts to get you to discuss your changes beforehand. Your last edit was fairly minor, but your prior 4 were not, and I think none of them improved the article at all. You may disagree, but that's what the Talk page is for. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of incivility or discourtesy to others wanting to improve the quality and accuracy of the article. My edit summaries were not expansive because the changes were not extensive and could easily be seen in the diff. I think the changes were generally self-explanatory, but I'm happy to explain them on the Talk page in response to specific objections, as I have done. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that "you" have returned, coincident with my returning from my block. I won't discuss what that implies, but I should point out that to "improve the quality and accuracy of the article," it would be helpful to be more collaborative, that is to discuss your proposed changes first before making them. Also it is actually against official Wikipedia policy to make an undiscussed change and then try to force other editors to justify removing it -- WP:PROVEIT clearly states that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." I'm sure we're all here to make the article as clear, as accurate, and as informative as possible, so it's just a matter of following Wikipedia guidelines and collaborating in good faith, no? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Add content summaries for all the memos?

I notice that the "Content of the memos" section only discusses 4 of the 6 Killian memos. While the 4 are the ones that CBS featured in its report, both CBS and USA Today had 6 memos in total, each set obtained separately from Bill Burkett, and that USA Today had published all 6 shortly after CBS report as described here. Consequently I think content summaries of the remaining two memos should also be added. Agree/disagree? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The article states that "Four of the documents were presented as authentic". -- SEWilco (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You're off-point -- the article is about the "Killian documents" and there are 6, not 4, of those. Why not have content summaries of all 6? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You're off the article. The other two documents are barely mentioned (search for "USA Today"), as this article is about the controversy around CBS's material. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like you are claiming that this article should not be so much about the Killian documents per se, but only CBS's story involving four of them, and that USA Today and the other 2 Killian documents are too inconsequential to bother with. I don't know...but if you strongly feel this way, I suppose you can always create another fork from the article. But since the summaries are relatively short, wouldn't it be easier to just add two more to make them complete? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"Of doubtful authenticity"

I don't think this little POV add-on belongs in the lede -- any objections to removing and making things a little bit more neutral? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a fact that the authenticity is doubted. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That the documents are of doubtful authenticity is not a "POV add-on"; it is an essential fact. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It could also be claimed to be an "essential fact" that many, if not most well-informed people consider George W. Bush to be a liar and among the worst presidents we've ever had, if not the worst, but does that belong in the lede in his Wikipedia entry? And in regards to the Killian documents, the "doubtful authenticity" issue was raised and driven by inherently unreliable sources -- conservative bloggers. A more neutral lede tone would be to simply note that the Killian documents are 6 memos purportedly written by Bush's former commander, used in news stories by CBS and USA Today, and that their authenticity became an issue starting with claims of forgery originating from conservative/right wing bloggers. Agree/Disagree? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree strongly. The doubtful authenticity of the documents is an essential fact concerning the documents and the controversy they created. It clearly belongs in the opening sentence. Please consider, in view of your evident animosity towards Pres. Bush, whether you are capable of objectively assessing the neutrality of this article. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What "evident animosity towards Pres. Bush"? Since the documents involve him, I simply used his Wikipedia article of as example. Let me use instead a perhaps more applicable article, Global Warming. As you may know, many if not most of the same people who firmly believe that the Killian Documents are forgeries also believe man-made global warming is a myth or conspiracy. But does the lede in the Global Warming article start off calling it a "doubtful theory"? No. The skepticism is given mention further down, but the article simply starts off as a neutral description of what "Global Warming" is. Does it then not follow that an article about the "Killian Documents" should simply start off with what they are, 6 "controversial" memos purportedly written by Bush's TANG commander, that were used in part of an ongoing media investigation of Bush's military service? You already have the word "controversial" which is much more neutral and accurate, so sticking in "doubtful authenticity" clearly crosses the line in sticking in a personal POV. Agree/Disagree?

Disagree stongly. There is no serious question that the documents are of doubtful authenticity. That is an essential fact about both the documents and the controversy. The Global Warming topic is not comparable. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read this section from WP:NPOV. A neutral article at the least starts off describing things in a "neutal" tone as possible, and while "controversial" is neutral, "doubtful" is not. Also do I need to point out that the contents of the memos are quite in keeping with all other analyses of Bush's service record? Perhaps you should visit George W. Bush military service controversy and read through that first to understand better the context here. Every single serious analysis of Bush's records shows discrepancies, and the memos fit in perfectly timewise and in content. The forgery charges started with right wing/conservative blog sites, not exactly pillars of accuracy and fairness, and indeed Buckhead's [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1210662/replies?c=47 original post], which got the forgery charges rolling, is factually inaccurate in several ways -- should that be in the lede? And this is directly comparable to the Global Warming article -- the only difference is that Global Warming has a sufficient number of responsible editors guarding against constant attempts to insert right wing/conservative POV's into it, whereas here...well... If you want to use this page to examine in detail the merits of the background material that you are using to try to justify keeping "doubtful authenticity," I'll be happy to oblige, but I suggest you might want to consider compromising on the word "controversial" and move on. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that I take another look, there are actually several problems with the lede aside from the "doubtful authenticity" comment:

• Many media sources have asserted that the memos are forgeries. Actually only right wing/conservative media sources have been using the term "forgery". Go Google this if you don't believe me.

• Four of the documents were presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes Wednesday broadcast aired by CBS on September 8, 2004, less than two months before the 2004 Presidential Election falsely implies that this was some sort of individual, politically-based attack by CBS (and perhaps USA Today) when in fact it was just one of many media investigations into Bush service records. In fact CBS's story came on the heals of FOIA-forced releases of Bush's Guard records here and here obtained by the Associated Press, and with more coming later. Another actively investigative media source, the Boston Globe, published a reexamination of Bush's record the very day of CBS's broadcast. I think this complete lack of context badly hurts the integrity of the article. Agree/Disagree?

• Also the lede falsely implies that the CBS report was only about the Killian documents when in fact they were only a relatively small part of a larger report on Bush's Guard Service record that also included a lengthy interview with Ben Barnes, some DoD records, an interview with Dan Bartlett and such. While the Barnes part is is mentioned in the article, it is falsely portrayed as a minor side issue to the memos. The full 12 1/2 minute 60 Minutes II segment is located in MOV video format in two parts here and here. If you download/play both parts, you'll see that the Killian memos don't even get mentioned until near the end of Part 1, and then only take up the beginning of Part 2 before the segment moves on. There is also sort of a condensed version of the full 60 Minutes report here. Note that the Boston Globe is also mentioned here as well. Given all this, shouldn't the lede be completely rewritten to make it more accurate and honest?

• I'm less sure if this is a lede issue so much as an overall article problem, but subsequent FOIA releases of Bush's records and the ensuing news reports on them were completely overshadowed by the Killian memos controversy, but this is not mentioned anywhere in the article. This should also be addressed I think. Agree/Disagree?

I think that's enough stuff for people to mull over for the time being. Agree/Disagree... -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You asked, so: Disagree. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, but it's lacking a little bit in detail. I think I laid out my points and evidence rather clearly and succinctly, so all you and other parties interested in improving the article need do is address each of those points. Fair enough, no? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with you though that providing some of the context surrounding the other examinations of Bush's record is helpful background. The usually stripped-down version of events makes a lot of it hard to comprehend -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Regarding the claim "Actually only right wing/conservative media sources have been using the term "forgery". ", that is incorrect. My own article states "And there should be no reasonable doubt that the material used ... was indeed forged". I am not right-wing and The Guardian is not conservative media. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm....you're on tricky ground here: you're representing yourself as a neutral party and the article you are referencing seems to be a newspaper blog -- essentially an opinion piece. You and I had a discussion before -- lets just agree to disagree, unless you want to reopen that little prior discussion again.

Just for correction's sake, the piece I wrote referenced above is a full-fledged newspaper column, not a blog post. As in, it is vetted by a professional editor according to the standards of an institutional publisher. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The link ends with "blogging1" and reads like an opinion. And when I look at the other pieces printed in the "Read Me First" section, I find only personal opinion columns like these: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. This is obviously not hard news. And what sort of "vetting" process are we talking about here -- did Andrew Brown's editor really verify that "Netmanage panicked when Microsoft Outlook came along as a "free" part of the Office suite" and that "This story doesn't really have any particular villains, except perhaps the people at Netmanage who drove the product into the ground"?

Also, any thoughts regarding those tampered with/missing DoD records I had pointed out just below this? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It ends with "blogging1" since the headline-writer gave it a "bloggers vs. journalists" spin (which, by the way, was NOT what I intended), hence about blogging. The columns get vetted for, as, the saying goes, being entitled to my own opinions, not my own facts. Note it follows British rules, not US ones, which means I am not constrained to write "Republican assert the Earth is flat while Democrats dissent contending it is round". Regarding the records, if something can be explained by an accident or oversight, it'll take a lot for me to believe it's tampering or deliberate cover-up. Just as a general comment, there's so much paranoia and conspiracy mongering that I can't check out every charge. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, opinion is opinion, whether it's in a nice British accent or not. About the other matter, I can only point out that it was two separate PDF files, both of which touched upon a topic that was being discussed in another Wikipedia discussion. And it is a DoD website, so you would think data security and integrity would be a little bit tighter than normal. But I'm just some random dude on the Internet, so what could I possibly know.... -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Look at how much effort has to be expended on this tiny item. Your original claim was "Actually only right wing/conservative media sources have been using the term "forgery". I believe my Guardian column is a WP:RS which disproves this claim. Now you seem to be dismissing it as not a good enough source, because it's "opinion". However, it is not right-wing/conservative opinion. And regarding a DoD website, anyone running a website can make mistakes. There would be no way to establish conclusively it was indeed a mistake. See why charges must pass a high bar to be worth looking at? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Again what you wrote is an opinion column and nothing more -- it isn't the Guardian that is claiming "forgery," it's you. Neocon/Right Wing pundit William Kristol now writes a regular OP-ED columm for the New York Times -- a few weeks ago he wrote this column where he claims that there has been progress in Iraq and "that success has been achieved under the leadership of ... George W. Bush". Can you then state that it is the New York Times that claimed this, and put a ref for it in a Wikipedia article?

About the DoD thing, I'm not making any charges, I'm just pointing out some little oddness, and was asking for your opinion. The site material has not been updated for years, and it took lawsuits to get a good chunk of that material there in the first place, and the now missing PDF files were the last ones "found". But if it's your opinion it could mean anything, well....I'll just leave it at that. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, as a writer, you might find this interesting: the DoD repository of Bush's records apparently got tampered with coincidental with a discussion on the George W. Bush military service controversy talk page regarding whether Bush continued to receive "Flight Status Incentive Pay" after have been suspended from flying. The tampering apparently involved the two documents listed under "October 5, 2004 State of Texas Release." By "chance," though, I happen to have a mirror of the DoD site here. Those two documents never seem to have had anything particularly noteworthy before, but I thought to take a closer look under the circumstances and found something curious: check out carefully the upper section of page 2 of this now missing document. At first I thought it was a copying artifact, but now.... It's pretty funky stuff in any case.

Actually, now that I write that, I'm reminded again of how Bush's guard records really need to be extracted out of the messy (and now suspect) DoD PDF files and placed on Wikipedia for better reference. Assuming nobody else here is interested in doing that, I'll do it. This will mean I will have to take a break from these discussions. I suggest those of you genuinely interested in improving the article go look at my major points above, view the entire original 60 Minutes II broadcast as well as the short version (links are above) and see if the entire article really is a bit of mess in terms of accuracy, content, and balance. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi BC, welcome back. I would like to share my view of your points above, but first, a quotation from your user page: "I will endeavor to be polite, regardless of the circumstances and provocation...In the worst case I will only adopt a neutral tone and will strive to avoid even making sarcastic remarks, however "appropriate" the circumstances might be...I will give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and then some, regardless of my suspicions." Above, where you say "Global Warming has a sufficient number of responsible editors guarding against constant attempts to insert right wing/conservative POV's into it, whereas here...well... " - this strikes me as against the spirit of your new viewpoint - don't let's go back there. My response to your suggestions follows. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, you might have a point on the chiding tone of the "...well...." bit -- but I have been polite in the face of provocation, and I have been keeping a neutral tone, even when having to restate a point several times over in attempts to get a straight response. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As for your points above - I disagree with your view of the lede, which you would have written as "the Killian documents are 6 memos purportedly written by Bush's former commander, used in news stories by CBS and USA Today, and that their authenticity became an issue starting with claims of forgery originating from conservative/right wing bloggers." I think the proponderance of the facts, including typographical evidence, the suspicious provenance of the documents, and the lack of originals, all weigh strongly in favor of fraudulent documents - this is left out of your lede. Regarding the ongoing media investigation into Bush's guard service, and the focus of the CBS segment on it, this is covered in GWB military service controversy and is linked from this article. This article is about the documents, not about the CBS news segment. Regarding the mention of timing relative to the election, this is an essential part of the story - if it had been 2002 for example, CBS might have taken enough time to listen to its own document experts before portraying the documents as "from Killian's personal files," or might have looked closer into Burkett's history of making anti-Bush claims, or any of another dozen things (remember the "rush to air" that is mentioned in the internal CBS investigation). So the timing is significant and not only as an implied anti-Bush move by CBS, but also to show how their rush to put it on TV helped them ignore their own standards and practices about authentication. Finally, the burying of subsequent FOIA related Bush stories - I don't think that's a lede subject for this article about the Documents but I think it could be included in the article if it can be supported with a citation. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that lede suggestion was only an outline of the basic facts as to why the documents became controversial -- it was initially strictly a blogger driven thing, that's not in doubt. Then it spread and supposed experts of highly variable expertise came out of the woodwork. Most of the information still floating around regarding the memos is blatantly false -- that's not arguable. The remaining info mostly becomes dubious at best under any serious scrutiny. And in regards to timing, are you arguing that the CBS story wasn't just part of -- and not even a particularly big part relative to what the Boston Globe and AP were doing -- an overall media investigation? Well? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

PS- by the way, I think I may have initially accidentally deleted your posting(s) when I was responding to Seth Finkelstein, and there was a messy edit conflict where I think I may have overlooked your post trying to sort it out. Sorry 'bout that. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Now you're bringing in "Operation Fortunate Son". But these documents are still "Of doubtful authenticity". -- SEWilco (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

???? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The DNC and Boston Globe were involved in the path which led through CBS and examination of the Killian documents. SPECIAL REPORT W/ BRIT HUME, How the Blogosphere Took on CBS' Docs, Friday, September 17, 2004 I thought you'd been studying the CBS situation? -- SEWilco (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Brit Hume? Like most FOX commentators, he's not exactly a neutral source when it comes to matters like this -- can you come up with a slightly more credible source than Mr. Forgery Expert? Also your comments, again, appear to be unconnected with the ongoing discussion. It really would help matters if you could stay on point. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite on your currently wandering point. You brought up what the Boston Globe was doing which was connected to CBS' story, and as you have collected some documents on the subject I expected you knew about it. And Brit Hume is not the one who speaks about "Operation Fortunate Son" and the Boston Globe. If you're having trouble reading it, maybe they sell a recording of the show. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

??? I have no idea what point you are trying to make here -- you insert a broken Wiki link and make odd comments -- but it appears to have nothing to do with the discussions I'm having with the others. This is not helpful. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, BC. Thanks for taking my comments in the spirit in which they were intended. I do understand your lede was a general proposal, not meant as literal text. I think we agree that initially it was strictly a blogger thing - this is reflected in the intro under "The authenticity of the documents was challenged within hours on Internet forums and blogs, with questions initially focused on alleged anachronisms in the documents' typography and content soon spreading to the mass media." As far as your point that "most of the information still floating around..." being false, I guess I'm not sure, but in any case that's beyond our control - we need to make sure that the information floating around this article is true. As to your opinion that the remaining info "mostly becomes dubious" when scrutinized, etc., if there are reliable sources that reflect this, we should consider them. My understanding of that situation is somewhat different than yours, but in any case the article should reflect what reliable sources have published. Finally, with respect to timing, I am not really making an argument- I am stating that I think we agree that the Killian documents and associated controversy arose from a CBS News segment, which was part of ongoing investigations of Bush by various media outlets (and which are detailed in GWB Military Service controversy). As I mentioned above, I think the timing is significant from at least two perspectives and should be noted: one, the "they were out to get Bush before the election" argument, and two, the "they were rushing the story to air ASAP because of the election and this time pressure led them to make a number of egregious journalistic errors." There may also be other significant arguments to make about the timing, but I can think of at least two reasons to include it. Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

One can argue that the rush to air was no more than a "me-too" effort by CBS -- the Whitehouse and DoD were stonewalling all year on the promised release of all of Bush's Guard records, and it was taking FOIA lawsuits by the Associated Press to force the release of them. Do you think it was a just coincidence that CBS aired the story the day after another release of documents from an FOIA lawsuit and stories like this?

As far as your comment "As to your opinion that the remaining info "mostly becomes dubious" when scrutinized, etc., if there are reliable sources that reflect this, we should consider them," this brings up an interesting issue: what if previously unnoticed primary sources directly contradict, without any interpretation needed, published reports not just in highly politicized publications like the National Review and Washington Times, but even something like the Washington Post? What takes precedent in terms of "best source" for purposes of an encyclopedia? A specific example would be this Washington Post comparison of some of the memos to DoD records. The issue is that they were comparing "Memorandums for Records" (aka "apples") to official records (aka "oranges"). The standard USAF Military writing guide, the Tongue and Quill, as well as all other similar types of memos found on the Internet show that the Killian memos followed the correct format despite multiple claims to the contrary. I tried to put this info into the Killian documents authenticity issues here and here, but of course this information was later reverted while I was blocked. If you check the current state of that section of the article, you will note that the lede now starts off with wholly unsubstantiated and unref'd claims, as well as having a pile of "citation needed" tags throughout. Since a number of the people who edit that article also edit here, is it the consensus here that claims found on the Internet, claims that are not only unsupported but are directly contradicted by whatever evidence can be found, belong in a Wikipedia article? Well? I should point out that one Wikipedian familiar with these issues has stated that the inclusion of military documents does NOT constitute WP:OR. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have forgotten that The Tongue and Quill didn't exist at the time the memos were supposedly written, and that there were other style guides (although not Air Force wide style guides that did.) htom (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

We covered this already, didn't we? If you recall, nobody came up with a backing ref to support Some of the formatting of the Killian memos is inconsistent with the Air Force style manual in effect at the time, especially in regards to that mysterious "Air Force style manual." And if you also recall, The Tongue and Quill, which is indeed the defacto "Air Force style manual" has its origins to 1975, just a few years after the memos. And lastly, you may also recall that those other military memos I found were not only contemporaneous to the Killian memos, but some predated them as well -- and they all generally showed the same formatting as shown by the Killian memos and recommended by the Tongue and Quill. So basically there is no supporting evidence or references at all to support the lead paragraph here, yet this version somehow ended up replacing one that had multiple supporting evidence and refs. I'm a little fuzzy on what was the reasoning for this -- could you explain it for my benefit and others? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

....Discussion of WP:OR moved to separate section below

doubtful - proposed change break

Whatever you're doing in Africa, I think you've wandered off point. Just what is your proposed change to "Of doubtful authenticity"? -- SEWilco (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

?? I stated it at the very beginning: "I don't think this little POV add-on belongs in the lede -- any objections to removing and making things a little bit more neutral?" And there is an ongoing discussion regarding this. If you wish to participate, please do so, but without sticking in random comments and section breaks in the middle of exchanges. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

So you don't have a proposed new phrasing, only removal of those three words? And my comments and section breaks were relevant at their level of indentation and topic; I'm sorry if you couldn't track the wandering, perhaps you can better classify the segments. It is customary to insert subsection markers as best they fit. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

<personal attack removed> -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the question about "of doubtful authenticity" -- I don't think this conclusion belongs in the article at all and certainly not in the introductory section. The objective fact is that the authenticity was challenged. It might or might not be accurate to qualify it further, whether "widely challenged" or "challenged by some bloggers" or something in between, but the description should relate to the objective facts, not to the conclusion that some Wikipedia editors draw. JamesMLane t c 14:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not totally averse to this. I think I am more comfortable with the formulation "the KD were six documents critical of GWB...and that were presented as authentic...." which would be the result of deleting "of doubtful authenticity." Let the reader decide based on the fact if they think the authenticity is doubtful. Returning to the above subject of including further primary sources in a sec. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, actually, technically, CBS never outrightly presented the documents at being "authentic" -- if you look at the transcript, Dan Rather introduced the documents (again the documents were just part of an overall segment regarding Bush's Guard service) this way: "60 Minutes has obtained a number of documents we are told were taken from Col. Killian's personal file." And then later stated "Col. Killian died in 1984. 60 Minutes consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic. Did you view the video of the entire original 12 1/2 minute segment? I had provided links for it above. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

BC, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." IF, as you assert, the article(s) in the WP, NR, or other sources were so off-base in their analysis of the documents in question, then the way to demonstrate this is with secondary sources that make this point. Show me a few, or even one. But using a primary source to refute the conclusions of the WP is analysis. If it is in fact, so simple and clear, that it has stripes and could only be a Zebra, then I'm sure someone in the mainstream media will have connected the dots. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I just had this thought about your zebra analogy- wouldn't that mean that if someone with a history of making false accusations against George Bush presented photocopied documents with numerous inconsistencies and which failed numerous examinations by professionals, lied about the source, and "destroyed" the originals, you'd have to conclude they were likely forgeries? Just wondering :) Kaisershatner (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I hate to be a nudge about this, but I had already excerpted a full Wikipedia section above that clearly states among other things that primary sources can be used if "the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source" and you really should have responded there rather than having me restate the issue here. And again like some others, instead of responding to points and questions presented, you offer up unrelated tangental points. Could you and the others please respond at least first to the topic raised, and where it's raised, before bringing up a different issue? Thanks in advance. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The World Book Encyclopedia 2005 Yearbook calls the documents "forgeries" (p. 381). No reasonable person can dispute that the documents are of doubtful authenticity. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, bringing up one word does not even a quote make, ever mind a reference. Could you provide the full context of the quote and under which topic article it appears? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The World Book Encyclopedia 2005 Yearbook article on "Television" calls the documents "forgeries" (p. 381):

Dan Rather, a broadcast journalist for CBS television, apologized to viewers following the revelation that documents he used in a "60 Minutes" report in September about United States President George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War(1957-1975) were forgeries and could not be authenticated.

Of course, this is just one example. No reasonable person informed about the topic would dispute that the documents are of doubtful authenticity. This is not a close call. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I see - so it's not in the actual encyclopedia itself, it's in the Yearbook -- does it reference the source for that quote? It's a strange reference since virtually no major mainstream news source has characterized them as "forgeries," just as being controversial, unauthenticated, or such. I'm not too sure if it matters though in any case since I don't think an encyclopedia can use another encyclopedia as a reference. Also, as far as your comment, "No reasonable person informed about the topic would dispute that the documents are of doubtful authenticity. This is not a close call," that's strictly your personal opinion and personal opinions have no bearing here. And not that it also matters, but I'm perhaps a tiny bit more informed in this situation than most, and frankly it looks to me that all the forgery claims have major discrepancies with the best available evidence regarding common early 70's office technology, the past use of proportional typefaces, how well (or not) one can replicate all of the memos with Word, proper format for military memorandums for records, content, and so on. You would likely be quite surprise about how many commonly held beliefs related to this topic are flat out, well, wrong. But that's neither here nor there for the purposes of this particular discussion. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

As I have said, no reasonable person informed about the topic would dispute that the documents are of doubtful authenticity. Because of this, further discussion with you seems pointless. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I perhaps shouldn't be telling you this, but you might want to take a look at this. Just don't tell anyone I told you, wink, wink, and it's not for ANY discussion here. It's just a teeny bit of misc info for your own personal consumption. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Anon 67.168, if any "reasonable person informed about the topic" would agree with you, then why don't we just assume our readers to be reasonable and inform them about the topic? In other words, the article should certainly summarize the major facts relied on by those who've concluded that the documents were forgeries. Once we've presented that information, it seems, on your view, that stating the "obvious" conclusion wouldn't add anything to the reader's knowledge. JamesMLane t c 21:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The function of the introduction is to introduce the subject by briefly summarizing the essential facts. An essential fact about the so-called Killian documents is that they are of doubtful authenticity. This should be stated clearly in the opening. The details concerning the authenticity question should of course be included in the body of the article (or in a separate article), but many readers will not need to read further for those details. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You are merely restating an opinion you had already stated and that had been addressed -- the idea is to be neutral and factual. Think "Jack and Jill went up the hill" and not "Crack Jack and Evil Jill ran cowardly up the hill". Perhaps it would be helpful if you would look up some Wikipedia guidelines like this and this. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a fact that the documents are of doubtful authenticity: experts who examined the documents for major news media said that the documents were probable forgeries. That is more than sufficient to establish that the documents are of doubtful authenticity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.86.129 (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Again you are just restating your opinion, ignoring the Wikipedia guidelines that were presented to you, and generally not really helping the discussion along. I'm not too sure what else I or anyone else can say to you. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

BC, I think I am responding. I think asking the reader whether primary source military documents from the 1970s are consistent or inconsistent with the Killian documents is asking for analysis. Therefore, a secondary source is required. And since your contention is that it is wholly obvious that the claims made in the newspapers are false, it should be really easy to substantiate this by providing a secondary source that has independently discovered the same thing you say is self-evident. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you clearly are not. I had previously included a large excerpt from WP:OR that seems to clearly indicates that basically if the info in the primary source is obvious and "easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge," that can be used. But you didn't address any of the points nor any of the analogies I used to try to better illustrate the points. Instead you waited until this section to simply restate your opinion, completely ignoring my prior efforts, and causing me to yet again redundantly restate and restate my points. Do you really think this is conducive to a productive discussion? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I am not making this clear. I disagree with you that this is an instance where a primary source can be used and that the info is obvious and easily verifiable. In my opinion, as I state above, using other (ie non-Killian document) government documents from the time period to make some kind of point about the WP or NR or other reporters' work being wrong would require analysis on the part of the reader. I am attempting to answer your desire to include such additional primary source documents: I think it is original research, yes, despite the material you have pasted from WP:OR. I am directly replying to your contention "the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source". I disagree that this is a case of the above. And as long as you are throwing around accusations that I am ignoring your efforts, how about this one, I think it is the third time I am asking you to find a secondary source - since your argument is essentially that it would be obvious to any observer that additional primary source documents will show how the WP or NR was wrong in their analysis, and in fact, so obvious that it is not a violation of WP:OR to include such evidence, then why won't you or can't you provide a secondary source that makes that point? If it is so clear, and so simple, where's the newspaper or reporter who has skewered the WaPo? Why no secondary source, and why no reply from you about that? Kaisershatner (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I'm just misunderstanding you or I'm not making myself clear, but again you seem to be not responding to my full argument and instead now are parsing out bits from them. You also seem to be saying that what appears to be obvious is not obvious to you, and what appears to be "easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person" requires analysis in your mind, but without explaining why in either case. Here, instead of my again restating my entire original argument, which you never responded to, all over again, I'll just move it to its own separate section below. Please read through the entire piece and address at least the major points if you could. Also your request to find another secondary source is besides the point -- I had clearly (I thought) laid out a situation where a primary source contradicts an implication from a secondary source, specifically a Washington Post graphic. This is a singular case that was evidently not looked into by any other generally recognized reliable source. So you asking for another secondary source appears to be both disingenuous and not really connected at all with my whole basic point. I'm not really throwing out accusations -- I'm merely pointing out how I've been having to restate, restate, and restate some more my points and arguments given the off-point/off-topic responses I've been getting. You and some others here might want to look at JamesMLane's comment further up as an example of how to respond on point and on topic. -BC aka Callmebc (talk)

doubtful authenticity

Kaisershatner, your claim that characterizing the documents as being "of doubtful authenticity" violates NPOV is ridiculous. Experts who examined the documents for major news media said that the documents were probable forgeries. None have asserted that the documents are likely authentic. What more is needed to demonstrate that the authenticity of the documents is doubtful? 67.168.86.129 (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to be understanding the basic concept of NPOV -- it just means you let the facts speak for themselves without you editorializing. Try reading WP:ASF. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I've replaced "of doubtful authenticity" with "characterized by some experts as probable forgeries". How's that? 67.168.86.129 (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that hews much closer to the objective facts, but I would be interested in JamesMLane's view as well. Kaisershatner (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...."much closer to the objective facts"? I'm not so sure. Look at it now:

The Killian documents controversy (also called Memogate, Rathergate or Rathergate[1]) involved six documents, characterized by some experts as probable forgeries, which purported to be contemporary documents critical of President George W. Bush's service in the United States National Guard. Four of the documents were presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes Wednesday broadcast aired by CBS on September 8, 2004, less than two months before the 2004 Presidential Election, but had not been properly authenticated by CBS. Many media sources have asserted that the memos are forgeries. This has also been suggested by some typewriter and typography experts [2]. As no original documents have been produced, it is difficult to ascertain their validity.

It's in the wrong place, and mostly seems to just show how badly written and awkward the entire lede is. How's this as an alternative:

The Killian documents controversy (sometimes called called Memogate, Rathergate or Rathergate[1]) involved six military memorandums containing comments deemed critical of President George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard, and purportedly written by then Bush's former Guard commander, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian. Four of the memos were presented during the CBS news show, 60 Minutes Wednesday, on September 8, 2004, as part of a segment covering Bush's long controversial military service. USA Today published all six memos the day after the CBS broadcast. Some conservative bloggers began claiming within hours of the CBS broadcast that the memos were forged due to their being proportionally printed. The major news organizations eventually took note of the blogger claims, and it later turned out that the memos had not been fully authenticated by CBS. The CBS personnel responsible for the segment were later fired after a highly critical independent panel review, but the question of whether the memos were forged or not was never fully resolved: some reporters and military people see the contents of the memos fitting in with what's known about Bush's Guard service while some typewriter and typography experts see the font used in the memos as suggesting forgery.

A wee bit more accurate, balanced, and neutral I think, and one could only hope.... -BC aka Callmebc (talk)

How about this:

The Killian documents controversy (sometimes called called Memogate, Rathergate or Rathergate[1]) involved six documents, which some experts characterized as probable forgeries, purportedly written by President George W. Bush's former Guard commander, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, containing comments critical of Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. Four of the memos were presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes Wednesday broadcast aired by CBS on September 8, 2004, during the 2004 U.S. Presidential election campaign. USA Today published all six memos the day after the CBS broadcast. Some conservative bloggers immediately questioned the authenticity of the documents, and major news organizations eventually reported significant doubts about them. The CBS personnel responsible for the segment were later fired after a highly critical independent panel review, which concluded that the memos had not been fully authenticated by CBS.

I think it's very important for the opening sentence to make the doubts expressed by experts about the authenticity of the documents clear. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It should note that no originals have ever been shown nor that is there a chain of custody establishing a link to Lt Killian. It should not imply that the only question was concerning their typography since there are many other issues. Jmcnamera (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That first sentence is kind of long and complex. How about replacing 67.*129's first sentence with: The Killian documents controversy (sometimes called called Memogate, Rathergate or Rathergate[1]) involved six documents critical of President Bush's Vietnam era service, which some experts characterized as probable forgeries. They were purportedly written by President George W. Bush's former Guard commander, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, and contain comments critical of Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

How about this: The Killian documents controversy (sometimes called called Memogate, Rathergate or Rathergate[1]) involved six documents, which some experts have characterized as probable forgeries, that concerned President George W. Bush's Vietnam-era service in the Texas Air National Guard. They were purportedly written by Bush's former Guard commander, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, and appeared to provide contemporary evidence supporting controversial allegations critical of Bush's performance in the Guard. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia guidelines, you need to use reliable sources as references for any claim, and you just want to let the facts speak for themselves. And you want to be accurate of course. Since no major news outlet called the memos "forgeries," it's editorializing to mention this right off in the lede. While this version is actually much better than your other suggested versions, I think it still has bias problems and is lacking context and some key bits of info. Try this:

The Killian documents controversy (sometimes called called Memogate, Rathergate or Rathergate[1]) involved six memos concerning President George W. Bush's Vietnam-era service as a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. They were purportedly written by then Bush's Guard commander, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, and appeared to provide additional evidence supporting other investigations and long standing allegations regarding Bush's military service. Four of the memos were used by the CBS news show, 60 Minutes Wednesday on Sept. 8, 2004, and all six were printed by USA Today the following day. However the appearance of the memos, especially their proportional typeface and superscripts, led to doubts of their authenticity. A subsequent, highly critical independent panel review commissioned by CBS found many problems with the authentication process and the CBS personnel responsible were later fired. The question of whether the memos are genuine or not was never fully settled: while their contents generally fit in with what's known about Bush's military service, some typography and document experts see their formatting and appearance as suggesting possible forgery.

I should mention that I am very appreciative that there finally seems to be some headway here in finally having a real discussion regarding improving the article. I had consulted with some admins in regards to what appears to have been repeatedly obstructive behavior here especially in regards chronic episodes of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I will hold off on the possible remedial steps that were suggested to me if this discussion continues on point. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

How about this:

The Killian documents controversy (sometimes called called Memogate, Rathergate or Rathergate[1]) involved six documents, which some experts have characterized as probable forgeries, that concerned President George W. Bush's Vietnam-era service as a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. They were purportedly written by Bush's then Guard commander, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, and appeared to provide new evidence supporting long-standing allegations critical of Bush's military service. The documents were presented as authentic by CBS anchor Dan Rather in a broadcast aired toward the end of the 2004 U.S. presidential election campaign, but the appearance of the memos led to doubts of their authenticity, initially by conservative bloggers and later by experts contacted by the mainstream media. An independent panel review commissioned by CBS found that there were substantial questions regarding the authenticity of the documents, which had not been properly authenticated by the producers of the broadcast segment, leading CBS to fire the personnel responsible.

For the source of the term "forgeries", see the next section. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Way too biased. You eliminated the "contents" bit, which counteracts the forgery claims, as well as removing the reference to the other media investigations, falsely implying that this was some sort of lone act by CBS News. And it's awkwardly worded. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"forgeries" usage

I'll just put put another major media reference here: CBS 'voice of God' goes with a whimper " Although the network scored a small scoop by persuading a former Texas lieutenant governor, Ben Barnes, to admit on camera that he had used influence to get Mr Bush into the Texas Air National Guard, it also relied on forged documents." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure this is very germane. You are again referring to the British "Guardian" newspaper and like your first reference, which was an opinion piece you had personally written, this appears also to be only an opinion column, especially with it having a title of "CBS 'voice of God' goes with a whimper" -- hardly the title appropriate for a vetted journalism piece. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You keep moving the goalposts. I think we're up to it must be not written by a conservative, not come from a right-wing source, not be British (must be US?), not be "opinion". Sorry, I don't have hours and hours to spend on this while you find another reason to move the goalposts again. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Moving the goal posts?" I apologize if I didn't make myself clearer -- what you wrote for the Guardian appeared to be only an opinion column. This second reference also appears to be an opinion column. As I pointed out earlier, Neoconservative William Kristol writes columns for the NY Times, and there is no reason to think that the UK Guardian columns you referenced reflect the Guardian's news coverage anymore than how Kristol's columns reflect those of the NY Times. Does this not seem logical? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian article is in the "News" section, not the "Comment" section, and was written by Suzanne Goldenberg , the US correspondent of the Guardian, an award-winning journalist. If you had bothered to actually look at the reference provided by Seth you would know this. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Seth Finkelstein had already pointed out that the rules are different for UK publications. And I had already pointed out that a column with the title of "CBS 'voice of God' goes with a whimper" is hardly appropriate for a vetted journalism piece. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say the rules make them any less of a reliable source. I am now convinced there is simply no source you will accept - you will find some reason, in the writer, the site, the section, the country of origin, something else in the article - to discount it. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have already noted above that the World Book Encyclopedia Year Book for 2005 refers to the documents as "forgeries". The term is also used by USA Today in the report referenced by footnote 21 in the current Wikipedia article. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Your Worldbook reference was already addressed. As far as that USA Today article, "forgeries" appear relative to what others were claiming, including Scott McClellan and Dan Bartlett of the White House. The comments by McClellan and Bartlett actually seem to be a bit disingenuous -- CBS had faxed all the memos to the White House for comment a day before the report aired, and the White House simply released them to other news organizations. Since Bush should have been able to tell at a glance if the memos were real or not, that was a seemingly odd thing they would have done if they truly believed the memos had been forged. I suppose I should point out that Bush has never to this day commented on whether the memos were real or not despite the massive coverage the story generated and him knowing more than anyone else still alive if they were accurate or not. Actually, now that I think about this -- shouldn't this seemingly not trivial point be mentioned somewhere in the article? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In what way do you think you "addressed" the World Book reference? It clearly refutes your claim that no reliable source has called the documents forgeries. And please take another look at the USA Today article, which clearly reports that its experts said the documents were probable forgeries. Your comment about Bush is off-point, but his spokesman also called the documents forgeries. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll just repost my earlier response, which you did not respond to: "I see - so it's not in the actual encyclopedia itself, it's in the Yearbook -- does it reference the source for that quote? It's a strange reference since virtually no major mainstream news source has characterized them as "forgeries," just as being controversial, unauthenticated, or such. I'm not too sure if it matters though in any case since I don't think an encyclopedia can use another encyclopedia as a reference." And again the USA Today article was just quoting numerous people -- the article itself was about CBS pulling away from the story.

The source of the quote I gave you is the World Book Year Book itself. And please read the USA Today article again, more carefully. It clearly reports that its experts said the documents were probable forgeries. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think my comment about Bush is exactly off point -- since you seem rather insistent on the "forgery" issue, can you name anyone else in a better position to have determined if the memos were real or not? Well? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out, Bush's spokesman said the documents were forgeries. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Look more closely at the full statement -- Scott McClellan is not claiming that the documents are forgeries, he's saying instead (falsely, I should add) that it's what CBS is claiming, and he then uses that as a straw man to then refer to the memos as forgeries. Big difference. The White House has never officially commented on whether the memos were real or not, even when directly asked, as was the case here -- check out Dan Bartlett's "answer" to "Stephen, from Colorado Springs, CO". FYI. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, this discussion is off-point. But since you ask, why would Bush waste his time examining the memos, and his personal (probably uncertain) recollections, when the documents were already being scrutinized by outside experts who would clearly have more credibility with critics and the media? Moreover, I don't think the White House (or most of the public, for that matter) considered the long-standing allegations about Bush's conduct as a young man to be of any real concern, even if true. Yes, they were a big deal to Bush's opponents, but so what? They weren't going to support Bush in any case. And would it have made the slightest difference to them if Bush had said that based on his personal recollections the documents must be forgeries? Of course not. But again, this discussion is not relevant to the issue at hand. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Why would Bush waste his time examining the memos"! Because they were highly controversial, were used as an excuse for nasty personal attacks against Dan Rather, embarrassed a major news network, got people fired and maligned, and in general caused all sorts of turmoil in an election year. They were only 6 short memos, readable in a minute or two, and they mostly involved a major incident in Bush's life, his being suspended as a pilot. The odds of him not remembering at least the key details with the documents in hand is nil, especially with his dad being a prominent politician at the time, as well as a one time decorated pilot himself. With Killian and Harris dead, that left only Bush knowing completely what happened then. His behavior in maintaining a code of silence on the matter by itself strongly suggests that the memos are indeed genuine. If they had been forgeries, do you honestly believe that the White House, especially Karl Rove, would not have noted this and directly crucified CBS for it? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This page is not a forum for general discussion of the Killian documents controversy. Please limit your discussion to the suggestions on how to improve the content of this article. (See top of page.) In particular, please respond to my citation of the USA Today article which reports that its experts said the documents were probable forgeries. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You asked and I simply answered. In regards to the USA Today article, it goes Two former FBI forensic document specialists enlisted by USA TODAY to examine the documents said they probably were forgeries. However, you also have this Boston Globe article stating otherwise. Since the Globe, along with the Associated Press, was one of the lead news organizations investigating Bush's service record, this article has at least as much weight as the USA Today one. If you want to be truly balanced, consider well what I wrote as part of the lede suggestion: The question of whether the memos are genuine or not was never fully settled: while their contents generally fit in with what's known about Bush's military service, some typography and document experts see their formatting and appearance as suggesting possible forgery. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The suggested wording, "which some experts have characterized as probable forgeries", is documented by the USA Today article. The Boston Globe article does not contradict the USA Today reporting. If you wish to balance the opinion of experts who concluded that the documents are probable forgeries with the opinion of other experts who believe the documents are likely genuine, please cite your sources. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you not read that Globe article? There is a section that goes: But specialists interviewed by the Globe and some other news organizations say the specialized characters used in the documents, and the type format, were common to electric typewriters in wide use in the early 1970s, when Bush was a first lieutenant. Philip D. Bouffard, a forensic document examiner in Ohio who has analyzed typewritten samples for 30 years, had expressed suspicions about the documents in an interview with the New York Times published Thursday, one in a wave of similar media reports. But Bouffard told the Globe yesterday that after further study, he now believes the documents could have been prepared on an IBM Selectric Composer typewriter available at the time. Also document archivist David Hailey wrote up an extensive study showing the memos are not from any modern word processor. For what its worth, the claims of evidence for forgery starts off as a big pile, then strips away to almost nothing once you fact check everything. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I read the Globe article carefully. It did not say anything about the examination of the documents by the two former FBI forensic document specialists who said they were probably forgeries, as reported by USA Today. Nor did it mention any other document specialists who examined the documents and concluded to the contrary that they were probably authentic. Bouffard did not say that he believed the documents were probably authentic, and his views on the Selectric Composer were clarified in a NYT follow-up: Dr. Philip Bouffard, a forensic document specialist in Georgia who has compiled a database of more than 3,000 old fonts, said people who bought the I.B.M. Selectric Composer model could specially order keys with the superscripts in question. Dr. Bouffard said that font did bear many similarities to the one on the CBS documents, but not enough to dispel questions he had about their authenticity. [6] Hailey is not a recognized expert in document authentication, and the credibility of his self-published studies is comparable to that of your own. Your personal opinion as to the validity of expert opinion that the documents are probably forgeries is not relevant. Please understand that the question being discussed here is not whether the documents are for certain actually forgeries (which obviously cannot be resolved here), but whether experts have characterized them as probable forgeries. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"Recognized expert" is a slippery slope. Being an "expert witness" for the purposes of court cases just means you have some history of expertise in a particular area, and it covers a pretty wide range of expertise -- you just need to basically know a bit more than the average person. In Hailey's case, he packs a pretty impressive resume, hence his opinion is quite relevant. The bottom line, though, and you have to accept this, is that there truly are arguments for both sides of the authenticity issue, and the truly NPOV (as well as fair) thing to do is just be neutral and not promote one side over the other. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact, there isn't a single item in Hailey's resume that is related to document authentication (other than his self-published "study" of the Killian documents). He is an (associate) English professor in Professional and Technical Communication, with a BA in Creative Writing, an MA in Professional/Technical Writing, and a Ph.D. in "Language and Rhetoric, Theory of Criticism." He has no qualifications or experience in forensic document authentication. And not only is Hailey no expert; he has never said that he believes the documents are authentic. Your personal view that there are arguments of equal weight on both sides of the authenticity issue is irrelevant; you need to provide evidence that there are in fact experts who believe the documents are probably authentic. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I said earlier that Hailey was an "archivist" -- meaning he has a strong familiarity with old documents, records and such -- and archiving is listed in his resume. including getting a "$27,000 Sandia National Laboratories Research Grant" for a "multimedia archive for a nuclear weapons assembly process". And at the end of his analysis of the Killian memos, he lists his applicable credentials as "Dr. Hailey’s particular research interest has been in preservation and archiving processes and critical skills since 1992. More recently (1997), with the advent of digital archives, his research has focused on digital document authenticity and reliability. His experience in producing and examining documents ranges from mechanical traditions typical of the mid-sixties to the digital books typical of the 21 century. Currently, he teaches document design issues at graduate and undergraduate levels." Isn't it well past the time for you to give up this less than fruitful stand and move on? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

To repeat, nothing in Hailey's resume indicates any qualifications or experience in forensic document authentication, and in any case he has never said that he believes the Killian documents are authentic. But it is definitely time to move on; until you can provide evidence that there are in fact experts who believe the documents are authentic, there is little point in having you continue to restate your peculiar view that it somehow violates NPOV to call attention in the opening sentence to the clear and important fact that some experts have characterized the Killian documents as probable forgeries. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Umm, the question is whether they are documents from the early 1970's, which makes his archival expertise highly relevant, which would make him an expert in any court of law, and which also trumps whatever your opinion is of his qualifications. Plus even Thomas Phinney has admitted that Hailey has the best copies of the memos, which means that they are better than those your touted "recognized experts" had to examine. And as far as your claim that Hailey "never said that he believes the Killian documents are authentic.", from page 12 of his report, They cannot have been done in Times New Roman, so the argument that they were done digitally has no logical support. That little statement, without any interpretation I believe, directly attacks the whole forgery notion. Look, I know (along with more than a few others) personally that the memos could not have been logically forged and all six demonstrably cannot be replicated accurately with any modern word processing system -- you would have to resort to tedious advance Photoshopping to mimic closely their appearance. But that's personal knowledge based on WP:OR stuff to the extreme. All I can bring to this table is to point out violations of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding NPOV and encourage a balanced article based on solid, well-sourced, information, and not so much right wing silliness and bad reporting. For what it's worth. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I know it is very frustrating to you that your personal research which proves the Killian documents are authentic cannot be used per Wikipedia policy. But that's the way it is. Wikipedia must be based on the facts as reported in reliable sources. And it is a fact so reported that experts have said the documents are probably forgeries. Bringing this fact to the attention of readers does not violate NPOV simply because you are personally convinced that the experts are wrong. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

--Outdent-- "Wikipedia must be based on the facts as reported in reliable sources." -- that's exactly what me and some others have been trying hard to make you understand. It's OK to mention that some experts think that the memos are probable forgeries -- just don't stick it in people's faces at the beginning as though that's the entire story -- that would be grossly in violation of Wikipedia guidelines involving NPOV. There is no serious disagreement that the contents of at least some of the memos match up with official records and what media investigations have shown -- even the not so investigative investigators on the that CBS panel report had to admit that -- and you have to admit that pretty much counterbalances the forgery claims, which were indeed primarily blog driven. And I have to caution you that it's a bit unreasonable for me to spend so much time here simply trying to get you to follow WP:NPOV. If you persist, I will have no recourse but to inquire into RFC's and such. One thing you should perhaps ask yourself is "Will what I'm attempting to do be of benefit to users coming to this article seeking accurate and balanced information?" -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 13:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV does not require that fringe theories be given equal weight with expert opinion. If you want to "balance" the fact that some experts say the documents are probable forgeries with your idea that "match up"s show the documents are authentic, you'll need to cite a reliable source which shows that some experts support your views. When you can do that, we can discuss further. Otherwise, I suggest you proceed with your RFC. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Fringe theories"? What does that have to do with you wanting to lead with the forgery charges? That's what this discussion has been about -- what you wanted to do, your so-called "essential fact". Perhaps you should consider moving on for the good of the article. Currently the lede doesn't even have Bush in the correct service branch -- it has him being in the "United States National Guard" when it should have been the Air National Guard or Texas Air National Guard -- he was a pilot, not some one weekend a month Guardsman. I know I had it as the Air National Guard at one point (earlier I had it as Texas Air National Guard, but Air National Guard has a more complete Wiki entry) so I went looking at the history. Indeed my last revert before I was blocked had it correct. At the time it was mostly SEWilco, along with HiramShadraski, who kept reverting my stuff, including putting back the wrong service. So basically from October 7th of last year to this very day, the lede has had blatantly and elementary wrong info that nobody has bothered to fix. Indeed it was my suggestion for the improved lede above that had the correct service branch back again. Of all the current regular posters, it appears I seem to be the only one who seems genuinely interested in actually improving the article the way Wikipedia intends. For all the verbiage spent on this page stonewalling my suggestions, the bottom line is that all this has accomplished was to keep the article an embarrassing mess. You should ask yourself -- "What have I actually done, and what do I intend to do, that will actually improve the article?" -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I just corrected the National Guard reference. It took 2 seconds. Why didn't you make the change yourself? No one would object to that. The objection is to your removal from the opening sentence of the essential information that experts have characterized the documents as probable forgeries. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What part of my having corrected it before and getting my stuff reverted (and reverted....) didn't you understand? The point it that you have yet to demonstrate a genuine intention to improve the article -- you're so fixed on inserting the forgery POV stuff that you ignore much more basic problems with the article. Look, I think your wrong, others think you're wrong, why don't you move on to actually helping to improve the article? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The 'documents' are widely considered to be forgeries despite Callmebc's belief otherwise. It should stay in the introduction. Jmcnamera (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You evidently haven't been following the discussion too closely: 1) the documents are only "widely" considered to be forgeries among conservative bloggers; and 2) I had offered a compromise of mentioning the "forgery" aspect in relation to the contents issue: The question of whether the memos are genuine or not was never fully settled: while their contents generally fit in with what's known about Bush's military service, some typography and document experts see their formatting and appearance as suggesting possible forgery. This is completely factual, a NPOV, and balanced by giving both sides some mention. This endless delay in getting the article improved could possibly be seen as being no more than an exercise in gaming. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi BC. I have to agree that changing the branch of service in a single edit would hardly have been a controversial edit. Let's take this as an example that working together to improve the article can actually happen. In my opinion, your proposed factual/npov lede has problems. For example, I think you under-represent the number and proportion of experts who think the memos are forged. Since the majority of experts either failed to authenticate or think they are forgeries, shouldn't the lede reflect this? Also regarding "suggesting possible forgery": the suggestion of possible forgery was not limited to the typographical characteristics of the memos: the dubious provenance of the photocopies (a person known to have made unsupported anti-Bush allegations in the past), the lying about their source (Killian, "Lucy Ramirez," "I burned the originals,") the positive authenticated information from Killian about Bush, the recollections of the secretary who said they aren't genuine, the matchup with Microsoft Word, etc. are all parts of the "probably forged" argument. And on a separate note, I think everyone who edits here understands you think the memos are genuine. I think you understand that most of the editors here think they are not. This is a disagreement on a matter of opinion, not "gaming." I would be against it if editors here suggested you stop editing here "for the good of the article." Please don't make the corresponding suggestion in reverse. Anon editors and users who disagree with you aren't "gaming the system" by forcefully arguing with you about the facts. Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

BC evidently hasn't been following the discussion too closely either. I pointed out above that the World Book Encyclopedia Year Book for 2005 refers to the documents as forgeries, and that USA Today reported that two former FBI forensic document specialists examined the documents and said they probably were forgeries. Yet BC continues to falsely claim that only conservative bloggers consider the documents forgeries. It seems clear that further discussion with him is pointless. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Your Worldbook thing was discussed further up, and you never followed up on my last comments about it -- actually I had already reposted it again for you to respond and you never did. Perhaps you lost the thread -- which is quite understandable given the tonnage of unnecessary words here. I suggest you go back up, find the thread, and respond there -- your comments here otherwise might possibly be seen as uncivil and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT-ish. Hope this helps. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Callmebc, don't forget to comment on the part of his message about USA Today. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

a little bit more simple

Let's try to make this a little bit more simple, shall we?

• 1) The contents of the documents fit in with what was already being shown by multiple media investigations -- Agree/Disagree?
• 2) The question of provence/chain of custody was not investigated nor discussed by any reliable new source. -- Agree/Disagree?
• 3) At best that you can say about the forgery issue is that some investigators, when asked by reliable sources, think that the documents are probable forgeries soley based on appearances, not anything else. -- Agree/Disagree?
• 4) Even the CBS Panel Commission had to admit that official records show that Killian and Harris were pressured to give Bush a rating report, but that they resisted, exactly as the infamous "CYA" memo shows. -- Agree/Disagree?
• 5) The documents controversy distracted from nearly coincidal news reports and FOIA forced record releases by the DoD. -- Agree/Disagree?
• 6) The contents of the original CBS newsast is ludicrously mis-described in the article. -- Agree/Disagree?
• 7) The editors currently here apparently do little or nothing to improve the article when things are idle, but seemingly expend enormous amounts of effort in obstructing my attempts to do so, including reverting back even basically wrong info. -- Agree/Disagree?

The above seems to quite accurately characterize the state of affairs here. -- Agree/Disagree? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• 1) The contents of the documents fit in with what was already being shown by multiple media investigations -- Which investigations, and how would fitting be relevant to the "forgeries" topic being discussed? Were old documents which didn't fit ignored, or were new forgeries created so they would fit? -- SEWilco (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Investigations like these: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], and so on. For starters. And Question #1 was "The contents of the documents fit in with what was already being shown by multiple media investigations -- Agree/Disagree?" Also, in terms of relevance, I encourage you to read the paragraph at the bottom of page 7 (pg 17 by the PDF count) of the CBS Panel report. Your last comment is utterly speculative and besides the point. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. So because it fits with what is in the Bible, Roman garb, and the use of the Latin language, Monty Python's Life of Brian must be a document created at the time of the Roman occupation of Jerusalem? Agree/Disagree? -- SEWilco (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Question #1 is pretty clear, as well as my response to your first follow-up query. <query removed by SEWilco> -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Your question is clear, but whether there is a "fit" or something to fit into isn't. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• What is the meaning of "any reliable new source" in question 2? Are you asking if there are no WP:V sources which mention the provenance of the documents? -- SEWilco (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, it was a pretty clear question. See my prior response. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. What makes a source "new"? "New media"? Book published after 2006? Why the "new" restriction upon sources? -- SEWilco (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

<query removed by SEWilco> -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

<query removed by User:SEWilco> -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I may regret this, but ...

You will likely very much regret that, but you'll have to wait when I have a little bit more time later today or tomorrow. I can say that that your first "answer" didn't exactly address the question asked, but it's factually and logically false regardless. Excruciating details to follow.... -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's reasonable to address an implication or assumption in the question, i.e. hypothetically, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet, YES OR NO, I ASKED YOU YES OR NO JUST GIVE ME A YES OR NO ANSWER!!!" would be a question of similar connotation. Sometimes the answers aren't simple agree or disagree matters. I think that's a useful point for me to make in response. By the way, you can save your effort, I understand your reply on this point, you don't need to repost a long screed on the topic. I'm telling you in advance that your apparent inability to consider that you might be in error, and the mistakes I have seen in your work (which I did look over) causes me to give your research little probative value. This will be true no matter how many times you repeat it. I'm going to make this very clear. If you argue "Point X could not have been known before Time Y because I personally have not seen a document before time Y in my research", my conclusion is going to be that you didn't do enough research, NOT that the documents aren't forgeries. I WILL NOT spend days and days doing research of my own on when Point X was first known to people who might have forged the documents. Decisions have to be made on partial information and with inductive inference, and there's real-world limits due to the length of human lifespan. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Asking if several documents of unknown origin regarding a certain topic fit in with other research on the matter shows is not exactly the same as asking "Have you stopped beating your wife yet". It's slightly more like, hmmm, let's say...asking if certain documents fit in with what other research shows. It's called the Scientific Method among other things. Before my full reply, I'm mildly curious about your passing comment regarding "the mistakes I have seen in your work". What "mistakes" might they be (aside from typos and being a bit cluttered with info), pray tell? I know this is not the proper forum, but please do humor me if you don't mind. Just one or two -- I won't mind. I'm always looking for good feedback. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This paragraph of your work particularly disimpressed me: "Also take note of the superscripting, which you might remember as being one of the supposed issues that stirred the forgery charges. The Service Chronology also has a superscripted "th," but you really have to look for it.". As we discussed a while ago, the document you cite is from much later in time. And the Service Chronology document doesn't have a true superscript (both small font and raised above line). So that's two critical errors in two sentences. Errors like that cause me to make an inference that, while you are certainly dedicated and enthusiastic and operating in good faith, your work sadly doesn't hold up. Thus, future offering along the lines of how-about-this? and-that? and-the-other-thing? incline me to react that there's an error not worth wasting time analyzing, rather than taking an approach that you're right unless I can prove you wrong (which, given experience like the sources argument above, seems to be a fool's quest). Similarly, asking if they "fit" is meaningless because it's reasonable they've been forged to "fit". Having to explain this problem, repeatedly, is another piece of evidence that more detailed examination will be fruitless. I'm trying to walk a line of validating your evident willingness to investigate, but effort doesn't necessarily generate accuracy. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Critical errors? Let's start with the full context of what I had written, shall we:

• Important Note:
• Even though Bush was evidently reassigned to the Alabama 187th, official records about his service there are very noticeably lacking, to the point that it doesn't get a mention at all both in his official "Chronological Listing of Service" and in this undated, but Pentagon-supplied "Military Biography." This is an excerpt from the Biography:

• <Image excerpt from DoD Biography>
• Where's Alabama?

• Also take note of the superscripting, which you might remember as being one of the supposed issues that stirred the forgery charges. The Service Chronology also has a superscripted "th," but you really have to look for it.

Where are the "critical errors" here, exactly again? Isn't the main thrust of this obviously about how there is no mention of Bush's Guard service in Alabama, even though he was suppose to have been assigned there for a year? -- Agree/Disagree? And isn't likewise obvious that I only noted the superscripting in the context of all the fuss that was made about this, along with proportional printing? From that earlier discussion we had, it came out that the undated "biography" was likely typed up during in 2000 while fulfilling a FOIA request. But my issue then was that the font and superscripting does not at all resemble that from a modern computer -- Agree/Disagree? Also, could not your comments and claims here, when combined with your "method" of dealing with points and questions, be possibly seen as indicative of an overall intention to not actually improve the article? Well? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am going to stop responding before I violate WP:CIVIL too badly. Basically, I give up. It's not worth my time. I've made my points. Let someone else deal with the contention and edit-warring. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll only point out that one of the key points of of WP:CIVIL is "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others," yet many editors seem to think that this doesn't apply to them. If someone repeatedly brings up point A and asks question B, and the "response" is to only raise besides-the-points ZZ, XX, YY and so on, and/or to ask unrelated questions ZZZ, XXX, YYY, and so on, that is not exactly in keeping with WP:CIVIL. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

1) Disagree that they contain material that wouldn't be available to a forger - i.e. if someone forges them, of course they fit, the forger made them that way (I know you've made a counter-argument, I don't buy it).

2) Disagree. Can't see how this can even be reasonably asserted.

3) Disagree. That's an extremely trivializing take on it.

4) Disagree. Again, can't see how this can even be reasonably asserted.

5) Agree.

6) Pass

7) Edit wars are discouraging, among other reasons.

-- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

1) Whether or not the contents fit is the wrong question. As noted, a forger would know what to put in the forgeries, so whether or not they match proves nothing. If they don't match, that might be significant.

Nonresponsive comment with an irrelevant, as well as factually wrong and illogical opinion (details forthcoming). Question #1 seems to be an especially tough one for editors here to answer.

2) The question of provence/chain of custody: Disagree. Reliable news sources tracked the documents back to Bill Burkett, and found only shifting assertions from him about the source of the documents. Other investigations into circumstantial aspects of provenance (like Killian's view of Bush, the secretary's recollections of what type of memos were typed, the ability of a military organization of Killian's type and time even to produce such a document, all showed it is unlikely the docs are from Killian).

As is more the case here, you didn't answer the question asked: The question of provence/chain of custody was not investigated nor discussed by any reliable new source. -- Agree/Disagree? And again you offered up your not too relevant opinion instead of facts and the refs to them.

3) About the forgery issue: the best that can be said is news organizations have an ethical obligation to authenticate material prior to disseminating it, and that no experts have been able to authenticate the documents, for many reasons.

Yet another nonresponsive comment instead of a direct answer to the question asked.

4) I would have to review the panel's findings again on this subject. Let me get back to you. However, either way, I don't think it's relevant. Even if there was pressure, that should be covered in the GWB military service controversy. It doesn't shed light on this story. Correlation doesn't imply causation. Addition: see T-B p. 134: "The Panel concludes that while certain of the Killian documents mesh well with the official Bush records in terms of content, there are several significant inconsistencies that undercut the meshing notion. At a minimum, the inconsistencies should have prevented an unqualified assertion as of September 8 that the Killian documents fit precisely into the pattern of the official Bush records." Also, same page, "The Panel concludes that there are significant differnces in these areas [format, jargon, language] between the Killian documents and the official Bush documents." So the answer to your question is: Disagree. The Panel did not find that the KD were consistent with official Bush service records, as asserted by the TV segment. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, a nonresponsive, opinionated comment instead of a direct answer to the question posed. There seems to be a pattern here.

5) The documents controversy distracted...:It depends. It didn't distract me; can't see how to find empirical evidence for this article to support that generally, and even if it could be supported, so what?

Well, this was almost responsive, but not quite -- the question was: The documents controversy distracted from nearly coincidal news reports and FOIA forced record releases by the DoD. -- Agree/Disagree?

6) The contents of the original CBS newsast is ludicrously mis-described in the article. -- Agree/Disagree? Disagree. Could be improved, though.

Have you seen the original video? I posted links to it above and described the contents in relation to where the documents appear. The current article description of the segment is a confused mess.

7) Disagree. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The belabored nonresponses to my rather simple questions say otherwise, as well as apparently disingenuous, undiscussed edits like this. The Panel report, which is actually kind of an overall mess -- not only did they made a complete botch of the "meshing issue" via some rather peculiar "interpretations" of DoD records, including not even getting who Bush's commander was, but they apparently couldn't even look up what the correct format was for a military memo for record (this alone should make Dan Rather's lawsuit very entertaining when/if it hits the courts) -- had nevertheless noted that Matley, the lead document expert, thought the Killian signatures on the memos and the DoD docs "were done by the same person". Which makes your recent editorializing edit to the main article unwarranted and not at all conducive to making the article better. One can actually make the strong case that it only made an already bad article worse. Do I dare ask Agree/Disagree? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear BC. Calling something "nonresponsive," and "irrelevant," does not make it so. And since this is a talk page, not some Kafka-esqe Trial, if you ask a question that is itself leading or tangential (as others have noted), I will continue to feel free to answer it by pointing that out. In fact, I think the editors here who disagree with you have shown amazing good faith by even replying to your most recent seven points, given your history of hostility and insult. I especially liked where you share your opinion that "the contents of the original CBS newsast [sic] is [sic] ludicrously mis-described in the article," but when I agree that it could be improved, and edit the intro to include direct quotations from the segment and its analysis by CBS, you call that "editorializing" and worsening the article! At times, I have been the most willing of the editors here to assume your good faith, and even to make editorial changes to the article that support your fringe POV - remember when I deleted "doubtful authenticity" from the intro, without discussing it? You didn't complain about me then...But I am tired of being called obstructionist, gaming, disingenuous, nonresponsive, etc. You have threatened RFC and other remedies, etc., so let's have it, instead of bullying the editors around here with process-threats, just open your RFC and we'll see what the community thinks. Again. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Things are indeed "Kafka-esqe" here, but not in the way you likely intended. As I have repeatedly pointed out on numerous occasions, you and some others here chronically force me repeat my questions and points over and over again because, for whatever reason, you seem very disinclined to address anything directly, preferring instead to answer irrelevant "questions" never asked, offering up opinion on tangential (at best) side issues, creating straw man arguments, and in general disrupting any and all attempts to have any serious discussion to improve the article. Just look at your response to a rather straightforward question like 1) The contents of the documents fit in with what was already being shown by multiple media investigations -- Agree/Disagree? And in general look at all the off-point verbiage on this page -- what has it accomplished in terms of actually improving the article? By my count, the only improvement so far was that Bush's military service was finally corrected back to the Air National Guard after having been changed to "US National Guard" back in early October, and languishing ever since until I recently pointed out the problem here. What did Maimonides say one time -- "You must accept the truth from whatever source it comes"?

Honesty is answering the question asked, and WP:AGF means that a question asked should be treated as being simply a question asked and not some sort of indicator of dark purposes. I've always tried to directly addressed points and questions directly, however off-point and illogical, as a matter of moving the debate along, and reciprocation is not only fair, but crucial to having any sort of real "discussion" at all. Simply trying to get people to answer the questions asked and address the points raised is not exactly "bullying" -- it's a bit more like trying to get a civil discourse going. Indeed, note that in WP:CIVIL, after the "Nutshell" summary, it states: Participate in a respectful and civil way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. Something that you and some others should perhaps consider more fully relative to the behavior shown here so far. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)