Talk:Killian documents controversy/Archive 3


 * Archive up to September 22, 2004
 * Archive 2 through end of 2004 (includes article name vote)
 * Archive 3 up to August xx, 2005

Recreations?
Could these documents have been recreations rather than forgeries?

I read a posting by a vet who said he learned that it was commonpractice for documents to be reformatted in the process of being converted to microfiche. His experience was that the archived version of some of his service records didn't match his copies. A lawyerly type told him that's common and that the archived versions were legally considered authentic. This theory seems like it would be easy to prove or disprove. -- Zappini


 * I am a vet of the era who was involved in military administration up to the brigade level. Are you familiar with microfiche and the process? Essentially it's microfilm in a small, flat format. The idea is you take documents and photograph them in order to archive them and throw out the paper originals. (1) There is no point in retyping and doubling your work; the entire idea of microfiche or film is to preserve the original as it was originally created. (2) Memos of this nature would not be candidate for microfiche anyway which also relates to (3) these were allegedly memos which Killian kept in his personal files for no obvious reason. If they had been micofiched, they would have been destroyed. So we're saying Killian then made prints from the microfiche to put in his personal files? Or are you hinting that he kept the allegedly reformatted memos when they were microfiched? Then why wouldn't he have simply kept the originals? And (4) we're now arguing that these documents were reformatted and were then given to Killian to sign again?


 * You should also know that when a document was redone for any reason (unless the redoing is exactly contemporaneous with the original document) the fact that it is not the original is clearly noted, and an explanation given as to why this is so.


 * Wow, we're really reaching to make a silk purse out of this sow's ear. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:26, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Forgeries
There is, in fact, no serious doubt about the authenticity of the so-called Killian documents. They are forgeries. They could not have been produced using the typewriter technology available at the time. This has been conclusively demonstrated by experts in computer typography, such as Thomas Phinney, Program Manager, Fonts & Core Technologies, Adobe Systems. No refutation of this expert analysis has been offered by anyone. No credible source now defends the authenticity of these documents. To continue to insist that they "have not been proven" forgeries is an absurdity. Those who do so discredit their competence as Wikipedia contributors. 63.224.46.19


 * User:Gamaliel and User:JamesMLane are absolutely right &mdash; this needs to be NPOVed, as they (and I) have done. The documents are almost certainly not what they were originally represented as being, and they are quite probably forged; but they have not been in any sense of the word been proven to be forgeries, and any attempt to claim otherwise is downright silly. --Ray Radlein 00:48, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * More to the point (or just as much to the point) the introductory paragraph, as presently constituted, contains nothing but basic statements of fact which everybody agrees upon. There is nothing in it which should offend the sensibilities of anyone who feels that the documents were forgeries; nor is there anything which should offend those folks who feel otherwise. It sets forth the basic parameters of the story, leaving the detailed discussions for later in the document, just like an introductory paragraph should. It is difficult to imagine what the problem with that might be. --Ray Radlein 01:00, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Let me repeat. The so-called Killian documents are forgeries. This has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt by competent experts. That is a central fact concerning the subject, and Wikipedia should so state. Unfortunately, non-competent Wikipedia contributors insist upon equivocation, improperly characterizing it as NPOV, to the detriment of Wikipedia's credibility. If Wikipedia must avoid plainly stating clearly demonstrated facts to avoid offending the "sensibilities" of people "feel otherwise", it will never be taken seriously. If you're having trouble understanding what the problem is here, read this commentary [] by Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger. 63.224.46.19 07:36, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * If you think that Larry's little rant is at all applicable to this situation, then I would suggest that... well, I would suggest that I probably ought not finish this sentence right now. --Ray Radlein 10:39, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Q: And weren't those documents [Killian Memos] fakes?
Let's not humiliate Wikipedia by pretending that anyone who has investigated this believes the Killian "memos" (if they're forged, they're not 'memos', they're documents made to look like memos). As more source for the below, National Public Radio has a Q&A on the controversy. Anyone who know what NPR is and thinks they're right-of-center, or pro-Bush should probably increase their medicine.


 * Q: And weren't those documents fakes?


 * A: That's the most controversial part of the whole thing. These days, CBS has been saying an emphatic, "We don't know.&#8221; The outside report says it cannot prove that they are forgeries.


 * Most other people in the known media universe currently wouldn't even trust the documents for use as packing paper.


 * Bloggers, those folks who write online journals, or Web logs, began questioning the documents shortly after the original broadcast -- and by shortly, I mean a few hours. Conservatives on talk radio picked up the refrain the very next day.


 * Within two days, major media outlets like the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times, NBC and ABC conferred with their own document experts. They almost uniformly said the papers looked as though they had been generated by computer-based technology -- word processors -- not the IBM Selectric typewriters in use three decades ago.

"Let's not make it "Most other people (except Wikipedia) in the known media universe currently wouldn't even trust the documents for use as packing paper." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * let's just be clear on this, i think it's pretty straightforward; there's nothing complicated about this:

The memos, in form, are not originals. there is no longer any dispute about this. The memos, in substance:
 * Conclusive against: Yes. Consensus.
 * Conclusive against: None. There is no evidence against the accuracy of the substance of the memos.
 * Suggestive against: None.
 * Suggestive for: Some. there witnesses and so forth, supporting the substance (though not conclusively verifying it.)
 * Conclusive for: None. there is no conclusive evidence of their accuracy.

The substance is what matters, ofcourse. What we have is a suggestive for. Everything else is mere speculation. Kevin Baastalk 04:18, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)


 * If by "the substance" you mean whether or not the allegations are true, I would make two points. First, the allegations against Bush have not been proven to be true, especially not in the detail alleged by the memos. Second, "the substance" is immaterial to whether the memos are forgeries or not. Take it in relation to the late charges against Kerry in Vietnam. Suppose it is true (but unproven) that he didn't deserve the first purple heart (because the wound apparently didn't result from enemy fire). Now suppose I forge a military document complaining that "Ltjg Kerry did not merit the purple heart because it was not received under enemy fire," and append the signature of a person who would have been in a position to know. Would you still say, "well, it doesn't matter if the memo about Kerry is a forgery if the purple heart wasn't deserved"? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, Cecropia, that's what I would say. The issue is not the document, but the actions of presidential candidates.  Also, by "forgeries" it's implied that the documents do not reflect content that was at one point written by said author.  They may in fact be "copies" or "simulations".  Certainly what you're reading on your computer screen isn't a "forgery" of what I wrote, but the spacing of the font I used and the resolution of the moniter that I typed it on is different than what you see.  But is that the issue?  Or is what I have to say the issue? Kevin Baastalk 17:11, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)


 * OK, Kevin, you've convinced me. I promise to vote for you for this year's Humpty Dumpty award. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:51, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me add that this is provided the substance is truthfull. For instance, "not under enemy fire".  Noone has claimed that there was not enemy fire.  Whether or not that fire was directed at Kerry in particular is irrelevant; is not what "under enemy fire" means - the subject of that term is the unit, not the person.  No one disputes that the unit was under enemy fire.  No one disputes that friendly units were firing.  What were they firing at?  Why were they firing? In a war, if one side is firing, it's pretty safe to assume that the other side is firing back.  Therefore, it's pretty safe to assume that the unit was "under enemy fire". Kevin Baastalk 17:43, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's just the point in regard to Kerry. It is reasonably argued that there was no enemy fire, but that Kerry's wound was the result of careless handling of ordnance. So you are mistaken that it is assumed that the unit was "under enemy fire." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:51, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * In an article on the subject of the "Killian documents", the central issue is clearly the documents themselves. The actions of presidential candidates (here Bush's TANG service) is the subject of a separate article. Since the documents are forgeries, their "substance" is significant here only because it indicates the motivations of those who forged them and those who promoted them as authentic. Incidentally, in the case of Kerry's 1st Purple Heart, the officer in command of the boat during the incident (Adm. Schachte) does in fact claim that they were not under enemy fire.  63.224.46.19 18:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Being this thus a "claim", inasmuch as the documents being disguised as originals demotes them to the status of simulations and puts the motives of the embellisher(s) in question (and the source is believed to be quite partial), so to is the accuracy of the claim of the officer in command in dispute, as are his/her motivations. "In fact" (as you say), other witnesses, whose statements are a priori equally valid, contradict this claim.


 * I mantain that the subject of a "document" is it's material as well as it's form. Kevin Baastalk 18:39, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)


 * I think the current "apparently forged" in the opening para is good, although something about the "apparently" butting up against the "purportedly" which follows it doesn't seem very felicitous to me; but at this point it's just a quibble about fluidity of prose, rather than content. I may take a hack at that wording later ("supposedly" instead of "purportedly," maybe?), while leaving the apparent forgery in there. I think we have a winner, so to speak.


 * ...Now to figure out how to chop out some of the redundancy in the article without goring anybody's ox: Reading through it just to wikify dates and such, I was struck by the fact that every last point and counterpoint in the whole sad story is hashed over at least two or three times during the course of the article. Obviously, we don't neeed to hear that his secretary says she didn't type it, but that it matches what Killian thought three times in the article; and we don't need to hear that a low-resolution GIF of a low-resolution scan of a fax of a possibly forged document looks just like a low-resolution GIF of a low resolution scan of a printout of a Microsoft Word document over and over again. The real trick, of course, will be figuring out a way of collapsing all of that repetition in such a way that no one gets cheated out of their favorite argument for or against.


 * On second thought, maybe we should just leave it as a bloated 51K article, and escape with our skins intact. :-)   --Ray Radlein 04:35, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

This article is in the sorry shape it's in precisely because of excessive concern for the sensibilities of non-competent editors at the expense of providing clear and accurate factual coverage of the subject for the benefit of readers. 63.224.46.19 08:06, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I will try not to spare your sensibilities any further, then. --Ray Radlein 10:39, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Proof
This text was restored with the claim that it is a "perfectly NPOV observation":


 * Ultimately, none of the arguments or demonstrations of competitive typography carried out online can be considered absolutely conclusive, if for no other reason than lack of access to the actual original documents in question.

This statement may be NPOV, but it is simply not accurate. While in general a document cannot be conclusively proved authentic without access to the original, it may well be possible to prove a document is NOT authentic based solely on a copy. This should be obvious. 63.224.46.19 08:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * While it is possible to prove a document is fake despite having access to only a copy, that is not what has happened here. The interminable volleys that were fired across the internet in the Great Kerning War of '04 proved exactly nothing conclusively, with the possible exception of the fact that a lot of people on both sides of the issue thought they knew a great deal more about, well, all sorts of stuff, than they actually did. --Ray Radlein 10:39, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * One POV (that of some of the people you're criticizing) is that the evidence conclusively establishes that the documents are fake. Another POV (yours) is that the evidence does not conclusively establish that the documents are fake.  NPOV means that we report both these competing POVs without endorsing either of them.  That's why my edit removed both the flat conclusion that the documents were "forged" and your assertion that no such flat conclusion is possible.  The statement that you keep restoring isn't universally agreed to, but it can be included if it's properly attributed to someone. JamesMLane 14:30, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem I have with that is that it does not describe what I wrote. Once again: My sentence made no claims at all about what "the evidence" proved or didn't prove; it merely pointed out that the internet evaluation of the typographical evidence &mdash; which was, after all, the subject of the preceding several article sections &mdash; was not, on its own, conclusive. One reason why it wasn't conclusive was that the people arguing back and forth about it on the internet were not able to directly examine the source material, but, rather, had to rely on some fairly crappy pictures of it instead. That is why I felt that my sentence was appropriate, as well as improving the rather sudden transition from talking about the authenticity of the typeface of the memos to talking about the authenticity of the content of the memos &mdash; which was, after all, equally available to everyone evaluating the documents, either online or in person. --Ray Radlein 19:46, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * My objection to what you wrote is that you state that the typographical analysis of the Killian documents is inconclusive, and that it must be so because the originals are unavailable. Both of these assertions are false. Expert analysis has shown the documents to be forgeries, beyond any reasonable doubt, and the copies available for examination are sufficient to permit this determination with the methodologies employed. 63.224.46.19 20:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The statement quoted above says that none of the arguments can be considered absolutely conclusive "if for no other reason" than lack of access to the originals. This statement implies the premise that authenticity cannot be disproven without the originals. That premise is obviously false. The statement quoted is therefore inaccurate. You inability to recognize this is indicative of your lack of critical thinking skills. In this case it is indeed possible to disprove the authenticity of the documents beyond any reasonable doubt with access only to copies. Your flippant reference to the "Great Kerning War" is further evidence that you are unable to competently evaluate the arguments and evidence involved here.

One POV is that the evidence conclusively establishes that the earth is round. Another POV is that the evidence does not conclusively establish that fact (ask members of the Flat Earth Society). NPOV does not require that we report both these competing POVs without endorsing either of them. All POVs are not entitled to equal respect. The sort of intellectual egalitarianism you advocate is seriously detrimental to the credibility of Wikipedia. Please read the commentary by Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger I referred to above. 63.224.46.19 16:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that not all POVs should be treated identically. The problem is that there's no easy, automatic, objective test for screening out the crackpot views that can be readily dismissed.  I remember thinking in 1972 that McGovern was making a fool of himself by his wild overstatements about corruption in the Nixon administration, and concluding a couple years later that he'd been right.  With regard to the topic at hand, the main differences from the Flat Earth question are that this dispute is relatively recent and is bound up in a political controversy.  Those factors suggest that we should err on the side of caution in deciding that one opinion or the other is so obviously correct that we can give it our definitive endorsement.  Even without the assertion that the documents were forgeries, no one could read this article and conclude that we had stinted on presenting the evidence against the documents' authenticity. JamesMLane 16:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will concede that the documents have not been proven to be forgeries with "absolute" certainty, in the strictest conceivable sense. (Of course, nothing can be proven with absolute certainty in that sense.) But the statement that these documents have been "determined by expert opinion to be forgeries" is completely accurate. 63.224.46.19 19:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It is accurate in that there are, indeed, experts whose opinion is that the documents are forgeries. It is far from complete, however, in that there are experts who still believe the documents to be likely authentic. Aside from them, however, and more to the point, there are a great many experts who have grave doubts about the documents, but who do not believe that the documents have been proven to be forgeries. In point of fact, the latter is the closest thing to an official view that is out there at the moment.


 * The documents have not been proven to be forgeries, and, in all likelihood, they never will be, if for no other reason than the fact that, basically, no one cares any more. The parties involved who have both access to the actual evidence and the means to fully evaluate that evidence have already done as much examination as they care to; and the 234 page Thornburgh/Boccardi report specifically stops short of claiming that the documents are forgeries. What they do claim &mdash; prove, really, in exhaustive detail &mdash; is that there is no way on God's Green Earth that CBS should ever have "gone to print," so to speak, with those documents as part of their story. They might be genuine, or they might be fake; it's actually beside the point: The point was that they were completely unsuitable as evidence, and CBS should never have used them as they were.


 * It's actually a meta-narrative that should be eerily familiar by now: CBS took some questionable evidence, glossed over every objection to it, exaggerated every tiny bit of corroboration, ignored any inconsistencies, trumped it up beyond belief, and always, but always, heard exactly what they wanted to hear. The only thing that was missing was that they had to settle for Dan Rather announcing it on 60 Minutes, instead of Colin Powell performing it for the Security Council (it is one of the Universe's glorious ironies that the Killian piece bumped a 60 Minutes report, already in the can, about the Bush administration's overly credulous acceptance of &mdash; wait for it &mdash; certain infamous forged documents).


 * Short of someone launching a major new investigation aimed specifically at determining the documents' origin, nothing is going to happen to change the current status of "quite probably forgeries, although we can't prove it." It is, of course, possible that someone will undertake such an investigation, because there are certainly questions to be asked, if you suppose the documents to be fakes: Did Burkett fake them himself, for instance, or was he set up by someone else who took advantage of the fact that he would almost certainly leap upon any such documents presented to him, while not having the capacity to judge their veracity himself?


 * But unless someone wants to dig deeper, and do some actual investigating, it's unlikely that anything conclusive will ever emerge; and since all of the parties involved seem to be far from eager to revisit this sorry incident, I doubt that's ever going to happen. --Ray Radlein 20:57, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

You claim that "there are experts who still believe the documents to be likely authentic". Name one. 63.224.46.19 22:12, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I came across one a week or so ago, much to my astonishment. I do not remember his name, or much of anything else about him, save that he was not one of The Usual Suspects who had held forth at length before now. Frankly, aside from the curiousity factor of stumbling across such an unexpected opinion, I was not sufficiently motivated to investigate it at all. Since the evidentiary value of such an anecdote is negligible, I am willing to withdraw that part of my argument, especially as it is of minimal importance to the structure of the thing: The fact that one expert, somewhere, may be arguing that the documents are genuine is meaningless in terms of the debate compared to the fact that a great many experts currently hold the position that it is impossible to say for sure that the douments are, or aren't, forgeries. In fact, as I pointed out, that is the official position taken by the only official investigation of the matter so far. JamesMLane's statement, below, is exactly on the money: While it is perfectly fine and accurate to say that "The vast majority of independent document authentication experts contacted by the major news media and bloggers have indicated a strong likelihood that the Killian memos are forgeries," or words to that effect, your flat assertion is simply not appropriate. --Ray Radlein 23:58, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Whatever the basis of your vague recollection, it is simply not possible for me to believe that any credible, competent expert would express the opinion that the Killian documents are "likely authentic". I also do not believe that "a great many experts currently hold the position that it is impossible to say for sure that the documents are, or aren't, forgeries." Some experts (with expertise in, for example, signature verification) have said that based on their expertise they personally are unable to determine whether or not the documents are authentic. But they have not said that it would be impossible for anyone (for example, someone with expertise in typography) to make such a determination. If you can name one expert who makes this claim, please do so.

With regard to the investigation by the Thornburgh/Boccardi Panel, it can be called "official" only in the sense that it was commissioned by CBS News (the purveyors of the fabrication) and therefore had priviledged access to CBS employees and records. The Panel was not specifically charged with determining the authenticity of the documents. Its purpose was simply "to examine the process by which the September 8 Segment was prepared and broadcast" and "to examine the circumstances surrounding the public statements and news reports by CBS News after September 8 defending the segment" and to "make any recommendations it deemed appropriate" (p.3).

The Panel reached no conclusion concerning the authenticity of the documents. Their report states this repeatedly: "The Panel has not been able to conclude with absolute certainty whether the Killian documents are authentic or forgeries." (p.4) "The Panel was not able to reach a definitive conclusion as to the authenticity of the Killian documents." (p. 18) "The Panel reaches no definitive conclusion as to whether the Killian documents are authentic." (p.134) "Again, the Panel stresses that it is making no finding as to the authenticity of the Killian documents." (p.150)

But the Panel does not say that it has concluded that it is impossible to determine whether or not the documents are forgeries. It only says that it was unable to do so. The report does say: "Given that the Killian documents are copies and not originals, that the author is deceased, that the Panel has not found any individual who knew about them when they were created, and that there is no clear chain of custody, it may never be possible for anyone to authenticate or discredit the documents." (p.134) The cited factors would certainly preclude a positive authentication of the documents. But as I have pointed out, they do not necessarily prevent a determination that the documents are forgeries.

It is evident that the Panel did not undertake a thorough examination of the question of the authenticity of the documents. The only document experts they interviewed were those who had been in contact with CBS News during the preparation or aftermath of the broadcast. The focus was clearly on examining their role in the (inadequate) CBS News vetting process rather than the authenticity question itself. The only typographical issue discussed in the body of the report is the superscprited "th". The issue concerning the typeface is included in an appendix, but the crucial issue concerning letterspacing is not examined.

The typeface issue was explained to the Panel by Peter Tytell, a New York City-based forensic document examiner who is a typewriter and typography expert. (His full credentials are cited in the report.) The report states: "The panel met with Tytell and found his analysis sound in terms of why he believed the documents were not authentic. The panel reaches no conclusion as to whether Tytell was correct in all respects." (p.175) In the appendix a footnote explains that "Tytell concluded that the Killian documents were generated on a computer by eliminating the IBM Selectric Composer and other typewriteers available the ealy 1970s as the source of the documents because of typestyle differences. Although his reasoning seems credible and persuasive, the Panel does not know for certain whether Tytell has accounted for all alternative typestyles that might have been available on typewriters during that era." (appendix 4. p. 7) The Panel does not question Tytell's expert opinion, but only states that it could not confirm his conclusion.

Thus it is simply not correct to state that the Thornburgh/Boccardi Panel took the "official" position that "it is impossible to say for sure that the douments are, or aren't, forgeries."

To repeat, the statement that these documents have been "determined by expert opinion to be forgeries" is completely accurate. 63.224.46.19 05:28, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The anon user wants to retain the flat, unqualified assertion that these documents have been "determined by expert opinion to be forgeries". Please note that, while deleting that pronouncement, I'm willing to leave in "The vast majority of independent document authentication experts contacted by the major news media and bloggers have indicated a strong likelihood that the Killian memos are forgeries...."  This may seem like a fine line, but to me it's important that Wikipedia not take sides.  I would think that the latter passage would give the anti-authenticity POV everything its advocates could reasonably ask for.  I'm not sure how Kerry's Purple Heart got involved, but it's not undisputed to say that "the officer in command of the boat during the incident (Adm. Schachte) does in fact claim that they were not under enemy fire."  It's not undisputed that he was in the boat at the time.  Two crewmembers say they were in the boat, with each other, with Kerry, and with no one else.  Therefore, our article on the subject doesn't assert that there was or was not enemy fire, nor does it assert that Schachte was or was not in the boat.  I'm sure there are some partisans on each side who consider the evidence overwhelming.  Fine, let them.  Wikipedia just presents the evidence (here's what each of these people says).  The evidence about the Killian documents seems to me to be more tilted toward one side, but I think we cover that with the statement about "vast majority" of experts, which has no analog in the Kerry Purple Heart material. JamesMLane 21:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I find myself curiously intrigued by this new sort of English language you are reading the Thornburgh/Boccardi report in that would lead you to characterize their official position like that. You simply must fill the rest of the world in on its gramar and vocabulary one day.


 * The simple point of fact is that the report &mdash; which remains, for the time being, the closest thing there is to an official report on the affair &mdash; repeatedly and precisely refuses to state that the documents are definitely forgeries.


 * The statement that the documents "have been determined by expert opinion to be forgeries" is inaccurate and misleading unless accompanied by another phrase such as "they have also been determined by expert opinion to be of undeterminable origin and provenance." Frankly, that's a mouthful, and it's a lot easier to simply avoid your categorical statement altogether. Your blanket statement is a massive overreach, and it will continue to be a massive overreach no matter how many times you repeat it. --Ray Radlein 09:51, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not necessary to determine the origin and provenance of a document (i.e. how it got here) in order to prove it is a forgery, only to prove it is authentic. As a simple example, if a document is produced that purports to have been written in 1920, but chemical analysis shows that the ink was of a type not manufactured before 1950, then the document is proven to be a forgery even though the  origin and provenance are undetermined. In the case of the Killian documents, typographical analysis has proven them to be forgeries, even though  their origin and provenance may be "undeterminable". 63.224.46.19 15:40, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your wording about the "vast majority" of experts implies that there are experts who hold an opposing view. There are none.

While you may think a statement such as "The vast majority of geography experts have indicated a strong likelihood that the earth is round" would give the round-earth POV everything its advocates could reasonably ask for, I disagree. I think it's important for Wikipedia to exclude unnecessary and unreasonable equivocation, which damages its credibility. If Wikipedia cannot "take sides" in defense of factuality, it will never be taken seriously. 63.224.46.19 22:42, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You are, once again, making the entirely erroneous assumption that the only "opposing view" is that the documents are legitimate, or even probably legitimate. You are fallaciously excluding the middle: The position of many experts is that, while the documents may probably be forgeries, they cannot be definitively identified as such. --Ray Radlein 00:01, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Name one (see above). 63.224.46.19 05:28, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The shape of the Earth has been under investigation for centuries, there are huge numbers of people involved, there are data of many different sorts (masts of approaching ships, shape of shadow on Moon during eclipse, successful circumnavigations, observations from space, etc., etc.). That subject makes a thoroughly unsuitable analogy to this one.  If you had to stake your life on one minority/crackpot viewpoint being correct, which would you back?  Flat Earth or authentic Killian memos?  Obviously, it's not remotely close.


 * By the way, that passage about "vast majority" isn't my wording. I wouldn't have written it because I don't know whether it's true.  I haven't really paid attention to this authenticity issue, because the memos, even if assumed to be genuine, aren't all that damaging to Bush.  (None of the fundamentals of the TANG story were at issue.  Bush was required to take a physical.  He didn't do it.  Therefore, he was grounded.  He wouldn't have been available to fly if a squadron of Cuban fighter-bombers had suddenly shown up to try to take out Birmingham.  Given those undisputed facts, what does it matter whether Killian at some point wrote a memo specifically telling him to fulfill his legal obligation?)


 * In terms of service to the reader, which is what I think our touchstone should be, I simply don't see the need for Wikipedia to make a pronouncement ex cathedra on last fall's tempest in a teapot. The article gives the readers as much as they could possibly want to know about the case against authenticity, without needing to endorse the conclusion that some Wikipedia editors think is better supported. JamesMLane 00:25, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Forgeries II
These documents have been determined by expert opinion to be forgeries. Please inform yourself regarding the subject before editing this article. 63.224.46.19 00:20, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * This claim is non-NPOV and a definite overreach, and, barring new developments in the case, will continue to be so, no matter how many times you repeat that same sentence. Give it a rest, already. --Ray Radlein 21:37, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ray, I asked you to justify your revert. You have failed to do so. Your assertion that my statement about expert opinion is "non-NPOV and a definite overreach" is simply false. Three credible, qualified experts in typewriter and computer typography (Tytell, Phinney, and Newcomer) have concluded that the Killian documents are forgeries beyond any reasonable doubt. Not one credible, qualified expert has disputed these findings. If you are unaware of these facts, then you are not competent to edit this article. Please desist. Do not revert again unless you can provide evidence here to support your claim that expert opinion is divided on this issue. 63.224.46.19 22:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No additional justification should be necessary, given that this has been hadshed out for 50+K of text right above this. You have been repeatedly told, by several different individuals, that the blanket declaration you insist on using is not appropriate. It is factually incorrect, and utterly non-NPOV besides. --Ray Radlein 01:49, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Simply restating your claim that my statement "is factually incorrect, and utterly non-NPOV" is insufficient. Please indicate where specifically in the "50+K of text right above this" you (or anyone else) has provided any evidence whatsoever to support the claim that expert opinion is divided on this issue. Despite my repeated requests, you have failed to name a single credible, qualified expert who has disputed the findings by Tytell, Phinney, and Newcomer that the Killian documents are forgeries. If you can do so, do it now. Do not revert again until you have done so. 63.224.46.19 06:57, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


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

Your information is inaccurate and outdated. Hailey has no expertise in typewriter or computer typography. His "analysis" of the Killian documents was deeply flawed and has been withdrawn. I have cited the well-publicized conclusions of three credible, qualified experts (Tytell, Phinney, and Newcomer) who conclude that the Killian documents are forgeries beyond any reasonable doubt. No credible, qualified expert disputes their findings. You're right, it doesn't matter what you or I or the right-wing (or left-wing) blogosphere thinks. It does matter what experts determine. Experts have shown that the documents are forgeries. The Wikipedia article should so state. 63.224.46.19 17:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Experts you agree with have determined they are forgeries. Experts you do not have not determined any such thing. What you are doing is picking and choosing your evidence and coming to a conclusion. Our job is not to judge, it is to report. Gamaliel 19:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are simply wrong. As I have repeatedly stated, no credible, qualified expert disputes the findings by Tytell, Phinney, and Newcomer that the Killian documents are forgeries. If you can name one, do so. Do not revert again until you have done so. 63.224.46.19 19:52, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


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

Corey Pein, the author of the piece in the Columbia Journalism Review that you mention, is a magazine journalist. His opinion is no more informed than the bloggers. He is not an expert in typewriter or computer typography, nor does he cite any such expert to support his claims. He is clearly not competent to critically evaluate the work of qualified experts, nor did he seriously attempt to do so. His superficial criticism of Newcomer is easily refuted. He did not deal with Tytell and Phinney at all. To repeat: no credible, qualified expert disputes the findings by Tytell, Phinney, and Newcomer that the Killian documents are forgeries. If you can name one, do so. Do not revert again until you have done so. 63.224.46.19 21:04, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


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

Gamaliel: THERE ARE NO DUELLING EXPERTS. There ARE experts who have concluded the documents are forgeries. There are NO experts who dispute these findings. I have repeatedly asked you to name ONE. You have not, and you cannot, because there are NONE. You simply have no basis to dispute the fact that experts have found the documents to be forgeries. It is our job (i.e. the purpose of Wikipedia) to provide the reader with articles which are accurate and informative. The factual agnosticism you advocate defeats this purpose. To suggest that there is a dispute among experts concerning the authenticity of these documents is false and misleading, and undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. And unfortunately, as you are unwilling to support your position with evidence and argument, there is no possibility of resolving this dispute with you through reasoned discussion. 63.224.46.19 22:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * What's the basis for the assertion that Hailey's study "has been withdrawn"? According to this link, it's no longer available online but a hard copy will be mailed to anyone who requests it. JamesMLane 07:35, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


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

His wishes are irrelevant to the content of this article, as is your interpretation of his wishes. The study exists and is still available, and even if it wasn't available, it would make no difference. Once he put it out there, it became part of the story and fair game for discussion. Gamaliel 21:00, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Gamaliel, I'm sorry my comment was unclear. It is certainly appropriate to include discussion of Hailey's study in a historical review of the controversy, although its significance is not great, and is primarily due to the angry reaction from right-wing bloggers. However, it is not accurate, or fair to Dr. Hailey, to cite his study as evidence that he now disputes the conclusion of experts that the documents are forgeries. That's the context in which I noted that the study had been withdrawn. Anonip 01:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. However, we should not interpret him withdrawing the paper from the Internet as him withdrawing the conclusions of the report unless he explicitly says that was his intent. Gamaliel 02:28, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel's Deletion of Authenticity Section
I am attempting to contribute a section to discuss the conclusions of typewriter and computer typography experts regrading the authenticity of the Killian documents. Gamaliel has deleted it with the following justification: "speculation, opinion, draws a conclusion - all of these facts are dealt with in the article in excruciating detail already".

I don't agree with this characterization of my contribution. In particular:


 * 1) The section describes and explains the (expert) opinion of the typewriter and computer typography experts and the conclusions they reached. This is appropriate.
 * 2) Although some of the information presented here is mentioned elsewhere in the original article, it is presented here in the context of explaining the experts' justification for their conclusion. This is useful.
 * 3) Some of the information included here is not mentioned elsewhere.

Gamaliel, please be more specific about your objections. 63.224.46.19 19:46, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, as you have been unable to respond promptly, I have attempted a revision which I hope you will find more acceptable. If not, please discuss your objections specifically here. Anonip 15:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I object to the section in its entirety. It is in the form of a logical proof, which is clearly inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry. An encyclopedia should not attempt to prove things, merely present facts and events. I have other more minor objections to the section, but they are moot because the format of the section itself is objectionable. Gamaliel 21:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I don't understand your objection. This section explains why experts in typewriter and computer typography have concluded that the Killian documents are forgeries. That is entirely appropriate in an encyclopedia article on the subject. And yes, their conclusion is based on logical reasoning, which effectively proves their point. Why is that objectionable to you? I realize that you have been claiming that the documents have not been proven to be forgeries, and that the proof offered by these experts shows you to be wrong. Is that why you are objecting? If it's just the format that is a problem for you, I won't object if you want to rewrite it in a better format, provided that you incorporate the same content with equal clarity.Anonip 22:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. If an article includes an issue which involves a logical argument, then it surely can't just wave a hand vaguely at that argument but refuse to tell the reader what it is because &quot;logical arguments don't belong in encyclopaedia entries&quot;.  Of course they do.  I can point you to many encyclopaedias whose entries contain logical arguments.  If you mean that logical arguments have no place in Wikipedia articles, that's different &mdash; but surely equally absurd.  If I'd come across a reference to the Killian documents and looked it up on Wikipedia to find out more, I'd not be over-impressed to find that the most important question – whether the documents were genuine or fake – was either merely answered yes/no with no explanation given, or left unanswered (despite my subsequent discovery that there was in fact a widely accepted answer).  And it's not the encyclopedia trying to prove things, but the encyclopedia showing what has been presented as a proof. It's one thing to want to add caveats in order to show that the generally accepted verdict isn't accepted by everyone (I agree with that &mdash; see below), but another to refuse to allow the arguments to be presented. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:37, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If I actually wrote "logical arguments have no place in Wikipedia articles", then that would be absurd. I was specifically referring to a logical proof, which is a specific type of format. I have no objection to arguments being presented; this article has many arguments presented at length. I object to them being presented in such a way as to "prove" one particular POV. I think perhaps those who favor this logical proof should tell us how the current article is inadequate. Perhaps we should trim some of these many many paragraphs if they aren't doing a sufficient job? Gamaliel 22:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't understand; a logical proof is just a sound logical argument (i.e., a valid argument with true premises). Is there a Wikipedia-technical use of the term logical proof of which I'm unaware?  (I'm constantly falling into that trap.) As I read the excised material, it was explaining to the reader the reasoning offered by those who rejected the authenticity of the document, and it consisted of a series of statements of fact.  The conclusion constitutes a PoV &mdash; but the PoV of the people whose argument is being explained.  That might coincide with the PoV of the editor, but that surely can't be  a sin, even in Wikipedia. If your objection were that the material is repetitive, that would be a different matter (and I'd have to go back to read the whole thing again in orer to judge), but on your favoured objection I still have to disagree. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 23:09, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel: So you only object to including logical arguments when they actually prove something? Yes, these typewriter and computer typography experts have "proven" that the Killian documents are forgeries, to any reasonable standard of proof. I think the readers are entitled to know that. It's not reasonable to object to presenting their argument simply because it's too convincing. Of course, the arguments on the other side should be presented as well (if there are any). The current article is inadequate (in part) precisely because it does not effectively present the expert conclusion that the documents are forgeries. And I agree that the existing article needs a substantial rewrite, but I expect that constant reverts will make it impossible. Anonip 23:32, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just to be clear, and so people can't absurdly accuse me of being against "logical arguments", this is the format I object to:


 * 1) fact 1
 * 2) fact 2
 * 3) fact 3
 * 4) therefore, x is true.

Show me another (non-mathematical) Wikipedia article that presents information in such a manner specifically designed to push a particular conclusion. I don't object to this format because it is "too convincing", I object to it because it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Gamaliel 16:37, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel: Sorry I misunderstood your objection. I've revised the format to accomodate you. Anonip 18:22, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Request For Comment
I have attempted to edit the introductory sentence of this article to read as follows:


 * The Killian documents (often referred to as the CBS documents during the 2004 US presidential campaign) were memos purportedly written by the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, which were portrayed as authentic by CBS News anchor Dan Rather in a 60 Minutes story criticizing President George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard(TANG), but were later shown by experts to be forgeries.

I believe that this is an accurate statement of the facts. I have supported it here by documenting that three credible, qualified experts (Tytell, Phinney, and Newcomer) have concluded that the Killian documents are forgeries beyond any reasonable doubt. I have noted that no credible, qualified expert disputes these findings. None of those who have reverted my edit have been able to cite one. They simply continue to assert their belief, unsupported by any evidence, that the authenticity of the documents is disputed among experts. It is not.

Because those who have reverted my edit are unwilling to support their position with evidence and argument, there is no possibility of resolving this dispute with them through reasoned discussion. Therefore I have requested comment from the Wikipedia community. 63.224.46.19 22:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I have to agree that your text is a little too definite, given everything that's been said on this page. Couldn't you simply change: ", but were later shown by experts to be forgeries" to: "; most expert commentators have subsequently agreed that they were forgeries"? That seems to reflect the imbalance between those who hold the view that you're describing and those who disagree without being too dogmatic. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 19:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mel, thanks very much for taking a look at this, I do appreciate it. But I'm not sure what you're mean when you say "given everything that's been said on this page". Several editors have objected here to my statement that the documents have been "shown by experts to be forgeries", but they haven't provided any evidence to support their objections. First one of them told me that "there are experts who still believe the documents to be likely authentic". When I asked him to name one, he couldn't. The he told me that "the position of many experts is that, while the documents may probably be forgeries, they cannot be definitively identified as such." When I asked him to name one, he couldn't. Another editor admitted that he hadn't really paid attention to the authenticity issue, and didn't know what the facts were regarding expert opinion about them, but he still felt qualified to object to my statement. And as you've seen, another editor first objected to my statement that experts have proven the documents are forgeries, then objected again when I presented their argument, on the grounds that it might actually prove the point! I'm more than willing to discuss the objections of other editors when they're based on informed opinion supported by reasonable evidence and argument, but that really doesn't seem to be the case here. Anonip 23:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * So, in other words, when you said, "those who have reverted my edit are unwilling to support their position with evidence and argument," it was essentially a falsehood. You've just mentioned some arguments above.  What you meant was, "I, the all-knowing Anonip, have reviewed their arguments and found them wanting, therefore said arguments shall henceforth be ignored."


 * If the tone of that paraphrase bothers you, then you'll perhaps understand how your attitude has grated on other people.


 * From the available evidence, you draw the conclusion that the documents were forgeries. If it's so all-fired plain as you apparently think it is, then isn't presentation of the evidence enough?  You still haven't explained (to my satisfaction, at least) how the reader is disserved if he or she is told everything else that's in this article and is deprived only of the "information" that some Wikipedians consider the documents forgeries. JamesMLane 03:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

James, I'm not bothered by your paraphrase, I am baffled by it. I did not just now mention any evidence or arguments by those objecting to my statement, only their unsupported assertions. Yes, I have concluded that the documents are forgeries. I have done so based on the evidence and arguments presented by qualified experts in typewriter and computer typography, who have examined the question and reached that conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt. Whether I or other Wikipedians consider the documents forgeries or not is of no significance to the subject. But what qualified experts have concluded, and how they reached their conclusions, most certainly is. And given that no qualified experts have disputed these expert findings, I believe my statement that the documents have been "shown by experts to be forgeries" is fully justified. Did you bother to read the summary I gave of the evidence and argument by these experts that I believe shows the documents to be forgeries? Did you read the references I provided to these experts' own statements? Can you explain why you think they have not shown the documents to be forgeries? If you can, I would be happy to discuss it. I'm sorry that my "attitude" grates on you. I don't know how to avoid it. I am not all-knowing. But I have made some effort to inform myself about this particular subject, and I want to contribute what I've learned to Wikipedia. I don't understand why there's so much resistance to that. If I am mistaken about something, by all means please show me where I am wrong. But do so with evidence and arguments that you can defend. Anonip 06:52, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * JamesMLane: I don't understand your comment either. Aonip's whole point in his response to me was that no evidence or argument was given beyond a vague waving at unidentified experts who either disagreed that the documents were genuine or who were lukewarm in their agreement. Aonip: I suppose that I was thinking partly of the references to the journalist's comments (and though I hold no brief for journalists, they can't be completely ignored) and partly of the dissenting voices of Wikipedians.  However, on the last point you're surely right: the fact that a few people here are committed to the documents being genuine is irrelevant.  I've done some Googling, and it seems that the view that they're forgeries is pretty well universally held on both sides of the political spectrum. Nevertheless, in cases like this it seems to me that it's best to err on the side of caution.  After all, we've seen cases in the past where experts agreed on a point that was later shown to be false.  Could you find it in you to qualify the statement slightly?  Perhaps: &quot;experts later judged them to be forgeries (though there remain those who hold them to have been genuine).&quot;  Well, something like that, anyway. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:46, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can't speak for JML, but for me it is not that I am "committed to the documents being genuine", because I think they are forgeries, it is that I don't think the case for forgery is conclusive. Perhaps you want to dismiss that as hairsplitting, but for me it is a fundamental issue of principle: Wikipedia should not present things as facts when they have not been proven as facts. The opinion of three experts does mean something has been proven. Gamaliel 16:30, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * (I think that you accidentally omitted a &quot;not&quot; from that last sentence.) I have two problems: first, nothing (apart from mathematical propositions and the like) can be proved absolutely; however, secondly,  while the opinions of three experts would be inconclusive if they were only three out of many (or even three out of four), those same opinions are as conclusive as you could reasonably ask for if they're exhaustive &mdash; if they're the opinions of every expert who was consulted.  But wouldn't the suggestion in my last comment resolve this? Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 19:24, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mel, I changed the wording earlier to: "but are believed by some typewriter and computer typography experts to be forgeries". However, I don't think that's really satisfactory. First, using the qualifier "some" suggests there are other experts who believe differently. That is not true. Second, the word "believe" isn't strong enough. The experts don't just "believe" this, in the sense that an anonymous Wikipedia editor might "believe" it (or not). This is a conclusion they have reached as a result of careful analysis, based on relevant technical expertise, which they have explained in detail, and which has not been disputed. I think that "judged them to be forgeries", as you suggest, is more accurate.

But I think it is not appropriate to include the statement that "there remain those who hold them to have been genuine". I don't doubt that this statement is true, because there are always some people who believe anything. But that goes without saying, and to include it in the introductory definition implies a significance to the fact that is undeserved. There are some people who believe the Apollo 11 moon landing was a hoax. They write books and make media appearances promoting this view. They even cite evidence and make arguments (however flawed) in support of it. In spite of this, I don't think the introduction to the Wikipedia article on Apollo 11 should read: " a space mission widely believed to have landed the first men on the moon (though there are those who believe it was faked)." At least in the case of Apollo 11 most readers probably would recognize that as the view of a tiny minority and not to be taken seriously. In the case of the Killian documents it is more likely that readers would be given the mistaken impression that there was some reasonable basis for doubt. Also, in the context there is an ambiguity such that readers might interpret "those" to mean "among experts", and mistakenly think some qualified experts hold this view, which is false. Finally, if these views were significant enough to merit mention in the introduction, then the article should identify who holds them and how they justify their beliefs. I don't think it's possible to do that.

My position is that experts have shown these documents to be forgeries beyond any reasonable doubt, and that the Wikipedia article should state this plainly. Unjustified equivocation would be misleading to readers, and would damage the credibility of Wikipedia. My personal opinion, per se, is not the issue. The integrity of Wikipedia should not be compromised to mollify individual editors. Either I am correct about the facts here, or I am not. If it is true that the question of the authenticity of the documents is seriously disputed, then the article should say so. If it is not true, then the article shouldn't suggest that it is. Anonip 06:04, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Your position is false. Wolfman 21:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How so? Anonip 06:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * False, as in incorrect. In a 2005 article (see links), the Columbia Journalism Review stated "We don&#8217;t know whether the memos were forged, authentic, or some combination thereof."  Sounds to me like they have some doubt, else they would say "we now know beyond a reasonable doubt based on a consensus of expert opinion that at least a portion of the memos were forged".  Now you may have no doubt, but your opinions on the matter are as irrelevant as mine.  The CJR's opinions do matter, and they have doubts. Wolfman 17:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wolfman, I've already dealt with this, but since you may have missed it, I'll repeat myself. The CJR article you refer to was written by Corey Pein, who is (at least at the moment) an assistant editor of CJR. Pein is a magazine journalist. He is not an expert in typewriter or computer typography, nor does he cite any such expert to support his views. His criticism of Newcomer is superficial (at best), and he did not deal with Tytell or Phinney at all. (In fairness to Pein, I must note that his piece was written before the release of the report of the Thornburgh-Boccardi Panel, which contains Tytell's analysis.)

Pein gives no indication that he seriously investigated the question of the authenticity of the documents. His stated position is essentially an agnostic one. There are undoubtedly many people (evidently including yourself) who "don't know" whether the documents are authentic, either because they have not attempted to investigate the question or they are not competent to evaluate the evidence. The uncertainty of such persons has absolutely no significance. Doubt based merely on ignorance does not constitute reasonable doubt.

You are correct that your and my opinions are not relevant (nor are Pein's). But the undisputed analysis and conclusions of qualified experts Newcomer, Tytell and Phinney most certainly are. They have shown these documents to be forgeries beyond any reasonable doubt, and the Wikipedia article should state this plainly.

BTW, the cogency of Mr. Pein's essay is indicated by the sentence you quoted. How could the memos be both forged and authentic? Anonip 22:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * You assert there is no reasonable doubt. Other, people, reasonable and respected journalism experts, plainly do doubt.  Thus, it is only your opinion that their doubt is not reasonable.  As this is not an op-ed piece, I don't see the relevance of your opinion.  We have plainly, forthrightly, and prominently stated that many experts think it's forged.  And we voluminously presented detail evidence that supports that opinion.  That's neutral.  Adding your opinions on the reasonableness of other people's opinions is not neutral.  Good day, sir. Wolfman 23:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way, I think they're most likely forged too. But what do I know?  I think lot's of things are true beyond a reasonable doubt.  Yet, I have a feeling you wouldn't want me stating many of them as indisputable fact in wikipedia. Wolfman 23:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wolfman, I am not the one asserting that the documents are forgeries beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the conclusion of the qualified experts in typewriter and computer typography that I have cited. Their analyses and conclusions have not been disputed by any competent authority. Pein's expertise in journalism is irrelevant. Beyond that, it is only your inference that his stated agnosticism indicates that he has actual doubts.

The problem is that there is simply no evidence to dispute the expert conclusion that the documents are forgeries. (If I'm wrong about this, please correct me.) In other words, the fact that the documents are forgeries is not in dispute. The Wikipedia article should not imply otherwise. As I have noted, the World Book Encyclopedia identifies the documents plainly as forgeries. Why must Wikipedia do less? Anonip 00:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Nonetheless, it is doubted and disputed. I gave merely one such example.  You think that those who doubt are not being reasonable.  That's your opinion.  The article clearly states that many experts think they are forgeries.  But, you want to state that they are forgeries.  The first is a neutral statement of fact.  The second is clearly opinion.  And it's an opinion not universally shared. Wolfman 00:49, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I can think of a couple of ways for the memos to be both forged and authentic:
 * The memos were re-typed in Word based on the original version, printed out, and passed off as if they were the originals.
 * The memos are a collection of documents. If some are originals, while others are Word documents, then the "Killian documents" as a whole are both forged and authentic.
 * Carnildo 22:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Carnildo, if the memos were "re-typed in Word based on the original version, printed out, and passed off as if they were the originals", then the documents aired by CBS are not authentic. But you're right of course that in principle the separate documents in a collection could include both forged and authentic documents. Anonip 23:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * [Here http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/CBS_Report.pdf] is the independent panel report on the affair. The investigation was chaired by Dick Thornburgh, U.S. attorney general under Reagan and Bush I. The first sentence in the section "Authenticity of the Killian Documents" on p. 18 is "The panel was not able to reach a definitive conclusion as to the authenticity of the Killian documents."  It is thus not a universally shared conclusion that the documents are forged.  I rather trust the (Republican) Attorney General's investigatory conclusions on the matter more than a couple bloggers who claim typography expertise. Wolfman 01:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * As has been noted by many other commentators, the independent panel was not commissioned to determine whether the memos were authentic or not, and did not make a major effort to make such a determination. They consulted one new expert, who thought the memos were forged. They did not examine any evidence or expert analysis other than that from CBS and their own expert (including, for example, my own, or Newcomer's). So the fact that they did not come to a conclusion is not relevant.
 * Regardless of what "a couple (of) bloggers" may say, I cannot myself find a single credible expert who asserts the memos are not forgeries. The last person with superficial credibility who defended the memos was Dr. David Hailey, who turned out to be unfamiliar with some basic concepts in typography, thinking that there was such a thing as "the Typewriter font" that many unrelated monospaced fonts were somehow examples of. He ultimately withdrew his research from the public eye after it was crushed by other experts. Kind of sad to me, as he came off as a well-meaning fellow when I talked to him. I too am interested to see any expert analysis that concludes the memos could reasonably be authentic.
 * With regards to me, I do not run a blog, and most of the media contact I had in this case occurred because others (including my employer, Adobe Systems) referred media to me as an expert in this area. I have been consulted as a typographic expert in a number of cases by folks ranging from the US Treasury to the San Diego DA's office. I have testified in court as a typographic expert in a case of a forged will. I have an MS in Typography. I am the Treasurer of the international typographic society, ATypI. I have spoken at every ATypI conference for the last 7-8 years. Last year, I was the organizer of the two-day "Type Tech Forum" conference track at the ATypI conference in Prague. I also spoke about the Killian memos at the St Bride typography conference in London.

Thomas Phinney 21:15, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Times (New) Roman
Ray,

"Another area of confusion is this typeface's name. As released by the British Monotype Corporation, it is known as Times New Roman. Linotype calls the typeface simply Times Roman. The Times refers to the face as The Times New Roman. Each is a correct name." - from "Times Roman" in ABC's of Type by Allan Haley (Watson-Guptil, 1990). Anonip 17:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, the TrueType version of Times included in Windows by Microsoft was specifically designed to be equivalent to Adobe's Postscript version of Times. In fact, when printing a document to a Postscript printer, the default is to print the document using the Postscript font in the printer rather than the Windows TrueType font. (See The Windows 3.1 Font Book by David Angell and Brent Heslop, p. 61).

Do you really think you know more about computer typography than Thomas Phinney? Anonip 18:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No; I merely seem to know more about it, unfortunately, than you do.


 * The fact that Phinney works for Adobe is significant. He is clearly an expert, and his credentials are impressive. Adobe knows a lot about fonts, and they did a wonderful job bringing Linotype's Times Roman to the Apple. They did not, however, do a wonderful job bringing Times Roman to the IBM typewriter, because they did not do that job at all; similarly, they did not do the job of bringing it to Microsoft Windows, or Microsoft Word. Those tasks were performed by Monotype. So while Phinney's bona fides are well-established by mentioning his position at Adobe (which is why I left that in there), in comparing the output of IBM typewriters to Microsoft's Windows fonts, he is comparing one typeface that Adobe had no part in creating with another typeface which Adobe had no part in creating. Since he is a font expert, that's fine; he is more than qualified to weigh in with an opinion on the matter &mdash; but to artificially inflate Adobe's importance here is silly at best. An expository clause discussing the fact that Adobe designed the Times Roman font used in postscript applications would be fine (after all, if the documents were forged, it's certainly possible that either a Mac or a postscript printer were involved); by the same token, however, interested individuals would find that out as soon as they clicked on the "Adobe" link in that sentence anyway.


 * Both Adobe and Monotype have frequently made adjustments, minor and otherwise, to their typefaces over the years, in response to changes in the marketplace and changes in underlying technologies; both to make them look more (or less) like each other, and to make them hew more closely to some platonic ideal of Times Romance (New or otherwise). In fact, Times is probably the most widely tweaked and carefully scrutinized font in the world; and to the extent that Monotype has, at times, adjusted their Times to more closely match Adobe's, it can be said that Adobe has influenced Times New Roman (to a lesser extent, the converse can also be said). It cannot, however, be said that they in any sense created it. --Ray Radlein 22:18, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Ray, I don't know where you got the word "created" that you're now objecting to. The original phrase that you deleted said that Adobe "helped to develop the modern Times New Roman font." This wording is straight out of the cited article in the Washington Post. Apparently the editors at the WP did not consider it to be a "silly" artificial inflation of Adobe's importance.

Also, I think you missed the point about the relationship between Adobe's Postscript Times Roman and the Windows TrueType Times New Roman (and the other main digital versions of Times). The character widths in the Windows font were explicitly chosen to match those in the Adobe font because otherwise the screen display in Windows applications would not be compatible with the printed output produced by Postscript printers using the Adobe fonts built into them. Adobe's "influence" on the character widths used in the Windows font and other computer versions of Times was decisive because of the importance of Postscript printers in the desktop publishing revolution. Anonip 00:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Forgeries III
The Killian documents are forgeries. This fact is not disputed by competent authorities. It has been established beyond any reasonable doubt by qualified experts. It is reported by the World Book Encyclopedia in its 2005 Year Book. Yet a handful of intransigent editors refuse to allow this fact to be reported by Wikipedia. They do not offer any competent evidence to dispute it, despite repeated requests that they do so. They merely insist that their own unqualified personal opinions must be accepted. But this is not acceptable. The integrity of Wikipedia must not be compromised by allowing obstinate editors to impose their willful ignorance on Wikipedia. (But whether the Wikipedia process can prevent this remains to be seen.) Anonip 05:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * "The panel was not able to reach a definitive conclusion as to the authenticity of the Killian documents." -- United States Attorney General Richard Thornburgh (Reagan & Bush I administrations), head of a blue-ribbon independent panel investigation. Now, tell me again how there's no reasonable doubt. Wolfman 01:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wolfman: Once again, I've already covered this, but I'll repeat it for your benefit.

You are correct that the Thornburgh-Boccardi Panel reached no conclusion concerning the authenticity of the documents. But the panel was not charged with determining the authenticity of the documents. Its purpose was simply "to examine the process by which the September 8 Segment was prepared and broadcast" and "to examine the circumstances surrounding the public statements and news reports by CBS News after September 8 defending the segment" and to "make any recommendations it deemed appropriate" (p.3).

The Panel did not undertake a thorough examination of the question of the authenticity of the documents. The only document experts they interviewed were those who had been in contact with CBS eNews during the preparation or aftermath of the broadcast. The focus was clearly on examining their role in the (inadequate) CBS News vetting process, rather than the authenticity question itself. The only typographical issue discussed in the body of the report is the superscripted "th". The evidence concerning the typeface is included in an appendix (see below), but the crucial evidence concerning the letterspacing developed by Adobe font expert Thomas Phinney was not examined by the Panel at all.

The typeface evidence was explained to the Panel by Peter Tytell, a New York City-based forensic document examiner who is a typewriter and typography expert. (His full credentials are cited in the report.) The report states: "The panel met with Tytell and found his analysis sound in terms of why he believed the documents were not authentic. The panel reaches no conclusion as to whether Tytell was correct in all respects." (p.175) In the appendix a footnote explains that "Tytell concluded that the Killian documents were generated on a computer by eliminating the IBM Selectric Composer and other typewriters available the ealy 1970s as the source of the documents because of typestyle differences. Although his reasoning seems credible and persuasive, the Panel does not know for certain whether Tytell has accounted for all alternative typestyles that might have been available on typewriters during that era." (appendix 4. p. 7) Thus the Panel does not raise any doubt about Tytell's expert opinion (and indeed calls his analysis "sound"), but only states that it did not independently confirm his conclusion. This is not surprising, since the panel itself lacked the relevant expertise.

The Panel report did not raise any doubts about the expert conclusions that the documents are forgeries. Again, as I've told you, there is no reasonable doubt. Anonip 03:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The panel stated they were not able to reach a conclusion. That means that they were not able to ascertain whether they were either real or fake, beyond a reasonable doubt.  Do you understand the logic?  If there is a reasonable doubt, there cannot be a conclusion. If and only if there is no reasonable doubt, there is a conclusion.  The logic is bijective.  When they say they cannot reach a conclusion, they are saying that there is reasonable doubt. Kevin Baastalk 03:37, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)


 * ah, logic. obviously the panel had access to at least as much information as we have, and presumably quite a bit more.  if they had no reasonable doubt based on this information then a conclusion would automatically follow.  conversely, since they did not reach a conclusion, they must have reasonable doubt.  please see modus tollens.


 * also, it says "was not able to reach". it does not say "made no attempt to reach". it does not say "was not charged with reaching". it does not say "did not reach". it says "was not able to reach a conclusion".  Wolfman 04:23, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kevin (and Wolfman): Your logic is faulty. The Panel did not say why it was unable to reach a conclusion. If, for example, it was unable to reach a conclusion because it lacked the time or resources to conduct a thorough investigation (as its failure to consult Adobe font expert Thomas Phinney suggests), then its inability to reach a conclusion does not require the existence of reasonable doubt. In addition, at one place the report says: "The Panel has not been able to conclude with absolute certainty whether the Killian documents are authentic or forgeries" (p.4, emphasis added). Absolute certainty is a standard of proof well beyond reasonable doubt. The inability of the Panel to reach a conclusion to that standard does not imply the existence of reasonable doubt. Anonip 04:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no doubt that if the former Attorney General of the U.S. tells the CBS brass that he needs say $5,000 to pay a consultant to get to the bottom of a case like this, that he will get the resources. so it seems likely to me that "not able" means ... not able.  also, "definitive conclusion" is what I quoted. Wolfman 05:08, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * p. 134 of the report "it may never be possible for anyone to authenticate or discredit the documents". sounds to me like "not able", not "couldn't scrounge up a few bucks for a consultant."  Wolfman 05:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wolfman: You (and Kevin) claimed that the fact that the Panel was unable to reach a conclusion necessarily implies that the Panel found some basis for reasonable doubt that the documents are forgeries. Not so.

The fact that the Panel did not consult with Adobe font expert Thomas Phinney is sufficient to demonstrate that it did not conduct a thorough investigation of the authenticity of the documents. In fact, the only section of the Panel report which directly addresses the authenticity of the documents confines itself to the question of "whether the content and format of the Killian documents are consistent with the official Bush records" (and is so titled). It does not consider the question of whether the typography of the documents could have been produced with contemporary technology. The only typographical issues it includes is a comparison of the infamous superscript "th" as it appears in the Killian documents and in the official Bush records. The typeface evidence provided by typewriter expert Peter Tytell appears in an appendix and is only mentioned in passing in the main report. The letterspacing evidence developed by Phinney is not considered at all.

Even so, regarding the typeface analysis by Tytell the report says: "The panel met with Tytell and found his analysis sound in terms of why he believed the documents were not authentic." (p.175) It says that Tytell's reasoning "seems credible and persuasive". (appendix 4. p. 7) It says that it "discovered no credible evidence" to contradict Tytell's conclusion that the Times New Roman typeface did not become available on typewriters or computers until the 1980s. (p.171) The only reservation indicated by the Panel concerning Tytell's analysis is that it "does not know for certain whether Tytell has accounted for all alternative typestyles that might have been available on typewriters during that era." (appendix 4. p. 7) But of course, there is no reasonable way the Panel could achieve such certainty.

Thus, there is nothing in the report to indicate that the Panel found any basis for reasonable doubt concerning the expert conclusion by Tytell (or Phinney) that the documents are forgeries.

BTW, I am sure you are correct that the failure to conduct a definitive investigation of the authenticity of the documents was not due to cost. It was likely due to the need to expedite the report, together with the fact that a conclusive finding was not necessary to the purposes of Panel. Anonip 09:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Two points. First, the logic speaks for itself.  And the language clearly implies that the did attempt to reach a conclusion on authenticity.  That they didn't directly talk to the consultant preferred by AnonIp means nothing. Second, exactly what changes do you want to see in the text?  The present writeup seems to me an extremely straightforward presentation of the known facts. I'm not really interested in debating whether or not the documents might be forged, because I personally think they probably (but not definitely) were.  However, I have a big problem with Wikipedia drawing conclusions rather than simply presenting facts, even conclusions I agree with. Wolfman 16:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wolfman: Logic never speaks for itself (except in a tautology) because of assumed premises. Your argument assumes that the panel conducted a thorough investigation of the authenticity of the documents. That is demonstrably false. Whatever you may think the language "clearly implies", the fact that the panel did not examine the evidence developed by Phinney demonstrates that they did not conduct a thorough investigation. And in fact, the panel report did not cite any credible evidence to contradict the expert conclusion that the Killian documents are forgeries.

What I want is for the article to effectively communicate the facts about its subject. It is a fact that the Killian documents are forgeries. Yes, that is a conclusion based on evidence, just as any factual assertion is. Here the conclusion is that of qualified experts, who have fully explained the evidence and reasoning on which the conclusion is based, and whose analysis has not been disputed. That the documents are forgeries is an essential fact about the subject, and is one which will be of primary interest to most readers. It should be stated clearly and without equivocation. The World Book Encyclopedia has done this, so should Wikipedia. Anonip 19:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I repeat, p. 134 of the report "it may never be possible for anyone to authenticate or discredit the documents".  Thus not only does the Panel not know, they think it may not even be possible to find out.  Apparently, we have higher editorial standards here than The World Book Encyclopedia does. Wolfman 19:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wolfman: And again you omit the context of your quotation. The sentence begins: "Given that the Killian documents are copies and not originals, that the author is deceased, that the Panel has not found any individual who knew about them when they were created, and that there is no clear chain of custody, ..." The factors cited would indeed preclude the documents being authenticated, even if no specific inconsistencies with their purported origin could be demonstrated. But none of them precludes the documents being discredited by demonstrating such inconsistencies, which is what experts in typewriter and computer typography have done. As the panel did not examine this evidence thoroughly, the purely speculative comment you rely on carries no weight. It should also be noted that the following sentence says (p.135): "the panel finds many reasons to question the documents' authenticity." Is there some reason why you always leave that out? Anonip 21:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Not at all, there's absolutely no question they have some doubt. Else, they would have concluded the documents are authentic.  The logic goes both ways of course.  I note however that you in turn omit the next sentence also on p. 135 that based on these doubts there would "likely" have been "enough issues raised to prevent a rush to air within days of obtaining them".  That's pretty weak stuff to hang a "no reasonable doubt" claim on.   Wolfman 22:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wolfman: If the panel had some doubt that the documents are forgeries, what was it? (Of course the panel had many reasons to doubt that the documents are authentic, which they discussed at length in their report.) Anonip 22:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add that Anonip seems to have things backwards: the panel was not assigned to look for reasonable doubts. The panel was designed to do the opposite: to investigate doubts so as to remove them one way or another.   The image of an investibation committee "looking for doubts" is laughable.  How are they expected to come to any conclusion?  Do they start with a conclusion, (logical fallacy: assuming the conclusion), and then anti-investigate, so that at the end they are more confused than when they started? Kevin Baastalk 17:51, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

Kevin: Sorry for the confusion. Let me try to clarify my point.

The investigation panel wanted to determine whether the assertion in the CBS September 8 broadcast that the Killian documents are authentic was justified. To show that it was not justified, they looked for evidence that was known (or should have been known) to CBS at the time of the broadcast which raised doubts as to whether the documents were authentic. They found plenty. It was not necessary for the panel to make a definitive determination that the documents are not authentic, because even if the documents were in fact authentic, the CBS assertion would still have been unjustified since CBS didn't have adequate proof at the time it was broadcast.

The panel did not need to raise doubts about whether the documents are forgeries, because that is not what the CBS broadcast claimed. And they did not: the panel report did not cite any credible evidence to indicate that the Killian documents are not forgeries. (If I am wrong about this, please correct me.) Does this make sense now? Anonip 18:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you still want to make changes to the text, or is it now satisfactory given the recent edits? If you desire changes, what is your proposal? Wolfman 19:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * So you are saying that "the burden of proof with regards to CBS vs. the public lies w/CBS." I'll buy that.


 * The subject here, though, seems to be this investigative panel, and namely, the conclusions thereof. Their task is to determine whether the documents were authentic or fake, with no bias of proof or judgement either way.  The burden of proof, where the investigation committee is concerned, lies not on either possibility - or one might say that it lies equally on both (neccessary, by definition, for an unbiased investigation).  The burden of proof lies with their conclusion, if they are able to make one.  They stated that they wear unable to make a conclusion, either way, that could bear this burden (withstand all reasonable doubts). Kevin Baastalk 18:58, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

Kevin, I think what you're missing is that the panel was not given the task of determining whether the documents were authentic or fake. That was not the purpose of its investigation. The purpose of the panel was to examine the conduct of CBS News in preparing and defending the broadcast which presented the documents as authentic, and to make approprate recommendations to CBS. It was not necessary for this purpose for the panel to reach a definitive conclusion as to whether the documents were authentic or fake. They only needed to determine whether there was sufficient evidence at the time CBS prepared and defended the broadcast to raise substantial doubts about their authenticity. Anonip 06:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not confident in my knowledge of the aim of the panel, but whatever be the aim, that should be stated frankly, and their statements should be stated without interpretation or analysis. (there should be no "a and b therefore c") Kevin Baastalk 00:22, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

A compromise?
AnonIp, I think your views can be accomodated quite easily by simply adding a statement that the documents are forged to the lead-in paragraph. Might I suggest this small tweak as a satisfactory compromise for all? Pay special attention to the last line (in bold), where I have inserted the unequivocal statement you require.
 * The Killian documents (often referred to as the CBS documents during the 2004 US presidential campaign) were memos purportedly written by the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian. They were presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes story criticizing President George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard (TANG).  After questions were raised about the possibility of forgery, CBS ordered an independent investigation.  After months of investigation, the blue-ribbon panel reported it "was not able to reach a definitive conclusion as to the authenticity of the Killian documents." It continued, "it may never be possible for anyone to authenticate or discredit the documents." (pdf)  No experts have yet authenticated the documents, and several regard them as likly forgeries.  The documents are forgeries.

Wolfman, how about this instead:


 * The Killian documents (also referred to as the CBS documents) were faked memos purportedly written in the early 1970s by President George W. Bush's commander in the Texas Air National Guard (TANG), the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian. They appeared to support politically-charged allegations that Bush had been derelict in his Guard duties and had received special treatment. The documents were portrayed as authentic by CBS News anchor Dan Rather in a 60 Minutes story aired during the 2004 US presidential campaign.  Immediately after the broadcast the authenticity of the documents was questioned by bloggers on the Internet,  and CBS was eventually forced to admit that the documents could not be authenticated. The documents were eventually shown to be forgeries by experts in typewriter and computer typography.

Well, what do you think? Anonip 22:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Among other flaws, your statement gets the timing wrong in the last sentence. All the evidence you allude to had been publicly provided prior to the panel's conclusions.  If that had "shown" them to be forgeries, the panel would have been quite as well aware of that as, for example, AnonIp purports to be.  I find my suggestion much more consistent with the facts, with the exception of course of the last line (intended to mollify you). For example, I present all the facts -- both the panel's statements and the so-called experts.  You choose to present only selective facts to butress your desired conclusion. Wolfman 22:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wolfman, how about this instead:


 * The Killian documents (also referred to as the CBS documents) were faked memos purportedly written in the early 1970s by President George W. Bush's commander in the Texas Air National Guard (TANG), the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian. They appeared to support politically-charged allegations that Bush had been derelict in his Guard duties and had received special treatment. The documents were portrayed as authentic by CBS News anchor Dan Rather in a 60 Minutes story aired during the 2004 US presidential campaign.  Immediately after the broadcast the authenticity of the documents was questioned by bloggers on the Internet,  and after a lengthy denial CBS was finally forced to admit that they could not be authenticated. The documents were shown to be forgeries by experts in typewriter and computer typography.

Better? Anonip 22:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see any substantive difference. But I have a question for you.  You assert that the documents have been proven forged.  The Attorney General of the United States appointed by Reagan and Bush straightforwardly addressed the question of authenticity.  The man clearly had every motive to state that there was no reasonable doubt of forgery, if it were the case.  Instead, he was "unable" to reach a conclusion, and believed "it may not be possible" to reach a conclusion.  Now, clearly there is a difference of opinion here.  I'm inclined to believe Mr. Thornburgh over AnonIp, unless given some convincing evidence otherwise.  Now, all the evidence in this Wikipedia article was available well before Mr. Thornburgh's report.  So, I can think of three reasons why I should believe AnonIp over the Attorney General.
 * AnonIp is possessed of evidence unavailable to the AG (and thus not yet presented in this article, to which the AG had access)
 * AnonIp is possessed of superior skills of deductive reasoning and/or intellect to the AG.
 * AnonIp is possessed of superior investigatory training to the AG.
 * Could you please indicate which hypothesis is correct? Thank you. Wolfman 23:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wolfman, I am not asking you to accept my personal conclusion that the documents are forgeries. I am asking you to accept the conclusion of the qualified experts in typewriter and computer typography that I have cited. Nor do I expect you to accept their conclusion uncritically. I invite you to examine their qualifications, evidence, and analyses, as well as those of any other competent sources. I only ask that you identify some specific evidence that raises a reasonable doubt about their conclusion, if you believe there is some.

With respect to the Thornburgh-Boccardi Panel, I have already explained at length why your inference that the panel found some reason to doubt that the documents are forgeries is not justified. I can think of at least three reasons why the experts I've cited were able to reach a definitive conclusion while the panel was not. I think it likely that all three are correct. But, as I've asked you before, if the panel had some doubt that the documents are forgeries, what was it?Anonip 00:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The experts possessed evidence which was not considered by the panel.
 * 2) The experts possessed technical expertise in typewriter and computer technology which the panel did not.
 * 3) The panel chose not to conduct a thorough investigation because it was not necessary for their purpose to make a definitive finding as to the authenticity of the documents.


 * Why would they not consider such evidence? If you go to the trouble of hiring the Attorney General, you'd think they might read little green footballs, drudge, and wikipedia, which clearly have indisputable evidence?  You think somehow they never heard of this stuff, but AnonIp knows all about it?
 * If the panel believes that they are truly and experts and have no ulterior motive, then why would they not believe the "experts". Conversely if the panel doubts either one, why should we believe them?
 * The panel addressed the issue. The panel stated they were "unable" to reach a conclusion.  The panel stated that "it may not be possible" to reach a conclusion.  The chair of the panel had a very large incentive to draw a "beyond reasonable doubt" conclusion if it were possible, being a friend of the family & a good Republican.  If all it took to reach reasonable doubt status was spending a couple hours reading this article and checking the reference, you'd think maybe they'd do it.
 * Thus, on balance, I still am inclined to trust the literal wording of the AG's report more than AnonIp's expert opinion of who the trustworthy experts are. Wolfman 01:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wolfman, It's a simple question: if the panel had some doubt that the documents are forgeries, what was it? Anonip 01:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not entirely sure. But I'm guessing the doubt might be that they're real.  In other words, perhaps they feel it hasn't been proved they are forgeries.  Perhaps, as they said, they just don't know.  And think perhaps it "may not be possible" to ever know.  Maybe that's it, but I'm just guessing here.  Wolfman 01:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So, you're sure that the panel found some reason to doubt the expert conclusion that the documents are forgeries, but you don't have a clue what it might be. Do you have any guess why the panel didn't bother to mention it in their report? Anonip 05:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * First, I don't concede the premise that there is such a consensus expert conclusion, and apparently neither did the panel. They are, by the way, well aware of all the typographical issues raised in this article, as a full reading of the report illustrates.  As to why they remain unconvinced, I can think of dozens of possibilities.  What does it matter?  First, they clearly considered the issue and stated that they were unable to resolve it.  Second, see below. Wolfman 05:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please give just one reason why the panel might doubt that the documents are forgeries. Also, please indicate where the report discusses the typographical evidence developed by Thomas Phinney. Anonip 06:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * (a) clearly they don't find the typographical arguments completely convincing. perhaps the faxed/copied nature creates uncertainty.  perhaps they doubt whether all the typewriters styles the military could have special-ordered are still known.  perhaps the thing was produced on that fancy typesetting thing known to have existed.  but it doesn't really matter, see below.  the discussion is entirely moot. (b) phinney is the times new roman stuff, no?  it's in the "blogosphere" section. Wolfman 06:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So, you aren't really interested in defending authenticity. You haven't bothered to investigate the matter carefully. You don't claim the documents are authentic yourself (you very much doubt it). You can't name anyone who does. But the discussion is entirely moot, because your real objection is based on the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy. Have I got that right? See below. Anonip 16:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Look, the bottom line is that the article very forthrightly presents all the known facts. It makes absolutely no attempt to spin the story in favor of authenticity.  Indeed, it would be difficult for anyone to read this article and have much confidence that the documents are authentic.  Importantly, it does not presently draw that conclusion rather than report what others have said.  Fundamentally, your complaint is that Wikipedia is not expressing an opinion instead of reporting the facts, statements, and opinions of others.  Thus, your complaint is not with this article, but with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy.  Even if the AG said they are forgeries beyond a reasonable doubt (which he explicitly didn't) I would still be opposed to stating they are forgeries.  I would want to state that the AG called them forgeries.  And, I believe, that is the Wikipedia way. I'm just another lunatic running the asylum, I guess. Wolfman 02:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy permits the assertion of facts, where by "fact" is meant "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." That the Killian documents are forgeries is not a matter of serious dispute. If it were, the World Book Encyclopedia would not treat it as a fact. If it were, you could cite a specific reason for serious doubt from a competent source. You can't. That the Killian documents are forgeries is a fact. Asserting it as such does not violate the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy. Anonip 16:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I have documented that there is "serious dispute". There is dispute from the independent panel who directly considered the question and decided they were "not able" and felt that "it may not be possible" to come to a conclusion.  This after they had seen every bit of information that you have, and plenty more, and had spent as they state 3 months full time on the investigation.  Also, as I have documented the Columbia Journalism Review directly stated that the answer is unknown.  You may choose to pretend that it is a generally accepted fact.  It quite simply is not.  I don't understand under what tortured parsing of the literal statements by both the panel and the CJR you imagine they accept as "fact" that these are forgeries, when they have both quite explicitly stated they do not accept it as fact.

There's no point in repeating what I've already said about your claims that there "must" be a serious dispute, even though you have no idea what it is. I'll just repeat my simple question: If there is some basis for reasonable doubt that the documents are forgeries, what is it? If you can't answer that, you can't expect your claims to be taken seriously. Anonip 04:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Under you standard, I ought to be able to go over to the SBVT article and state as fact that John O'Neill is a lying sack of shit. There is absolutely no reasonable doubt about it; no serious and impartial person who has studied the evidence disagrees.  Anyone who does disagree is obviously either not an expert or not impartial.  It is Wolfman's position that there is "no serious dispute" about it.  If you dispute it, you can't be serious.  (And I actually do believe this).  Am I allowed to do that?  No.  Do I want to do that? No.  Because the evidence presented there will convince any rational person much more strongly than my proclamation of the obvious.  Same here. Wolfman 18:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your extreme partisan viewpoint on the SBVT allegations has no relevance here, except as a possible explanation for your intransigence. And if you really don't understand the difference between a factual assertion and a crude insult, I can't help you. Anonip 04:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * partisan? how so? i'm not even a democrat (or a left-winger of any stripe). but as to your delicate sensibilities, i'll be more polite. john o'neill is a prevaricator.  but that is, as you well know, not the issue.  the issue is that should no more be stated as fact in the sbvt article than forgery here, though any sane person examining the evidence would have to conclude that both are quite likely.  for the benefit of others, i mention sbvt because that is where i first made the acquaintance of my old friend, and paragon of non-partisanship, the anonymous ip. Wolfman 08:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm bowing out of this for now. I completely disagree with your position AnonIp.  And it seems so do at least some others.  But, debating some right-winger on a mission over the internet is not a productive use of my time. Wolfman 19:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Wolfman. Your objection is noted. So here's what I'd like to propose for the opening paragraph:


 * The Killian documents (sometimes referred to as the CBS documents) were faked memos purportedly written in the early 1970s by President George W. Bush's commander in the Texas Air National Guard (TANG), the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian. They appeared to support politically-charged allegations that Bush had been derelict in his Guard duties and had received preferential treatment. The documents were portrayed as authentic by CBS News anchor Dan Rather in a 60 Minutes story aired during the 2004 US presidential campaign.  Immediately after the broadcast their authenticity was questioned by right-wing bloggers on the Internet,  and the issue quickly caught the attention of the mainstream media. After a lengthy denial CBS was forced to admit that they could not be authenticated. The documents were ultimately shown to be forgeries by experts in typewriter and computer typography.

Are there any other objections? Anonip 04:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I'm bowing out of the discussion, because my position couldn't be clearer. I'm certainly not bowing out of editing this pov nonsense. Wolfman 09:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Understood. If you persist in making indefensible "edits" based on illegitimate POV claims, we'll deal with that when the time comes. For now, I'd like to move on to resolve any other objections. Anonip 16:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Understood. If you persist in making indefensible "edits" based on illegitimate POV assertions, we'll deal with that when the time comes.  Wolfman 16:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course. For now, let's move on. Anonip 17:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Archiving
On an entirely different note, given that this page is getting kind of long again, does anyone think that it might be time to take everything up to, say, the Page Title vote back in October, and archive it (either in the existing archive of pre-September 22 material, or in a new supplementary archive)? --Ray Radlein 23:40, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea (though I suppose it could be argued that it wouldn't need doing but for the long-winded contributions of people like me). Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; )


 * I have finally gone and created a second archive page, and moved all of the remaining 2004-era discussion to it. Given the two to three month fallow period between the results of the page name vote and the return of activity to this page, that was a logical breaking point; however, even with all of that, this page is still well over 100k in size. Frankly, it's probably time for a third archive page, although I'll be damned if I can see a logical place to break up this current iteration of this Talk page. --Ray Radlein 20:43, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comments
I got here from the listing on the RfC page. From what I can tell, the current debate is over the wording of the last sentence of the lead paragraph, with a great deal of reverting between two versions: I think both versions are misleading: #1 implies that the experts are working from unsupported faith, while #2 implies that someone with personal knowlege of the act of forging the documents came forward and stated that they were forgeries. I'd like to suggest a compromise wording: This leaves room for it to be possible for the documents to be authentic, but also indicates that the experts are making their decision based on a consideration of facts.
 * 1) "...but are believed by most typewriter and computer typography experts to be forgeries."
 * 2) "...but were later revealed to be forgeries."
 * "...but are judged by most typewriter and computer typography experts to be forgeries."


 * "Judged" is fine. "Thought" is fine. I don't pull the same connotation from "believed" that you do, but I'm fine with "judged" as a replacement anyway. No one of any sensibility would have any real trouble with words to that effect. The issue here is with one person who insists on a wording that admits no possiblity other than forgery, despite the fact that the only credible and thorough investigation of the documents that has occurred so far (or, indeed, is ever likely to occur, as, frankly, no one particularly cares about this any more) quite specifically refused to come to that conclusion &mdash; or, indeed, any other conclusion about the documents' authenticity.


 * For a point of comparison, check out the article on the Vinland map, which is almost universally believed to be a forgery. Not only does the Wiki article refrain from outright calling it a forgery, but I just noticed that someone has gone so far as to remove the "See Also" links to "hoaxes" and "false document" which had been there for the last eight or nine months. What that article does do is to lay out the various pieces of evidence for and against, explain why some feel it is a forgery, and why some feel that the evidence of forgery is not sufficiently compelling &mdash; in other words, exactly what this article does.


 * For that matter, even the frickin' Shroud of Turin isn't definitively called a hoax. That's the way Wiki works: If there exists any doubt at all, lay forth the evidence, and let the evidence speak for itself.


 * It's also worth noting that this is the same approach which has been taken regarding the issue of whether George W. Bush should have been clapped in irons or shipped off to Viet Nam in 1972 or 1973: Despite absolutely overwhelming evidence that he fell so drastically short of meeting even the barest minimum of his ANG obligation during that time that he should, at the very least, have faced serious disciplinary action, the appropriate article does not state any definitive conclusion; it simply lays forth the facts, the arguments, and the counter-arguments. I would be just as upset if someone vandalized that article by repeatedly changing the wording to an unambiguous assertion that he was AWOL and derelict in his duty as I am that someone is repeatedly vandalizing this article (repeatedly insulting everyone who repairs the vandalism is just the cherry on top of the misbehaviour, of course). --Ray Radlein 07:28, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ray, you continue to ignore the essential point. The fact that the Killian documents are forgeries is not disputed by any competent authority. In fact, it is not seriously disputed by anyone. No reasonable doubt exits. If there were a serious factual dispute, then of course the article should describe it as you suggest. But that is simply not the case here. If you (or anyone) can explain how a reasonable, informed person might feel that the evidence of forgery is not compelling, please do so.


 * By the way, I don't strongly object to using the word "judged", provided that the misleading qualifier "many" is removed. But the real issue here isn't about the wording. It's about whether a Wikipedia article should present undisputed facts as such.


 * Your comment about opinions as to what "should" have happened to Bush further indicates that you're missing the point. The authenticity of the Killian documents is a purely factual question. It has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's political views. Anonip 08:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * If "many" is not the correct qualifier, then is it "few", or is it "all"? I assume that "none" is incorrect, and "some" is too vague.  Might "most" be acceptable? --Carnildo 08:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * No qualifier is needed. "Many" and "most" are misleading because they suggest there are some experts who disagree. "All" alone is not accurate simply because not all experts have examined the issue and made an independent judgement. All the experts who have seriously examined the issue have found the documents to be forgeries, and their conclusion has not been disputed.  Moreover, these experts have fully explained the analysis on which their conclusion is based, and while technical in nature, it is not beyond the comprehension of any intelligent person. That is why I believe the stronger language "were shown by experts to be forgeries" is fully justified.  Anonip 09:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * From reading through the article, it looks like there are at least two experts who don't agree the documents are forgeries: Bill Glennon and Richard Katz. They may look rather silly being the only ones who think so, but unless they've retracted their claims, the fact remains that there are experts who don't think they are forged.


 * And "were shown by experts to be forgeries" can be interpreted as being weaker than a statement with a qualifier. The statement can be true if two experts show why the documents are forged, even if ten thousand experts show why the documents are real. --Carnildo 19:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Carnildo: Thanks for taking the time to consider the facts here.


 * Katz and Glennon appeared in a CBS Evening News broadcast on Sept. 13 defending the authenticity of the documents, which CBS later disavowed. The report of the Thornburgh-Boccardi Review Panel was highly critical of this broadcast. Referring to Katz and Glennon, it stated that "CBS News did almost nothing to examine the credentials of these individuals". It was the Panel's strong impression that CBS News put them on the air without adequate credential-checking because their opinions supported the CBS News story.


 * In fact, there is nothing to indicate that Katz has any expertise in typewriter or computer typography. In his interview with CBS he described himself as a "computer software architect" who has worked "in the software development field" for "a number of years". He had called his local CBS affiliate in Los Angeles to offer his opinion on the documents, and CBS News put him on the air. He later told the Washington Post that he is not a document examiner and that he had "no interest in authenticating the documents."


 * Glennon, identified as a "technology consultant", serviced IBM typewriters for 15 years beginning in late 1972. He originally posted his thoughts about the documents on a blog. He told the New York Times that he had spent 15 minutes with the Killian documents, and believed they could have been created using the kind of IBM typewriters he worked with. But as he told the Washington Post: "I'm not an expert, and I don't pretend to be."


 * The fact that this Wikipedia article misled you into thinking Katz and Glennon are experts is a clear indication of its serious deficiencies. Anonip 17:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The article's pretty clear about Glennon not being much of an expert, but it's ambiguous about Katz. I still think we need some sort of qualifier on the sentence, because "all", or any other wording that implies "all", is a very strong claim, and requires extraordinary evidence to back it up.  "Most" does the job, as would "almost all", or "the majority of".  --Carnildo 02:10, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * If the article is "pretty clear" that Glennon is not an expert, then why did you think he was? And the article's "ambiguity" about Katz is precisely the problem, because he's not an expert either. The simple fact is that no experts dispute the conclusion that the documents are forgeries. Wording which implies otherwise, such as "most", or "almost all", or "the majority of" are inaccurate because that implication is false. Anonip 07:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I listed him as an expert because CBS presented him as such. How about "a number of".  It's factually true, it doesn't imply that there are also experts that think the documents are real, and it doesn't imply that there can't be experts who consider the documents to be real. --Carnildo 08:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * What about Carnildo's suggested "a number of" and then something that will put the other side in context objectively:
 * A number of experts who have examined the documents have concluded that they were recent forgeries. The strongest statements on the other side come from the on-air appearances of Glennon, who serviced IBM typewriters for 15 years beginning in late 1972, and from Katz, a computer software architect who has worked in the software development field for a number of years.  The Thornburgh-Boccardi Review Panel stated that "CBS News did almost nothing to examine the credentials of these individuals".
 * (I pulled all these facts from the preceding talk comments and haven't checked them myself.) The reader who decides that Glennon and Katz don't really qualify as experts will conclude that, if that's the strongest pro-authenticity evidence offered, then it's fair to say that no expert supports the documents.  In other words, instead of telling the reader that we all-knowing all-seeing Wikipedians have ascertained that the documents were forgeries, we simply give the readers the facts and let them draw their own conclusions. JamesMLane 08:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * There are no experts who consider the documents to be real. That's the whole point. The wording "a number of" is ambiguous and therefore misleading because it obscures this fact. The expert conclusion that the documents are forgeries is not seriously disputed, and accuracy requires that the Wikipedia article make this clear.


 * James: Katz and Glennon are not experts, and neither claimed to have determined the documents to be authentic. You admit you haven't checked out the facts yourself.  Is there some reason why you don't?


 * It is not "all-knowing all-seeing Wikipedians" that have ascertained that the documents were forgeries. It is qualified experts in typewriter and computer typography, whose conclusions are undisputed. There is no reason why Wikipedia should not make this clear. The details of how experts determined the documents to be forgeries should be included of course, but the reader should not be forced to wade through them to get the essential fact. Anonip 09:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Well hello again, anon. I've missed you almost as much as Rex.  Looking forward to working with you once more. Wolfman 21:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * On reflection, I guess my phrase "all-knowing all-seeing Wikipedians" was a little too snide. Nevertheless, it was a snide way of making a valid point: that you keep wanting the article to reflect your personal conclusions.  You conclude that Katz and Glennon are not experts (or, presumably, have no expertise relevant to this particular issue).  You reach that conclusion based on the facts about their qualifications.  So if we present the facts on which you rely, why do we need to go any further?  You seem convinced that it's absolutely clear-cut 100% no room for doubt that facts A, B, and C imply conclusion D.  On that basis, I don't understand why you aren't satisfied with the presentation of facts A, B, and C.  If it's so clear, then we don't need to say D.  If it's not all that clear, then asserting D is POV.


 * Please examine my suggested language and tell me what facts exist that someone who read that paragraph wouldn't know. We don't need to get into this sterile discussion about who is or isn't an expert.  Each readers can decide whose credentials meet his or her standards.  My version tells the reader that there's no one out there with better credentials who says the documents are authentic.  So, is there anything you know that the reader wouldn't know?  In fact, I think the most dubious aspect of my suggestion is the inclusion of the review panel's comment, a juxtaposition that's arguably POV.


 * As for why I haven't gotten into more detail about this typography stuff, there are two main reasons. First, from the moment I heard about this story I was dubious, without reference to typography.  If the documents had been found in the attic by Killian's widow or some such, they'd be more worth taking seriously, but what I heard of the provenance didn't impress me.  Second, the documents are not relevant to any serious issue.  For example, with regard to the physical, it is known that Bush was required to take a physical exam, it is known that he didn't do it, and it is known that he was grounded from flying as a result.  These points are all absolutely undisputed.  The documents being discussed here add the contention that Killian specifically ordered Bush to take a physical on a particular date.  Well, what if Killian did?  What if he didn't?  Whether or not Killian gave such an order, Bush wasn't fulfilling his legal obligation.  Whether or not Killian gave such an order, Bush wasn't available to help defend the skies of Alabama if Castro's air force had suddenly launched a surprise attack.  Whether or not Killian gave such an order, Bush was utterly contemptible in the way he or his flunkies sought political advantage by smearing men who actually had served (McCain in 2000 and Kerry in 2004).  It's still pretty ridiculous how much effort people put into showing that CBS's source lied about comparatively minor points.  Why don't those same bloggers get on the case of what's now being revealed as a $300 billion misstatement of the cost of Bush's Medicare bill?  Isn't that just a wee bit more important for these dedicated acolytes of the truth?  (As you can see, Bush tends to bring out the snideness in me.  I guess I might as well quit trying to fight it.) JamesMLane 13:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * James, I'm shocked at your attitude. It's not a lie if you believe it. And this President believes he has been personally chosen by God.  How then can the emissary of God himself lie?  You just don't get it, because you still resist.  Just let go, and trust in our dear leader.  Maybe if you spent a little less time worrying about budgetary rounding error, and a lot more time obsessing over Clinton's cock, then you'd understand what snide really means. Wolfman 22:19, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Wolfman, your remarks are inappropriate. Anonip 06:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, don't be a scold Anonip. It makes you seem dour.  Where's the light-hearted, fun-loving anonymous ip of old? Wolfman 16:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A poll
A lengthy debate above concerns whether the article should simply report the conclusion of others regarding the authenticity of the documents. Or, whether the article should itself draw the conclusion that the documents were faked.

AnonIp has suggested the following lead paragraph
 * The Killian documents (sometimes referred to as the CBS documents) were faked memos purportedly written in the early 1970s by President George W. Bush's commander in the Texas Air National Guard (TANG), the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian. They appeared to support politically-charged allegations that Bush had been derelict in his Guard duties and had received preferential treatment. The documents were portrayed as authentic by CBS News anchor Dan Rather in a 60 Minutes story aired during the 2004 US presidential campaign.  Immediately after the broadcast their authenticity was questioned by right-wing bloggers on the Internet,  and the issue quickly caught the attention of the mainstream media. After a lengthy denial CBS was forced to admit that they could not be authenticated. The documents were ultimately shown to be forgeries by experts in typewriter and computer typography.

Mel Etitis has suggested the following lead paragraph
 * The Killian documents (sometimes referred to as the CBS documents) were memos purportedly written in the early 1970s by President George W. Bush's commander in the Texas Air National Guard (TANG), the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian. They appeared to support politically-charged allegations that Bush had been derelict in his Guard duties, and that he had received preferential treatment. The documents were presented as authentic by CBS News anchor Dan Rather in a 60 Minutes story broadcast during the 2004 US presidential campaign.  Immediately after the program their authenticity was questioned by Internet bloggers, and the issue quickly caught the attention of the mainstream media. After insisting on the documents' authenticity for some time, CBS instituted an independent investigation; the panel's conclusion was that it was &ldquo;not able to reach a definitive conclusion as to the authenticity of the Killian documents.&rdquo; (pdf) Since then no expert has authenticated the documents, and several experts in typewriter and computer typography have declared them to be forgeries.  Public opinion has widely accepted that they are not authentic.

The current lead paragraph is
 * The Killian documents (often referred to as the CBS documents during the 2004 US presidential campaign) were memos purportedly written by the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian. They were presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes story criticizing President George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard (TANG).  After questions were raised about the possibility of forgery, CBS ordered an independent investigation.  The blue-ribbon panel reported it "was not able to reach a definitive conclusion as to the authenticity of the Killian documents." (pdf)  No experts have authenticated the documents, and several regard them as likely forgeries.

I prefer AnonIp's proposed lead

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



I prefer Mel Etitis' proposed lead

 * 1) Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 20:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Fundamentally, I am ok with any of the suggestions so far: Cecropia, JML, the existing, or Mel (assuming a cite for the last sentence). Of this mix, I weakly prefer Mel's version, but would agree to any of them. Further elements of the JML & Cecropia versions could usefully be integrated into this.  I strongly object to AnonIp's version which draws a conclusion.Wolfman 21:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) I prefer Mel Etitis' proposed lead. My second preference is for the existing lead.  I strongly oppose, however, Anonip's proposed lead, which attempts to jump in the jury box and declare for the reader "this is the only conclusion the facts could possibly support", rather than correctly leaving the conclusion for the reader to determine. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Mel Etitis' proposed lead is fine. The existing lead is OK, too. Having read the current article, on the basis of the very detailed discussion it is simply incorrect to say that they have been "shown to be forgeries." In fact, the article does not cite a single expert except Abagnale, who did not examine the documents, as saying that the memos are forgeries. Of course the overwhelming likelihood is that they are forgeries. But that's not the same as saying they've been "shown to be forgeries." I don't even see anything in the article that would support a statement like "Expert X said on thus-and-such-date in thus-and-such news report 'the Killian documents have now been shown to be forgeries.'" There is no reason why one would need to substitute ones' own judgement for the reader's. The reader is quite capable of reading the article and deciding the balance of likelihood for themselves. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I prefer the existing lead

 * 1) or modified per Cecropia's "better ending"; kizzle's point about public opinion is also fine if a reference to a poll or some such is provided. updated above to account for new suggestions. Wolfman 18:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Anonip has created many potential versions of the lead paragraph, but all of them ignore the central dispute.  We are here to report, not conclude or make judgements. Gamaliel 18:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) I prefer the existing over AnonIP's version, but I do think the fact that it is almost unanimously the public opinion that these documents were faked, so while we should not come to the conclusion ourselves, the fact that they are generally regarded as forgeries should be more prominent. --kizzle 19:00, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * this public opinion claim seems plausible, but can you provide a reference? it's probably not the case where i live, but then the sf bay area isn't exactly a representative sample. Wolfman 20:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well then we're both screwed :)--kizzle 01:07, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Other
I prefer the existing version, with the exception that the last sentencea are deceptive in that it lean too heavily and give too much weight to a single statement of the panel yet shrug off the fact that most expert opening is that they are bogus. The panel made it quite clear in the text that almost all indications were that the memo was bogus (with numerous examples) but that they they didn't have the necessary competence and access to experts to say definitively whether they were real or bogus. Also "blue-ribbon panel" is really POV unless we can show that this is what they were commonly called. A better ending would be "The independent panel cast significant doubt on the documents authenticity but reported they were "were not able to reach a definitive conclusion as to the authenticity of the Killian documents." (pdf) No experts have authenticated the documents, and most regard them as likely forgeries." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "blue-ribbon" can go as far as i'm concerned. i don't agree with your statement about "access to experts".  but, your "better ending" is fine with me. Wolfman 19:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) As between these two, I prefer the existing version, but I also don't like the reference to the panel.  I would go farther than Cecropia and remove the panel from the lead entirely.  The documents were presented by CBS, so the subsequent backdown by CBS is more important than the observations of the outside panel, both because it's outside and because, as Cecropia notes, its fundamental conclusion was that it didn't have the expertise to make a definitive judgment on authenticity.  I suggest replacing the last two sentences (after "(TANG).") with this information that's now later in the story:"After questions were raised about the possibility of forgery, CBS News concluded that it could not prove the authenticity of documents; that its source, Bill Burkett, had lied to it about how he got the documents; and that airing the story was a 'mistake' that CBS regretted.   No experts have authenticated the documents, and several regard them as likely forgeries." If this lead is used, of course, later passages will be edited to remove duplication, and to re-insert the link to the panel's report. JamesMLane 20:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree with Cecropia's version Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 20:26, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Kevin Baastalk 00:02, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC) i like some elements of mel etitis' version and some of the original. I would prefer some compromise between the two.
 * 4) I like the current lead para, although I would strike the last sentence and expand upon the panel's conclusion by appending something along the lines of "and severely criticized CBS for using such unverifiable documents as the basis for its story." After all, the main thrust of the panel's report was on the massive lapses in journalistic standards that occurred at CBS during their rush to get the story to press (so to speak) before USA Today could (if CBS had decided to hold off until the Sunday 60 Minutes, it probably would have been USA Today with the egg on its face; which might have changed the post-story environment greatly, in that only a moron would ever claim that USA Today has a liberal bias), rather than the authenticity (or lack of same) of the documents themselves. To reference the report for its conclusions about authenticity in the very first paragraph makes it seem as though that was the primary focus of the investigation. --Ray Radlein 08:01, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain, but I felt that a compromise was possible, made partly in the light of comments above (though not all, because of an Edit conflict). Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 20:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A question
Some editors have claimed that for this article to assert as fact that the Killian documents are forgeries would be a violation of the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. However, the NPOV policy clearly permits the assertion of facts, where by "fact" is meant "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."

Given that the World Book Encyclopedia treats the assertion that the Killian documents are forgeries as a fact, and that qualified experts in typewriter and computer typography have stated this conclusion with authority and a clear articulation of their reasoning, surely a minimum requirement to sustain the claim that a serious dispute exists would be to identify one specific reason from a competent source that would provide the basis for a serious dispute.

This leads to the following as yet unanswered question:


 * If there is some reason to doubt that the Killian documents are forgeries, what is it?

If you can give a reason, please do so below. Anonip 22:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * please see the extremely lengthy discussion above. Wolfman 22:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I don't recall you ever giving a direct answer in the extremely lengthy discussion above. If you think you did, please restate it briefly here. Anonip 23:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous. We've pointed out plenty of dissenting voices above, all of which you've dismissed as not being expert enough in your mind, but now you're holding up the World Book, of all things, as the last word in expert typography.  Down is up, right is left, war is peace.... Gamaliel 23:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't consider the World Book Encyclopedia an authority on typography or document authentication. But I do think that if there were a serious dispute about the authenticity of the Killian documents, they would at least know about it. The qualifications of the experts I've cited are clear. And yes, competence does matter.


 * What I'm asking for is a specific reason from a competent source. If you think you've already given one, please restate it here briefly. Anonip 23:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Anon, I will be glad to refresh your memory of at least one small element of the previous debate. We brave few wikipedians certainly have less expertise, experience, & evidence at our disposal than did the (Republican led) independent panel. The panel report clearly demonstrates that they were aware of all the typographical evidence presented on this page (and much more); as well as the identities and qualifications of those herein cited. It deemed itself "not able" to come to a conclusion on the basis of that evidence and thought "it may not be possible" to resolve the question even with much more investigation.  Wisely, the panel chose to let the assembled evidence speak for itself.  While it is highly suggestive evidence, it is not definitive; for indeed the panel stated exactly the opposite.  I am humbly suggesting that we follow their sage example, as well as long-established wikipedia policy. Wolfman 00:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I think I said "briefly"... :-)
 * Also, I'm looking for a direct answer here. In other words, I'm asking for a reason to doubt that the documents are authentic, not a reason to think there might be such a reason. Thus, "I can't give you a reason, but I'm sure the CBS independent panel could give you a reason, even though they didn't give one in their report" isn't what I'm after. Anonip 00:25, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I have responded on your talk page, as this is not really the place for a debate about our personal views. Wolfman 00:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for your personal views. I'm asking for one specific reason from a competent source for doubt that the documents are authentic. If you can't give one, that's fine, you don't have to respond. This wasn't addressed to you personally. Anonip 01:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't be coy. As you have already plainly seen on your talk page, I quite directly answered your question as stated at the top of this section.    Wolfman 01:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Wolfman. I wrote the above before I looked at your entry on my talk page. We can discuss there if you prefer, and if you eventually decide there's something you want to put here, that's fine with me. But again, I'm not asking for your (or anyone's) personal views. I want a specific reason from a competent source. Anonip 03:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * AnonIp, you might want to familiarize yourself with Bayesian inference. A wonderful starting point is Jaynes http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/prob/book.pdf Wolfman 04:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Probability of Authenticity
Here's another question (just out of curiosity) for those who think there is a significant possibility that the Killian documents are authentic. What would you estimate the probability that the Killian documents are authentic to be? 100%? 80%? 50%? 20%? Or what? Anonip 00:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify, decimals are permitted here. So with rounding, 1% means you think the probability they're authentic is > 0.5%, correct? Anonip 00:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) 0% (of course, you knew I'd say that) Anonip 00:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) 1% that the actual documents are authentic, 20% that they are fraudulent but accurately reflect the history. (not that either possibility would lessen CBS's shame)  Just my opinion, quite irrelevant to a properly worded article even if I agreed that it were 0%. Wolfman 00:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) 1% authentic, 40% re-typed copies of originals (words are the same), 66% accurately reflect the history in total, 92% accurately reflect the history, though details may be off. Kevin Baastalk 00:29, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
 * Yes. I don't auto-reinforce judgements; if i have no data to push them beyond a certain point, i'll leave it there. (i.e. it doesn't diffuse super-gaussian)  And that last percentile, on either side, is very rare; i like to keep a healthy dose of skepticism. Kevin Baastalk 00:38, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
 * You do realize that probabilities multiply? Anonip 00:52, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. (fwiw, i'm a math guy, erudite in probability and information theory) So if new data comes up, I'll multiply, and it'll pass the 50% threshold in about half the time it would for you. Kevin Baastalk 01:22, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)


 * Oh, and probabilities don't always multiply. sometimes they add.  you can AND things or you can OR them. Kevin Baastalk 01:25, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)


 * What's your estimate of the probability that Killian created the memos in his secret file with a typesetting machine? Anonip 03:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * That question is not specific enough.
 * Prob. that killian created memos of some sort: 100%
 * Prob. that killian created memos in his "secret file" - i don't know anything about this.
 * Prob. that killian created memos regarding Bush: 99%
 * Prob. that killian created memos similiar in content to those in dispute: 92%
 * Prob. that killian created memos similiar in content and detail to those in dispute: 66%
 * Prob. that killian created memos identical in text (letters) to those in dispute: 40%
 * Prob. that the memos in dispute are facsimile of memos that killian created: 1% (this is between 0.5% & 1%)
 * Regarding "secret file" and "typesetting" - those probs would multiply, ofcourse, but those details are frivolous. Frankly, I have no idea and I don't care. Kevin Baastalk 04:30, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

Theories Regarding Source of Documents, Karl Rove et al
I am amazed there is not one mention of Karl Rove in this exhaustive article! Seems everyone is distracted by minutiae regarding 'authenticity' but there is no discussion of who sourced the documents and what their motivation would be. At the time, there was widespread speculation that it was a Machiavellian preemptive strategy of Rove's, and now with the Jeff Gannon Gannongate scandal, it appears these speculations may finally be nearing fruition.


 * "Gannon scoop shows White House Forged TANG/CBS memos?!?! by RegenerationMan Fri Feb 18th, 2005 at 09:20:51 PST. It now appears that Jeff Gannon could be the thread that unravels the real story behind the TANG/CBS forgeries. I have put together a case here that if looked at carefully by the blogosphere would show that the TANG forgeries were made by the White House, probably Dan Bartlett, and then given to Bill Burkett by a former associate of Karl Rove, Roger Stone.  Stone's wife, Nydia, who is Cuban, was most likely the Hispanic lady on the phone who convinced Burkett the documents were real and that he should burn them after copying them to protect her honor. The hot rumor in New York political circles has Roger Stone, the longtime GOP activist, as the source for Dan Rather's dubious Texas Air National Guard "memos." "


 * We're busy fighting World War I here, hunkered down in our respective trenches, expending vast efforts over a few words back and forth here and there: Bringing Karl Rove into this is like opening up a second front by sending troops to Gallipoli. :-)


 * There have been whispers (entirely justified on past performance) concerning the long arm of Karl Rove at work in this since the very start, of course; and I've been following the Roger Stone connection myself. For the time being, however, I think all of this is just too damned speculative to go into in this already speculative article. If things develop further, we can always update it then, when it becomes more "factesque" --Ray Radlein 20:12, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * The Gannon connection is still speculative. The possible involvement of Karl Rove, however, has been mentioned since the story first broke.  It goes beyond "whispers" and it's now been endorsed by at least one notable person (a member of Congress).  On that basis, it belongs in the article.  I've added a link to a source for the quotation.  The other unattributed statements in the "Theories Regarding the Source of the Documents", however, don't have that kind of foundation.  None of them are appropriate. I'm removing them, with each subject to being restored if someone wants to identify a prominent spokesperson who's endorsed it.  The Rove thing doesn't deserve a section all to itself, so I've added it to the other reactions. JamesMLane 03:10, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the documents were faked
I think the phrase the documents were faked should not be used in the text of the article. First of all, it represents a point of view. Secondly, it states that POV in a confusing way.

The chief issues here are:
 * Did Killian actually write the documents in question?
 * Does dictating notes to a secretary, who then types up an UNSIGNED document count as "Killian writing the documents"? Then it's just a matter of (1) Did Killian dictate those notes; and (2) Did his secretary type 'em up for him?
 * (1) We have no evidence that Killian dictated those notes; (2) His secretary has said emphatically that she did not type them. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Was the copy CBS published "real", or what?
 * To what extent can a reconstructed document legitimately be presented as an "authentic copy" of an original?
 * What do we meanby "reconstructed"? Gone through a paper shredder and pasted together again? Not these. Picked up from a known true original? Also not these. Taken from memory? Who has said, "yes, I typed these substitute documents from memory." So againa zero. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * If I use Office 2002 to word-process a copy of a decades-old document (which I have in my hand, but I can't get it to a xerox machine) - and if I use a Courier font so it looks like it was typed, how much of these details am I obliged to reveal?
 * You are obliged to reveal exactly what you said here, and why you think you have typed it accurately, and (since you couldn't get to a copying machine, give us the original document now. Otherwise you have committed a fraud of omission by allowing people to belive that a copy is an original document. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(A related example concerns my "far-right-wing" church. When I received bookkeeper training in 1991, my church treasurer told me that the IRS will accept hand-written or typed "receipts" for petty cash expenditures, in lieu of printed cash register receipts. This is primarily intended for purchases such as buying soda from a vending machine, or using a pay phone. You just had to make sure you didn't overdo it; accounting for 100% of petty cash with reconstructed receipts would positively be a violation, and the treasurer would, er, "stomp" on me way ahead of any IRS audit, maybe even remove me from my position if I stayed out of compliance. The point here is that reconstructed documents are allowable in certain contexts.)
 * I also received accounting training. Petty cash notes are acceptable, because they are just that: petty. But they must be reasonable and within guidelines. If the IRS smells a rat, they will actually go to Joe's Diner and ask "is it true Uncle Ed has the Lobster Deluxe with Cheese every day for a year, and left a $100 tip each time"? Wer'e not talking about Petty Cash here, we're talking about felony forgery and corruptly influencing a federal election. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The question for Dan Rather and 60 Minutes is whether this single case of presenting a document as evidence of a political claim is:


 * 1) A straightforward presentation of an original document
 * 2) A permissible reconstruction''' of an authentic document
 * 3) An illegitimate reconstruction''' of an authentic document
 * 4) A forgery, i.e., he never wrote that; he didn't dictate anything like it to his secretary; he never even thought that

Considering the importance of the issue, I think we'd be better off ducking all conclusions. It opens too many Pandora's boxes.

Let's not call them "faked documents" but "documents relating to George W. Bush's service in the Air National Guard. Let's mention that the matter was investigated and aired during the last election (the won he didn't "really win", remember?) and that they brought it up at the last minute AGAIN for this election (with a link to October surprise). Oh, and don't forget to mention that at least part of the furor was over the "authenticity" of the documents.
 * They are not "documents relating to George W. Bush's service in the Air National Guard"; they are documents purportedly authentic that make claims about Bush's National Guard service.

We should handle this dispute with as much care and sensitivity as the death of Rachel Corrie. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:11, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * That's not right, Ed. "Forgery" does not mean "he never wrote that; he didn't dictate anything like it..." etc. If I make a very good copy of a dollar bill or a sensitive document, even if the original document exists and is legitimate, and my forgery is almost indistinguishable from the original, my version is a forgery. Why are we playing this game? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

Article title
After lengthy discussion and voting (see Talk:Killian_documents/Archive2 and subsequent sections of that archive), the article had been stable at "Killian documents" for months. Then it was unilaterally and without discussion moved to a new title ("CBS documents controversy"), similar to one ("CBS Documents Affair") that was proposed during the prior discussion but that did not meet with favor. I've restored the title that emerged from the prior process. That doesn't mean it's carved in stone, but any change should come after discussion here. JamesMLane 02:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Besides, "CBS Documents" doesn't really say much, does it? I daresay there have been a great many documents in CBS' history, many of which (for instance, the documents Jeffrey Wigand provided to 60 Minutes, which were significant enough to have an entire award-winning movie made about them) might deserve an encyclopedia article. --Ray Radlein 03:33, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, and speaking of archives, I think I may try to find a good dividing line to peel off and archive another chunk of this discussion soon (the first four sections haven't been touched since mid-January now, so that might be a good place). --Ray Radlein 03:33, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I have rewritten the first sentence to be more consistent with the reverted article title. However, I still feel the article title should refer to the affair itself and not the documents. It is the affair that people will remember years from now, just as people remember the whole Watergate scandal more than the details of the break-in. However, this may be a problem without a perfect solution. (And I was unaware that an article title was more sacrosanct than a given sentence in the article.) --M. E. Smith Mar 1, 2005


 * Virtually nothing on Wikipedia is "sacrosanct". There is, however, more of a reason to want prior discussion before changing an article title (because it's more visible than other passages); there's also more of a reason to want prior discussion before making a change that's already been considered at length.  This particular change implicated both those principles. JamesMLane 09:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's possible to determine now how it will be remembered in years to come. As for what title we should use for it now, "Killian documents" is appropriate whether they were Killian's or by some unknown party trying to pass them off as Killian's.  "CBS documents" or "Rathergate" not only presumes the documents to be unequivocally forgeries (yes, I'm aware that some people would like us to do exactly that) but even if they were proven to be a hoax, such a title suggests that neither the purported nor the true author of the hoax is as significant as who was deceived by it.  Does this make sense?  We don't refer to the "Kujau Diaries", or the "Heidemann Diaries", and we certainly don't refer to the "Trevor-Roper Diaries"; we call them the "Hitler Diaries". -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:50, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The Rathergate term now dominates in the popular press, like it or not. Very very few looking for information on this topic are going to type in killian documents as a search term.  No one remembers Killian.  Everyone remembers Rather.  To have the main body of the article have no reference at all to Rathergate is patently ridiculous.


 * I disagree, many commentators, even John Stewart, have asked why the killian documents scandal got a "gate" designation but Cheney's former oil company's illegal involvement with Iran didn't.  I think the current title is appropriate. I don't think "gate" in a title would be NPOV. zen master    T  06:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regular Selectrics were available second-hand for around $150 [37], but could not have produced the documents in question - might be worth expanding that for the average reader to explain _why_ Regular Selectrics couldn't have produced them. PMA 00:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Someone's dissertation
As someone who has studied Bush's military records extensively, I can say that there is no way that anyone can say with any certainty whether the "Killian memos" were authentic or not.

Hailey, despite the flaws of his original analysis, demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the memos were typed. The counter-arguments that the evidence pointed out my Hailey (consistently raised specific letters, and consistent flaws in particular letters) is the result of the reproduction process is entirely unpersuasive, because the flaws and raised letters are not randomly distributed within the alphabet. It should also be noted that if, in fact, those anomolies were generated by the copying process, none of the analyses of the "pro-forgery" experts could be considered valid, because they all rely on the assumption that the copying process did not alter the characteristics of the documents to the extent required to effectively rebut Hailey.

Proving that the documents were typed does not, of course, prove them authentic. It does, however, raise serious questions about the "expertise" of the "experts" who claim that the documents were created using word-processing software.

Those that suggest that the Thornburgh/Boccardi conclusions casting doubt on the authenticity of the documents is even slightly authoritative show how unfamiliar they are with the topic itself. On page 188 of the T/B report, it says that the panel examined over 100 records provided by the Texas Air National Guard, and the panel found no examples of proportionately spaced documents from that period. Yet, two days after the T/B investigation was announced on 9/22/04, the Pentagon released a previously suppressed official memo from Bush's own records from 1971 that is unquestionably proportionately spaced that was generated by the Texas Air National Guard. We must conclude that either evidence that would show that the Killian memos could have been produced at TexANG was deliberately suppressed by TexANG, or that the process by which T/B reached its conclusions was so cursory and incompetent that those conclusions cannot be given any weight at all.

The narrative described by the Killian memos is completely consistent with the rest of the Bush documents when viewed within the context of contemporaneous laws, regulations, policies and procedures. "Inconsistencies" with the Bush documents occur only when the Bush records show that the contemporaneous regulations were being ignored by the leadership of the 147th FIG and TexANG as a whole. Because there is a consistent pattern of TexANG's failure to abide by regulations -- and two documents from the Air Force citing TexANG's failure to abide by regulations -- complaining that the narrative described by the Killian memos is not consistent with other documents is risible.

I don't know if the memos are genuine or not, but what I do know is that all of the "evidence" supposedly proving the memos are forgeries does not come even close to actual proof. Indeed, most of the "evidence" is based on a false assumption --- that the memos had to be produced using TexANG equipment and/or by TexANG personnel. Insofar as the memos dealt with a sensitive subject, no such assumption should ever have been made. Yet it is on the basis of this assumption that the vast majority of the criticism of the memos is based.

paul lukasiak The AWOL Project http://www.glcq.com

Unsubstantiated provenance
This phrase is utterly neutral and 100% accurate: "is a term used to refer a particular set of photocopies of unsubstantiated provenance" 216.153.214.94 04:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As an alternative, this equally neutral and 100% accurate verbiage can be used: "are photocopies of unsubstantiated provenance" 216.153.214.94 07:03, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The article makes clear that the documents are photocopies where that detail becomes relevant, for example in the section on "One's versus Ell's". The article  also makes clear the point about the provenance of the documents: "Burkett admits he misled CBS and now claims that the documents came to him from another source, one CBS has yet been unable to verify." (from the "Background" section, citation omitted)  The issue is whether these points should be stated at the very beginning of the article, before the reader has even been given the slightest idea of why the authenticity of the documents might possibly matter to anyone.  It would clearly be POV to lead with the points stressed by Bush supporters before even giving the context of the dispute.  I've reverted very similar POV changes three times already, so it's not clear that I'm entitled to revert this one, and I hope someone else will. JamesMLane 08:39, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * More to the point, it's the documents that have no provenance. The photocopies we can at least track back to Burkett. Whether he made the original documents, or was the accomplice, or patsy, of someone else is unknown.
 * &mdash;wwoods 09:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Please see Dictionary.com, "provenance".
 * 2) There is no SUBSTANTIATED proof (even CBS concedes this) that any original DOCUMENTS ever existed in this case.
 * 3) The only things that have been shown are PHOTOCOPIES of what have been asserted to be "documents".
 * 4) These UNSUBSTANTIATED photocopies are the ONLY physical evidence that any so-called (original) documents ever existed
 * 5) To call these so-called "documents" anything other than what they are, which is PHOTOCOPIES OF UNSUBSTANTIATED PROVENANCE is to mis-frame the topic to infer that there is actually an open question as to whether the provenance of these photocopies can be substantiated. Such SPECULATIVE POV INFERENCES are 100% bogus and do not belong in this article.
 * 6) All of the major players, ie; Burkett and CBS, etc., have had ample opportunity to substantiate the provenance of these PHOTOCOPIES. Since they have been unable to (and concede that they cannot), there is NO OPEN QUESTION OF FACT regarding whether or not the provence of these PHOTOCOPIES is (or is reasonably expected to be) substantiated. They are and for ever shall remain, unsubstantiated.
 * 7) To call them "documents" is to infer that they are originals. Please see the Dictionary.com entry for "documents" . Please note that the PRIMARY definition states "A written or printed paper that bears the original, official, or legal form of something and can be used to furnish decisive evidence or information." (my emphasis on the word original).
 * 8) It is clear that these PHOTOCOPIES are not substantiated as being (or even representing) "original", "official" or "legal". They are AS A MATTER OF ESTABLISHED FACT nothing more than "photocopies of unsubstantiated provenance" and by the rule of clarity, ought to be introduced to the reader as such. Leaving the reader to speculate on this matter is to mislead and wrongly infer, hence it is both poor editing and POV.
 * 9) These photocopies are nothing more than speculative hypothetical fascimiles. Calling them "photocopies of unsubstantiated provenance" is 100% accurate and neutral.
 * 216.153.214.94 15:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * As usual, Rex, you're quite voluble in defense of your point of view, but you don't come to grips with the point that other people are actually making. The article discloses the fact that these are photocopies.  The article discloses the fact that their provenance cannot be verified.  The only issue is whether these points, which are attacks on the authenticity of the documents, are to be presented at the beginning of the first sentence, before the reader has been given any indication of the contents of the documents or of how they became the subject of public interest.  Use of the term "documents" does not imply authenticity.  If you won't believe me, perhaps you'll believe your fellow right-winger, Instapundit, who wrote: "DID CBS PRESENT FORGED DOCUMENTS LAST NIGHT?"   If your definition of "document" were the only permissible one, then Instapundit's sentence would be nonsensical. JamesMLane 16:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * This discussion is not about "instapundit's" grammar, which according to your argument, ought to read 'DID CBS PRESENT FORGERIES OF DOCUMENTS LAST NIGHT?' 216.153.214.94 16:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * As usual JML, you gloss over the inconvenient points which show your comments to be falsely premised. Suffice it to say, you will not address all the points I raised here because they prove you wrong. And since you have refused to attempt to individually rebut the 9 points I raised, it's clear that you are refusing to deliberate. As such, your revert is vandalism. 216.153.214.94 16:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It would be accurate to begin the article with something like this: "The Killian documents were pieces of paper, which some people therefore called 'documents', relating to the undisputed fact that George W. Bush, who got out of serving in the Vietnam War by getting a safe slot in the Texas Air National Guard, did not even fulfill the minimal obligations required of him in that position. Although the papers are of unsubstantiated provenance and some people have questioned their authenticity, there is no dispute as to some of the underlying facts referred to in the papers, such as that Bush did not appear for his mandatory physical examination and was therefore grounded from flying."  All of that would be 100% accurate.  In fact, all those facts ought to be in the article.  It's just that selecting facts for the first paragraph in that fashion would be POV.  It would be pursuing an agenda of tearing Bush down rather than telling the reader about this particular subject.  Your intro errs in the opposite way, pursuing an agenda of propping Bush up rather than telling the reader about this particular subject in a logical fashion.  Despite repeated challenges, you have still not identified any facts that are missing from my version of the article or from Zen-master's rewrite.  You're not trying to present information that's otherwise suppressed; you're trying to stack the presentation to favor one side.  By the way, the 3RR doesn't apply to reverts of vandalism, but "vandalism" doesn't encompass a good-faith disagreement.  If you go on another reverting spree and decide that slinging around accusations of vandalism exempts you from the rules that apply to everyone else, you're quite likely to find yourself taking another little holiday. JamesMLane 16:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * JML who openly admits being "hostile" to the "right wing" (see his user page), makes it clear again that he has such an axe to grind, he is incapable of unbiased editing. It goes without saying that his silly retort (see above) is sheer POV. However, also please take note that he DOES NOT make any effort to try to say that the utterly factual (and 100% accurate) phrase "photocopies of unsubstantiated provenance" is POV. And why does he not try this? Because the phrase ""photocopies of unsubstantiated provenance" IS NOT POV, but it is accurate. JML has proven once again that his unabated, self-admitted hostility makes it impossible to dialog with him and that he has an agenda of bias. 216.153.214.94 16:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * JML: "If you won't believe me, perhaps you'll believe your fellow right-winger, Instapundit, who wrote: "DID CBS PRESENT FORGED DOCUMENTS LAST NIGHT?" If your definition of "document" were the only permissible one, then Instapundit's sentence would be nonsensical."

I wouldn't call Reynolds a right-winger. Anyway, he's talking about the original documents: "(I just heard him say he doesn't think the documents came from a typewriter, as they should have in 1972/73, when word processors were, ahem, scarce)". That was pretty early in the story; was he, or anyone commenting on the story, aware that nobody at CBS had even seen the originals?

Mind you, I don't disagree with you about the article's introduction. The article should be about the original documents, and it's okay to use "documents" in the sense of '[photocopies of] documents', or even '[PDFs of photocopies of] documents'. The fact that photocopying was used to obscure details of the originals, for one reason or another, needs inclusion of course.


 * After he received the documents in Houston, Burkett said, he drove home, stopping on the way at a Kinko's shop in Waco to copy the six memos. In the parking lot outside, he said, he burned the ones he had been given and the envelope they were in. Ramirez was worried about leaving forensic evidence on them that might lead back to her, Burkett said, acknowledging that the story sounded fantastic. "This is going to sound like some damn sci-fi movie," he said.
 * USA Today: "CBS backs off Guard story"

Well, I guess "the dog ate my documents" would have been too much of a cliché. By the way, the article doesn't yet include Burkett's most-recent[?], third[?] story about how got the documents from Lucy Ramirez. &mdash;wwoods 17:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The papers under discussion are, neutrally speaking, "photocopies" (undisputed fact) not "documents" (implies authenticity). 216.153.214.94 18:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * In lieu of delving into Instapundit's politics, I trust that no one will have any difficulty characterizing Little Green Footballs as right-wing. LGF referred to "the forged Killian documents released by CBS News", confirming the point on which wwoods and I agree -- that the word "documents" does not imply authenticity.


 * Rex has now added a whole new heading to the article, early on, for the sole purpose of highlighting the particular points that he wants to beat people over the head with. This section adds no information, and I'm removing it.  Unfortunately, I know from long and bitter experience with Rex that he will go on and on and incessantly on about whatever point he's decided to make a cause of.  It usually takes a few other editors and several hours to rein in the worst of his POV excesses.  The usual result of his tactics is that, in an effort to move past the issue and get some genuine work done, other people end up giving him more than he deserves.  Along those lines, I'm including the sacred word "photocopies" in the "Background" section, to see if that will placate Rex.  I'm also rewriting the article's first sentence, because, now that I look at it, I think the phrase "came to light" has some connotation of authenticity (suggesting material that was previously hidden, whereas in this instance the charge is that the material didn't previously exist).  JamesMLane 20:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Typical of JMLs' snide methods, whenever he's proven wrong, he engages in personal attacks "bitter experience with Rex that he will go on and on and incessantly". Suffice it to say, JML is not the the final arbiter regarding how best incoporate the true fact that the FORM of the so-called "documents" is indeed only a mish-mosh of mult-generational PHOTOCOPIES. Nor is it for him to deem my edit a "superfluous section". Frankly, I am puzzled by his crazed zeal in this regard. I wonder if he is fixated in some perverse manner on attempting to provoke trouble... 216.153.214.94 22:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1st and 2nd sentences
I prefer the earlier versions: "The Killian documents are photocopies of unsubstantiated provenance that were central to a controversy during the 2004 US presidential campaign. The memos purportedly were written by the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian and were presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes story criticizing President George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard (TANG)."

JML's meddling has done nothing but gum up the works. 216.153.214.94 22:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * "JML's meddling" is one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is, "Nobody prefers Rex's version except Rex." JamesMLane 00:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * JML, 1st you go around provoking trouble, then you whine to Neutrality when you get tweaked in return. Certainly you must know that intentionally snide insults such as "Nobody prefers Rex's version except Rex.", only serve to engender rancor, yes? 216.153.214.94 01:22, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Please explain how that is an insult, Rex. You may not be happy that nobody prefers your version except you but that does not make pointing it out an insult. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"memos" vs. "documents"
I actually feel that the original description of the Killian documents in the intro as "documents" is more NPOV than the current description of them as "memos"; it seems to me as if the latter noun subtly endorses the conclusion that they were actual genuine documents from the workflow of Killian's office, whereas they might be that, or they might be fakes intended to appear to be that.

I freely admit I could be wrong here; it's a semantic issue. If the documents in question were letters, for instance, the noun "letter" only specifies the form of the document, not its history or authenticity. But if the documents in question purported to be records, describing them as "records" implies that they are the result of a record-keeping process, rather than possibly being an attempt to appear as such. Does "memo", like "letter", merely refer to the form of the Killian documents, or does it imply something about their origin, as "records" does?

Needless to say, this is why I think we should return to the description of them as "documents", which unlike Rex's "photocopies of unsubstantiated provenance" really is accurate and neutral. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:10, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you claim that they are not photocopies?
 * Do you claim that they have been substantiated?
 * Please advise. 216.153.214.94 01:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Having seen the course of the edit history, I agree with Antaeus. The use of the simple "memos" might imply authenticity, so instead we get all this "controversial and supposed" language confusing the very first sentence.  The simple "documents" is accurate, since no one but Rex thinks that implies authenticity, and the very next sentence explains the matter with "The memos purportedly were written by . . . ." JamesMLane 19:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rex's POV-mongering (as insultingly said by JML)
Rex keeps adding his cherished "Actual form" paragraph. As I've noted above, it adds no information that's not already in the article. Its sole purpose is to hit the reader over the head with particular facts that Rex wants emphasized because they support his POV. I've now removed this inappropriate addition three times in the last 24 hours, so I hope other editors will keep an eye out for it and revert its next insertion. JamesMLane 19:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

JMl has a lot of gall trying hide the truth that the "memos" have not been shown to exist in any form other than photcopies. This fact is essential to a reader being able to appreciate the full scope of the story. Removing that fact is the POV position. That said, I am happy to go back to my earlier edit which does not have a section for that fact alone. But oh, I forgot, JML objected to that too. In fact, JML opposes all my edits, routinely. 216.153.214.94 03:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The "documents" in question in this controversy have, to date, only been shown to exist in the form of photocopies and the provenance of these photocopies has never been substantiated.
 * I don't see why you keep trying to add this paragraph. The existence of a photocopy logically implies the existence of an original document to be copied. That's what distinguishes a photocopier from a laser printer, after all. And the provenance of the photocopies seems reasonably well established to me: CBS got them from Burkett, who claims he made them. Burkett is a proven liar, of course, but this lie hurts his case, so why should we doubt it? The questions are, who made the original documents--Burkett or someone else, and when did he make them--September or some months earlier?
 * &mdash;wwoods 04:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But leaving out the fact that no non-photocopies exist, overplays the tilt towards an inferrence that there were at one point actual documents which existed on a legitimate basis. This is the crux of the issue and underclarifying the photocopy fact confuses the readers. 216.153.214.94 04:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

FYI obvious POV vandalism reverted
I consider this to be obvious POV vandalism, the anon account disagrees, I leave it up to others to decide for themselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killian_documents&diff=11732659&oldid=11732495

"...rabidly biased partisans make the farfetched and unsported claim..." to me is obvious POV vandalism in an attempt to illustrate a point (which still counts as vandalism). zen master   T  20:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * If Rex (the anon) continues to try to insert that POV language, then here's a possible compromise. We could restore Rex's language, but then add, "Rabidly biased Republican partisans make the farfetched and unsupported claim that Bush fulfilled all his legal obligations during the Vietnam War."  For my part, I agree with Zen-master's removal of the phrase, but if it's to be used to characterize one side, it should be used for the other as well.  Is that what you want, Rex? JamesMLane 20:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * James, I actually think your analysis misses the point kind of, the anon's phrasing was obviously not allowed on wikipedia and the anon made that edit merely to try to illustrate a point he had about the POV of the article (vandalism to illustrate a point). If there is something wrong with the POV or word choice with any article it should be fixed, if something is presented in "rabidly" POV fashion then neutral terms should be used instead, rather than balancing rabid terms with rabid terms.  In this case the anon just seems to haved believed that a neutrally presented, factually citable sentence is rabidly POV. zen master    T  20:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The phrasing was obviously not allowed on Wikipedia, which is why I said I agreed with your removal of it. The point of my comment was that perhaps Rex would be able to understand why it's not allowed if he envisioned the same phrasing being used to deride the position he held. JamesMLane 22:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Heh, ok, I must have given up on trying to use reverse psychology on wikipedia long ago. zen master   T  00:25, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The idiotic suppositions of rabid Rather "supporters" do not belong in the 1st section. I moved them to another section. 216.153.214.94 16:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory in intro

 * "...preempted the controversy by falsifying the very documents that might have legitimately criticized President Bush. ..."

I don't think something this far-fetched belongs in the introduction. Wherever it does go, it needs to be rephrased, something like, "...preempted the controversy by creating deliberately-flawed documents, the exposure of which would taint the credibility of any genuine documents ..." &mdash;wwoods 08:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That's the general line taken later in the article, when it goes into detail about this theory ("Suggestion of Republican involvement"). As for what belongs in the lead section: It might be useful to have a recap of the major theories that have been floated.  I'm not familiar with the different stories Burkett has told, so the following probably isn't accurate; it's just intended as an example of the format of a possible second paragraph:
 * The origin of the documents remains unclear. CBS received them from Bill Burkett, who has variously said that he photocopied them from originals given to him by a former TANG employee, or that ___ [list any other Burkett claims].  A former TANG secretary has said that they are not real but that the content is genuine, so that they may have been re-created from originals.  Bush's supporters have charged that they were simply fabricated during the 2004 campaign for political purposes, by Burkett or by someone else who wanted to injure Bush's reputation.  Some Bush opponents believe that the documents were fabricated by a Bush supporter who hoped that the forgery would come to light and would tend to discredit all criticism of Bush over the issue.
 * The idea would be to try to get the reader into the overall picture (listing the major possibilities) at the start, before we dive into the details about proportional fonts and whatnot. JamesMLane 09:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * A member of congress alleged this, see the section on Karl Rove. I think the sentence is perfect as far as location and neutrality goes.  Why is everything that can be factually cited on wikipedia a "conspiracy theory" these days?  There are no known original documents, the way it is stated currently is the essence of the issue, that the controversy was allegedly preempted by falsifying the very documents that might have legitimately criticized bush. zen master    T  09:29, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not balanced to state that a member of Congress believes the Republicans falsified the douments and that "others" dismiss this suggestion. As it currently reads, it's the claim of an unnamed Congressman vs. "others". This implies that the falsification claim is more likely to be true because of who supports it. I'm sure that many of these "others" are members of Congress. Shouldn't that fact be mentioned? Carbonite | Talk 15:29, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Saying "the very documents" implies that this specific set of four (six?) genuine documents existed, and that Rove had knowledge of their content. Whereas a less-implausible theory would be that Rove worried that genuine, damaging documents of some sort existed, without knowing what form they might take, so he ginned up phony documents which weren't copies of anything.
 * &mdash;wwoods 16:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Or, more broadly, that whether or not more damaging documents existed, Rove knew that Bush was taking damage from the undisputed facts already in the public record. The effect of the CBS broadcast and the ensuing brouhaha was to shift the focus from "Did Bush escape service in Vietnam while Kerry was over there fighting?" (a question that most people would answer in a way unfavorable to Bush) to "Are these particular documents, which criticize Bush, genuine?" (a question that most people would answer in a way favorable to Bush).  The reference in the lead section should be broad enough to encompass these different varieties of Rove machinations.  I agree that details, such as Hinchey's endorsement, should be left for the body of the article. JamesMLane 17:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * wwoods, the previous version as of 1 day ago didn't have those problems, it stated that supporters of CBS and Dan Rather allege this and it said Republicans disagree. I think we should revert to that version as of a few days ago but I probably won't do that myself.  The "very documents" is just trying to say that someone faked the exact documents that might have criticized bush, are you saying the faked documents need not be falsified versions of originals to preempt a legitimate controversy with a controversy of your choosing? zen master    T  18:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that we should mention the conspiracy theory in the lead section. (That it's a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it's false.  There are actual conspiracies out there, and Rove has been involved in some of them.)  As per my suggested language above, though, I'd do so in the context of listing all the major theories.  As to your question to wwoods, I would certainly answer it with a Yes; "the faked documents need not be falsified versions of originals to preempt a legitimate controversy with a controversy of your choosing" is correct, IMO.  That's why the phrase "the very documents" may be too narrow. JamesMLane 04:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My first visit to this article. I think dignifying a totally unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that Rove was behind supplying documents that focused the media on Bush's Vietnam service/non-service at the top of the article is fairly left of NPOV. For balance, how about "other theories proposed that Dan Rather's well-known antipathy for Bush, pro-Democrat bias, and history of reporting questionable stories led CBS to run with an unsubstantiated story it hoped would swing the Presidential election in favor of the candidate they supported." That's at least as credible a theory and there is more evidence to substantiate it. Kaisershatner 02:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * We perhaps should add something like that, but I think the article has already strayed too far away from the possibility Mr Killian did indeed criticize bush's service in the texas air national guard. 60 minutes' version of the documents is most likely fake, but the accusations in the documents by Killian have been corroborated by other people that knew and worked with him.  The article should state clearly that there may be a valid criticism of bush here. zen master    T  02:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I made a change, less vitriolic than my above point. To me it seems that CBS/Rather wrote a story that, while it may have included true allegations, was based on documents that are highly likely to have been forged.  For this reason, I think the burden of proof is on the network to show why what it did was legitimate, rather than for Bush supporters to have to defend Rove against a conspiracy theory, and therefore the paragraph should first list a credible theory about what CBS' motivation was, and then a theory about how it was all a Rovian plot.  I also removed a line about an unnamed congressman as it is the argument from authority. Kaisershatner 03:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your version isn't too bad, though it's certainly not succinct. The congressman is listed farther down in the article, that should be put back (previously someone on this talk page or in checkin comments argued that no one notable was defending Dan Rather/CBS that way). After the controversy Dan Rather interviewed Killian's secretary from that time and she stated that the documents accurately reflected Killian's view of Bush's service record. Usage of the term "conspiracy theory" is fraught with POV, it should be disallowed in an encylopedia. zen master   T  03:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
I added a NPOV tag until the introduction is cleaned up. The way it currently reads is unacceptable. It implies that the documents may not be fake and that even if they are, they may have been a Republican conspiracy. Here are some specific issues:


 * To date, no experts have authenticated the documents, and several regard them as forgeries - While it's true that the documents have never been proven to be false, this sentence makes it sound as if there's no consensus amongst experts. In general, the introduction needs to make clear that it is generally agreed that the documents are fake.
 * A member of Congress alleges that Republicans falsified the very documents.... As mentioned in the above section, this appeal to authority isn't appropriate for the introduction. This should be discussed later in the article when both sides can be presented.

Carbonite | Talk 15:43, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I have made the edit which modifies and relocates the offending appeal to authority 216.153.214.94 16:47, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The sentence belongs in the intro because it balances the entire existance of the controversy. If someone is alleging that the documents were faked to create a controversy over this issue (the killian documents) rather than focus on Bush's national gaurd service then your position does not seem logical to me and I can not support it.  The original version of the sentence was neutrally presented, what exactly is your issue with stating there are allegations Republicans conspired to preempt the controversy? zen master    T  18:50, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is bunk. Burkett has admitted that CBS got the photocopies from him. White House got them from CBS. There is nothing in the public record to suggest that there is any merit to the wildly outrageous suppositions of those who would blame these "documents" on Bush, Rove or Republicans. If this crap stays in the article - especially in the 1st para, I am going to make sure that it's accurate. Also, it's commonon knowledge to anyone who bothers to read the background on this story that Burkett is anti-Bush. Zen Master, please get better informed before creating controversies. 216.153.214.94 22:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * the question is who gave Burkett the documents? Roger Stone's wife? Or did Burkett himself generate them?  Regardless,  an NPOV disclaimer on this of all articles is a case of hyper-anality as there is no way this article will ever not be controversial.  NPOV fanatics are living in a dreamworld.