Talk:Killian documents controversy/Archive 5

Archived Talk through Nov 2005
Talk was 164k, time to archive again. For full disclosure, I would like to note that I was personally involved in many of the now-dead threads, some of which were quite contentious. Kaisershatner 14:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Tytell's Conclusion
This: "Tytell concluded that the documents were not produced on a typewriter in the early 1970s but were produced on a computer in a Times New Roman typestyle that would not have been available at that time."

is irrelevant and should not be listed under the "Panel's view" since the Panel clearly said they would not comment on whether the documents were fake or not. That is Tytell's view and that panel had the opportunity to accept it and they didn't. I think it should be either removed, or at the very least, moved.

After reading some of the comments below, there is obviously someone ediiting who takes the position that the documents wer proven to be false. That is not only wrong, that is dishonest.

Whoever this person is, they should be banned from editting this section.

-Rob S.


 * Rob, have you read the panel's report? 71.212.31.95 16:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A (relatively) new expert opinion?
I ran across this analysis of the documents, which purports to prove that the documents were not products of microsoft word. The author, a Utah State University professor named David Hailey Jr, concludes that the documents were typed, but he doesn't make any claim as to their authenticity. I should add that this is a second edition of his study, posted to his website in December 2005. He claims to have evaluated Original documents (not faxed ones). Is any of this relevent to the discussion?Jarad 08:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * yes, it's relevant. but i believe there is already some discussion of Hailey in the article.  if he's updated his analysis, you should search to see where he's already mentioned, and update the article there. Derex 20:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

False POV claim
A user named "SpinyNorman" changed the opening sentence of this article from:


 * The Killian documents controversy (also called Memogate or Rathergate) involved purportedly authenticdocuments, later identified by some experts as almost certain forgeries, that were publicized by CBS News during the 2004 US presidential campaign, re-opening the George W. Bush military service controversy, and raising charges of political bias and/or poor journalism at CBS News.

to:


 * The Killian documents controversy (also called Memogate or Rathergate) involved documents that were publicized by CBS News during the 2004 US presidential campaign which re-opened the George W. Bush military service controversy.

claiming that he "removed some POV".

The fact that the so-called Killian documents were purportedly authentic, but were later identified by some experts as almost certain forgeries, is the central issue concerning this controversy. Stating that fact in the opening sentence of the article does not in any way violate NPOV. Suppressing it does.


 * A couple of points. I didn't change the opening because it was POV, I changed it mostly because it was badly written.  The original opening sentance was too long and convoluted.  It was better to break it into two parts, the first to describe the nature of the documents - what they are and how they came to the attention of the public, and the next to describe the controversy their broadcast created.  That isn't suppressing the controversy, just making it clearer.


 * You could easily have addressed your stylistic concerns without removing from the opening sentence the crucial fact that some experts have identified the documents as almost certain forgeries.


 * The only independent assessment of the documents refused to characterize them as forgeries so that can scarcely be considered a "crucial fact". And the phrase "some experts have identified the documents as almost certain forgeries" is inherently POV (and so ambiguous as to be virtually devoid of useful information).  --SpinyNorman 08:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You don't know what you are talking about. Experts Tytell, Phinney, and Newcomer all assessed the documents independently and concluded they were forgeries. The CBS Panel endorsed Tytell's analysis. The panel did not make an independent determination because it was unnecessary for their purpose. You don't seem to understand the difference between stating an opinion as fact and stating a fact about an opinion. It is a fact that some experts have identified the documents as almost certain forgeries. The statement that they have done so is neither POV nor ambiguous. Omitting this important fact from the opening sentence clearly violates NPOV.


 * Second, there is some POV in the claim the documents are "almost certain forgeries". That's an opinion, not a fact.  They have either been proven to be forgeries or they haven't.  The fact is that they haven't.  If you want report specific examples of individuals who claim they're forgeries, that's fine but presenting opinion as fact is inappropriate.  --SpinyNorman 15:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The opening sentence did not state the forgery claim directly, but identified it as the conclusion of experts. These experts are named and their analysis is discussed in detail in the body of the article. Stating in the introductory sentence the crucial fact that some experts have identified the documents as almost certain forgeries is not only appropriate but essential.


 * Not at all. The opinions of various individuals as to the authenticity of the documents or the lack of same can be addressed in the body of the article.  The only undisputed fact about the documents' authenticity is that the independent panel found them not to be but they specifically refused to address the question of whether they were forged.  The reason for this should be obvious.  Proving that documents of this nature were forged is virtually impossible unless the person who forged them actually admits to doing so.  The opinion that they were forged is noteworthy but not a fact.  --SpinyNorman 08:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Currently, the article says,
 * ... After the broadcast, the authenticity of the documents was questioned, with some critics claiming the documents were not authentic, ...
 * ... The documents are considered by some experts to be forgeries, a ... [Emphasis added]

Are there any genuine experts who don't consider them to be forgeries? It's been over a year; isn't it about time we recognized that this is a settled issue? —wwoods 18:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It depends, some may not have retracted the statements they made before. Mary Mapes says they are real. Even now she does not say they are fakes. It is a good read. After that you can reat the simple rant from talk.bizarre. Dominick (TALK) 21:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

No qualified expert has ever asserted that the documents are authentic. Uncontradicted analysis by experts in typerwriter and computer technology demonstrates clearly that they are forgeries. Mary Mapes is not an expert in anything but irresponsible journalism.


 * You don't seriously want to make an absolute claim that "No qualified expert has ever asserted that the documents are authentic", do you? Such an extravagant assertion is literally impossible to prove. The independent panel who examined the documents for CBS refused to take a position on whether the documents were forgeries.   There is no conclusive evidence they are forgeries; there is merely the opinion of various individuals.  --SpinyNorman 15:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I do seriously want to make that claim. No qualified expert has ever asserted that the documents are authentic. If you seriously dispute this, you can easily disprove it by identifying one such expert. But in fact, no competent document examiner would assert that the documents are authentic without examining the originals, which are not available in this case. The independent panel created by CBS (a lawyer and a journalist) were not themselves qualified experts. They did not attempt to reach a definite conclusion regarding the authenticity of the documents. They did, however, cite the conclusion of a highly-qualified forensic document examiner who concluded that the documents are forgeries, and stated that they "found his analysis sound in terms of why he believed the documents were not authentic." There is, in fact, conclusive evidence (to a reasonable certainty) that the documents are forgeries. This is not merely the opinion of various individuals, it is a conclusion based on undisputed analysis by qualified experts.


 * You're not qualified to make that claim. What you really meant to say was "I personally haven't heard of any qualified expert who asserted the documents are authentic."  But you can't say than none ever has.  You aren't in possession of the statements of every qualified expert so you can't possibly speak to what all of them would say on the subject.  You can't make an unprovable statement and then demand that we either accept it or disprove it.  You want to make a claim? It is up to you to prove it.  Until you prove that "no qualified expert has ever asserted that the documents are authentic", the claim isn't a fact, but merely your opinion.  You also don't know what all "competent document examiners" would assert.  Your claim of "conclusive evidence (to a reasonable certainty)" is inherently contradictory.  If there is conclusive evidence, there is no uncertainty.  If there is only "reasonably certainty, then there is no conclusive evidence.  --SpinyNorman 08:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * So let me get this straight. You come out and say "No qualified expert has ever asserted that the documents are authentic." as if it is evidence that the documents are indeed fake and then later go on to say: "But in fact, no competent document examiner would assert that the documents are authentic without examining the originals, which are not available in this case." which means that it is impossible for any expert to make the claim BECAUSE the they don't have the originals.


 * You do realize that by admitting the reason why experts can't authenticate the documents is because they need the originals that this completely invalidates your argument that "Well no expert has said they are authentic, so they are fakes", don't you?

--Rob S.

Rob, I never said that "No expert has said they are authentic, so they are fakes". I did say "No expert has said they are authentic", which is a fact. This refutes the claim that the authenticity of the documents is disputed among experts. I've also noted that "some experts have identified the documents as almost certain forgeries". It's the analysis by these experts which proves the documents are fakes. 71.212.31.95 17:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

An embarassment
I did a little fact-checking last night. Almost every blog-based claim I checked regarding formatting, spacing, kerning, lingo, signature blocks, quotes, etc was easily disproved with the most rudimentary checking. Many of these were lifted verbatim from conservative blogs with absolutely no references. Further, even one claim which the same blogs later retracted (see kerning), remained here undisputed with the lovely weasel words "some argue". This article was a factual embarassment of regurgitated blog spew.

As a side-note, I had been completely convinced these were fakes, because I read this article. I was just correcting the proportionally spaced claim, based on evidence recently provided by Mapes. Then I noticed most of the assertions in the "formatting" section weren't cited, so I checked them out. I'm curious how much better the typographical arguments regarding fonts stand up. At least those are cited to particular "experts".

Clearly, there's a problem with the credibility of these documents, given Burkett's deception. However, it would be nice if Wikipedia and the blogs it parroted had not stooped to the same embarassing level of non-verification as CBS did. That of course includes me, as an early editor of this article. Derex 18:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No sooner do I go and correct a bunch of factual errors, than someone comes along and "corrects" one of my corrections. The problem is that the correction is clearly demonstrably false by even *looking* at the memos.  Is that so hard, to even do a completely rudimentary check of your claim?  I am referring here to the "space between glyph & number" claim of Istra.  I have added links to show this is false.  This sort of nonsense is incredibly frustrating, so I am complaining here. Derex 15:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Proportional Fonts
Derex, No one claims that proportional fonts of a limited kind were not available on typewriters in the 1970s. They certainly were. But proportional fonts of the kind used in the so-called Killian memos were not, according to experts in typewriter and computer typography. The question of proportional fonts, ignoring the specifics cited by these experts, is irrelevant to the question of authenticity. The statement concerning expert opinion which you deleted is necessary to avoid misleading the reader into believing that the authentic "proportionally-spaced" documents referenced are evidence contradicting the assertion that the proportional spacing in the Killian memos shows them to be forgeries. The authentic documents were clearly produced with contemporary typewriter technology, and bear little resemblence to the typography of the Killian memos. Undoubtedly any number of such documents could be found. None of them have any bearing on the assertion by experts that the Killian memos are forgeries. This needs to be made clear to the reader.


 * What is the point of having a paragraph on proportional fonts if proportional fonts are not at issue? Further the reference provided indeed does cite an expert who states that the fonts in the memo were possible, calling arguments to the contrary an "out and out lie". Further in that reference Phinney argues that the fonts were not those of two specific typewriters; Phinney does not state that such fonts were never used. I might add that at one point the article stated that no proportional fonts were available at the time. That taken with the tremendous number of other factually false statements in this article, makes me rather hesitant to believe assertions without exact and specific references. Derex 19:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I further direct you to the "Initial skepticism" section to see the relevance of the widespread use of proportional fonts. Derex 21:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Derex, The authenticity issue with respect to proportional fonts is not whether typewriters with some (limited) kind of "proportional" spacing existed in 1972, but whether a machine existed at that time which had the technical sophistication necessary to produce the specific typography exhibited by the so-called Killian documents. It is the assertion of qualified experts in typewriter and computer typography that no such machine existed. The initial suggestion by (blogger) critics that no typewriters with any kind of proportional fonts existed in 1972 was quickly refuted. But detailed analysis by experts confirmed that the specific typography used in the memos was not available on typewriters in the 1970s. So the general suggestion that the proportional font used in the documents indicated they were forgeries was accurate.

The supposed expert who claimed that the fonts in the memo were possible was Bill Glennon, identified as a "technology consultant" but actually a former IBM typewriter serviceman. He originally posted his thoughts about the documents on a blog. Contacted by the New York Times he told them he had spent 15 minutes with the Killian memos and "believed" they could have been created using the kind of IBM typewriters he worked with. But he later told the Washington Post: "I'm not an expert, and I don't pretend to be." Phinney showed that Glennon was mistaken and that the typewriters he serviced could not have produced the documents. Phinney showed that the documents were not produced by either of the two specific typewriters that have been proposed as possibilities. Moreover, one of these machines (the IBM Selectric Composer) is the most sophisticated typewriter known. It was actually intended (and priced) for use in a low-end typesetting system. It is more reasonable to suppose that Killian had his memos typeset than that he used a mystery machine which was more technologically advanced that the IBM Selectric Composer and yet is unknown to typewriter experts.

The problems with this article are largely due to the fact that it was originally written early in the controversy, reflecting mostly opinions from partisan non-experts, and has not been properly revised based on subsequent typographic analysis by qualified experts. Appropriate revision has been prevented by the obstruction by ideologically-driven editors. You are quite right that there is little point in having a section on proportional fonts which simply discusses whether typewriters with a limited proportional spacing capability existed in 1972 (which is not now disputed), and provides samples of documents which, while exhibiting a limited kind of proportional spacing, do not resemble the Killain memos. This proves nothing with respect to the authenticity of the memos.


 * You are mistaken about the seriousness with which the "proportional" issue was taken. Supposed "experts" with pretty much the same credentials touted by the others said this was the smoking gun.
 * "It was highly out of the ordinary for an organization, even the Air Force, to have proportional-spaced fonts for someone to work with," said Allan Haley, director of words and letters at Agfa Monotype in Wilmington, Mass. "I'm suspect in that I did work for the U.S. Army as late as the late 1980s and early 1990s and the Army was still using [fixed-pitch typeface] Courier."
 * John Collins, vice president and chief technology officer at Bitstream Inc., the parent of MyFonts.com. "The experts also raised questions about the military's typewriter technology three decades ago. Collins said word processors that could produce proportional-sized fonts cost upwards of $20,000 at the time.
 * Fred Showker, who teaches typography and introduction to digital graphics at James Madison University ""I'm not real sure that you would have that kind of sophistication in the office of a flight inspector in the United States government," Showker said.
 * The Washington Post reported that "of more than 100 records made available by the 147th Group and the Texas Air National Guard, none used the proportional spacing techniques characteristic of the CBS documents"


 * So don't tell me this argument wasn't made, and wasn't taken seriously. So, it's important to keep for two reasons. (a) It's an important part of the evolution of the story (b) It demonstrates how badly the "experts" retained by the media can get it &mdash; experts with credentials very similar to those touted by Phinney & Newcomer. Derex 01:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Derex, The Washington Post got it right. No known contemporary documents from the 147th Group or the Texas Air National Guard used the proportional spacing techniques characteristic of the CBS documents. The "proportionally-spaced" documents cited by Mapes bear no resemblance to the CBS documents. The experts you quoted here were generally correct, if "proportional font" as used by them is understood to mean the kind of font used in the CBS documents. And they were speaking informally; none of them claimed to have made the kind of serious expert analysis reported by Phinney, Tytell and Newcomer.

I don't object to including this stuff as a part of the evolution of the story, provided it is not used inproperly to suggest that there is serious doubt about the analysis of the experts in typewriter and computer typography who concluded that the documents are forgeries.


 * These guys said that a proportional font was in and of itself suspect. Now, whether that specific font has been replicated is a different issue.  The article is quite clear that it has not been. But, the criticism of these guys are not accurate in view of the other documents produced. Derex 02:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Derex, I just think you may be overinterpreting what was being said. The authentic documents that have been brought forward are not really proportionally-spaced in the sense that the so-called Killian memos are.


 * I'm not "interpreting" anything. I am taking the words in the articles exactly literally.  If there is any "interpreting" being done, that would be by you. Derex 15:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Independent experts
Derex, you wrote:
 * Independent experts - for now it's a majority, not vast. give me a list & we'll see if it's vast. at least 3 experts cited vouch for them. who is "certain"? cite it.

What experts do you think vouch for them?


 * Those listed in the article and the references, such as the several retained by CBS. Which do you think oppose?  Make a list with ref's and we'll see. Derex 01:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Derex, You yourself have pointed out that the article is full of inaccuracies. I noted the retraction by Bill Glennon above. Have you read the CBS independent panel report concerning the experts supposedly cited by CBS? I do not believe that any qualified experts vouch for the authenticity of the documents.


 * Here is a partial list of experts cited by the media who have not "indicated a strong likelihood that the Killian memos are forgeries constructed with the use of modern word processing software and printer technology, and "aged" using multiple generations of copying to blur the characters." None of them have authenticated the documents either; something that's impossible given the quality of them.  But, that's not the claim about the vast majority.  These experts are known to have commented on the matter, and not known (to me) to have indicated a "strong likelihood" of forgery.  Make a list on the other side, and we can debate what constitutes "vast".
 * Lynn Huber
 * Bill Glennon
 * Richard Katz
 * Marcel Matley
 * David Hailey
 * James Pierce
 * Emily Will
 * Linda James
 * Farrell C. Shiver
 * btw, where is the link to the "panel" report? yes, i read it quite a while back. and no, as the article states, no expert has authenticated them. but, that's not what the line i objected to said, now is it? Derex 02:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * P.S. I must say that I'd been quite convinced of the forgery. I even created the political forgery category specifically because of this article.  Having carefully reviewed all of the documents, all of the arguments, and all of the font issues, all the lingo, the names mentioned, the addresses, all the details, I am now not so sure.  Particularly, as all the supporting evidence from the blogosphere (on which I placed credence) crumbles when you push on it.  I'll say this, they almost surely weren't produced using Times New Roman on a stock MS Word program in a trivial fashion.  That's not to say they weren't done with a word-processor.  But, it wasn't done mindlessly with TNR; of that, I'm now convinced.  And I'm quite shocked to now place some non-negligible probability of these being real.  Of course, my (new-found) personal opinion is irrelevant to a proper article.  But, it has motivated me to take a skeptical look the arguments here. And regardless of opinions one way or the other, we ought to get the details right and exact.  Else, we look like an apologists for one side or the other. Derex 02:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If you want to change it to "have indicated reservations about authenticity", that would be fine with "vast". I think that is an accurate statement for everyone. Derex 02:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Derex, I'm not interested in debating this with you. If you are intellectually honest and competent, and genuinely interested in the accuracy of the article, and willing to seriously examine the typographic issue, then I can trust you to make the appropriate edits. If you're not, then the exercise is pointless. Why would you want to quibble about this particular wording? If it's inaccurate, just rewrite it. But the crucial fact is that experts in typewriter and computer typography have concluded that the so-called Killian documents are almost certain forgeries, and their expert analysis has not contradicted by any similarly competent experts. The article should make this clear.

I'm curious, though, why you say "they almost surely weren't produced using Times New Roman on a stock MS Word program in a trivial fashion".

You can find the CBS panel report here:


 * Umm, I did rewrite it. You are the one who wanted to debate.  You asked me a question.  I answered it.  So, lose the attitude, bub.  You claim that experts have concluded these are almost certain forgeries.  Yes, two do, and they are listed in the article.  Why would you want to make an unsupported claim beyond that.  If you are willing to support your edits with references, then I can trust you to make appropriate edits.  Wikipedia does not work on the principle of running around tossing in your opinions or beliefs as fact.  That's how the article got to be such a mess in the first place. Derex 03:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

What unsupported claim do you think I want to make? The only fact I want clearly communicated is that experts in typewriter and computer typography have concluded that the so-called Killian documents are almost certainly forgeries, and their expert analysis has not been contradicted by any similarly competent experts. I'm not really so much concerned about the Wikipedia process, just the accuracy of the result.


 * Quite obvously, the claim of the sentence in which I changed a single word: "vast". That word is not supported, nor have you presented any evidence whatsoever in support of it. In contrast, I have presented evidence against it.  This is quite a long discussion about a single word modifier, don't you rhink? Derex 15:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Simplified wording re font technology
Derex, Please don't take offense. But to be honest, I am doubtful that it will be possible to have a productive discussion with you about this. (As you may guess, I suspect lycanthropy.) I can try to explain why I believe your simplified wording significantly alters the intended meaning. I will do so if you're seriously interested in understanding the issue. But there's no point in my doing so if you just want to debate. That will only serve to frustrate the both of us.


 * Umm, you could present factual references. That way, there won't be anything to debate.  Why would I take offense about your opinion?  My whole point is that: opinions are often wrong, which is why Wikipedia requires references.  To have a productive discussion, you could start providing some for your claims. Derex 15:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Introduction
I made some revisions. As noted in my edit summary, the Panel specifically did not take up the question of authenticity. Thus saying the Panel did not conclude they were forgeries is potentially misleading. Also, the intro stated something like "many experts consider them forgeriers or at least improperly authenticated." I don't think any experts actually consider the documents properly authenticated, and the absence of "originals" is one major reason. Significantly, zero of the four document examiners used by CBS could not authenticate the documents, and Matley was the only one who opined that the signature appeared authentic.

For a long time I have been of the opinion that the views of Knox and the Killian family, and possibly the authentic Killian memo praising Bush, ought not to be in the intro, but rather in a later subsection that addresses circumstantial evidence and views, but before making a change like that we should discuss. Last time it came up this proved to be a controversial view... Kaisershatner 18:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Now that the bot has fixed up the references, I made some changes/additions to the intro. I still think the final few paras should be moved out of the intro into something like a "opinions about the documents" section.  I will now invite direct comment from User:Derex and User:JamesMLane with a view toward maintaining NPOV and an honest and open revision process.  Kaisershatner 14:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I just started reading through this and there seems to be a lot of people doing original research and blogging on this article. Somebody's added a lot of sentences where he or she is rebutting all the evidence of the forgeries based on his/her own research. Examples are "For an example of multiple centered lines produced using a proportionally spaced typewriter font, see the third page of the contemporary annual history of Bush's Alabama guard unit." and "However, for an example of curved apostrophes on documents produced by Bush's unit, see the 1973 "historical record"." These all go to copies of the documents, but they're not credible examinations by experts. They're the arguments made by the person who added these sentences. I read the Wikipedia standards for articles and it looks as if this isn't okay and that the articles should only state what outside sources have said about the memo authenticity or forgery arguments. Its called Original Research. So somebody please remove these problems. thanks - Antimetro


 * So you think this article should report as fact claims made on a blog that are not fact? That would make a lovely encyclopedia.  I should go start a blog. Derex 17:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * btw, the standard for inclusion is citeability. everything i added, i cited carefully.  no original research means i can't go do a chemistry experiment and report the results here without first having them published elsewhere.  it doesn't mean we can't look at original source material, so long as that material is appropriately referenced here.  and you can't do a much better job of citing than an internet link to the original documents themselves.  taking no original research to the absurd conclusion you suggest would mean i couldn't include what the blog said either, because i went and looked up the blog contents myself. Derex 20:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

npov tags
someone has tagged this article with "totally disputed" and with multiple section npov's. i see no notice or discussion of this at all here in talk. this is unacceptable, as without clearly stated reasons there can be no discussion as to the alleged problems. the only thing coming close here that i see is the "original research" comment above, which is quite simply mistaken.

so, whoever tagged it (or anyone else), what is the specific complaint leading to each of those tags? that way we can resolve the issues. otherwise, the tags need to come off. Derex 14:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I think the NPOV tags are completely wrong (and I say that as someone who is 99% sure the documents are forged, so I am arguing against my private POV, if that helps.) I think they should be removed, for the following reasons:  (1) According to the commentary,  Antimetro's objection isn't that  Derex's contributions are POV, it's that they're OR, so a POV tag is incorrect on its face; (2) they are not POV; (3) they're not even  Original Research, they're just primary source claims, and as the OR policy states: "In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources" -- this is surely enough to justify Derex's additions, particularly given that the article isn't based "entirely on primary sources"; and (4) Derex is right that a talk explanation would have been appropriate.


 * If someone has a problem with Derex's references to the other file documents, I think the appropriate response is either (1) to check the primary sources and argue that he's wrong, if you think there aren't curved apostrophes or whatever; or (2) explain why some people still think the documents are forged.


 * My actual POV on the issue is this - it's true that bloggers who said that any individual characteristic of the Killian documents was impossible to have been created in 1970 were overstating the case. (I make a possible exception for the MS Word mapping, which I think is so fantastically improbable as to approach impossibility, but I recognize that some people disagree.)  However, blogging is an iterative process, and the experts that the bloggers found, like Dr. Newcomer and the typewriter magazine guy, made much more responsible claims, and the responsible bloggers adjusted their own claims as they learned more.  Ultimately, the primary issue is that, viewed together, each of the distinguishing characteristics was sufficiently rare in 1970 that the likelihood of all of them occurring together is almost (but not quite zero - my ballpark guess is that the documents are somewhere between 99.5% and 99.99% likely to be forgeries when you add in their dodgy sourcing).  Taken together, the inconsistencies should have raised a red flag for CBS much earlier, particularly since CBS (but no one else) knew that the documents did not actually have a verifiable source.  It was also a reasonable basis for the bloggers and other media sources to demand more information.  TheronJ 15:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * a note on the history of this article. way back when CBS admitted it couldn't authenticate, i suggested removing the section with blogger 'evidence' as it had become tangential to what i thought was the real issue &mdash; lack of authentication.  there was a rather vigorous response that all those details had to be kept to document the 'blogger revolution'. in a sense, i still don't think any of that really belongs to the article per se. who cares, they're simply not positively authenticated.  but, if we are going to include the 'blogger evidence' (as consensus dictated), then we ought to do it fairly, which is what i've tried to do.


 * my updated personal view is there's a reasonable chance the originals were authentic. but again who really cares, because the substantive charges aren't even really disputed anymore. they were unflattering, but hardly shocking stuff, and the important charges (e.g. grounding) have since been backed up from official documents. bottom line, there are two parts to this story (a) CBS screwed up bad (b) bloggers had a big role. almost all of my sourced edits went to (b). they in no way authenticate the documents; they show bloggers got it right for mostly the wrong reasons.


 * btw, i think the ms word mapping completely falls apart if you look carefully at a non-miniaturized version of the blinking gif; but that's beside the point as it's a personal judgement. Derex 16:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Problem with endnotes
I tried to verify Derex's statements to get rid of the accuracy tags, but something's wrong with the endnotes - none of the citations match up with the number in the text. Can anyone figure out what the problem is?


 * not sure, i haven't worked with endnotes much. it looks to me like maybe kaiserhatner added those, though the edit history is long now.  at any rate, i didn't use endnotes myself, so you can look at this version to verify accuracy.  of course, the endnote thing needs to be straightened out as well.
 * thanks for checking these. i believe all the sources are here, but if anything is not obvious please drop a note on my __talk page__.  i did verify everything i added, so i can probably quickly clear up any questions by, for example, pointing you to any specific page numbers on originals documents. thanks. Derex 14:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I didn't add the endnotes per se. I asked User:SEWilco to run his bot that converts inline citations to footnote style citations, and cleaned up some of the dead links and sources that didn't actually support the points to which they were attached.  Although the result is a cleaner format, the problem is that when text is moved around, the footnotes don't move in concert and the numerical order gets screwed up.  In retrospect, it may have been a mistake to use this formatting in an article with this kind of textual volatility.  Kaisershatner 14:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * it looks to me like the endnote links are fine, but the numbering at bottom is wrong. the standard is not to number the footnotes at the bottom, for exactly this reason.  you're supposed to use the hyperlinks to move back and forth between text & notes.  when you click on a ref, the link appears as the top line on your browser (at least in IE).  or, is there a deeper problem i'm missing something here? someone ought to set up the templates so that the ref is actually highlighted. Derex 15:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Title of article
Why isn't this article at "Rathergate"? That term for the affair is much more common than anything else (google test, for example). Titling it "Killian Documents" when we're not even sure they were written by him is kinda weird too.

Daniel Quinlan 10:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This article was originally titled "Killian Documents" because various left-wing partisan wikipedians started this page and were pushing hard because they were so sure they finally "had" Bush - read the talk page and revert war history and you'll see. 67.15.76.232 07:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, actually you'll see that Ed Poor named it this (at least at one point). Ed's not exactly a lefty, don't you know. Derex 07:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the article location was based on a google search; check the archived talk. Whether or not they were actually written by Killian, they were certainly known as the "Killian documents," and there was vehement objection from users who felt that "Rathergate" was a right-wing POV definition of this event.  (Not my view but I am merely reporting the facts of the dispute).  As part of this argument, some users argued that calling this "Rathergate" focused the article on CBS' grossly negligent/incompetent/?malicious journalism, when they thought the "real" story was Bush being AWOL.  In the end, this title was chosen as acceptable to both camps.  HTH.  :)  My personal view has always been that the astonishing thing about this story is how Rather and CBS could make totally false claims, "we have consulted a document examiner who believes the documents are authentic," and "we have reason to believe they come from Killian's personal files," and then defend them for so long before admitting they made that stuff up.  But other people think the possibility that the docs are "real" is the main story, and at the time, my view was in the minority, and maybe still is.  Kaisershatner 14:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * because it's right-wing pov, and frankly the suffix "-gate" is like fingers on a chalkboard. we don't have an article named zippergate, plamegate, katrinagate, or rovegate either. nor, more generally, do we have the 'war of northern aggression' or the 'great patriotic war' or (hopefully) any other such pov article names regardless of how many people use (or used) them.  Glorious Revolution appears to be an exception, which really ought to be fixed.
 * but back to *shudder* "gate" -- a plea to all scandal-mongers left or right ... for the love of god, speak english & quit trying to be cute. Derex 15:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Guettarda 16:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Derex, possibly I was unclear. I think Killian docs is the right title, and I would agree that entitling this "Rathergate" is right-wing POV, AND I agree about the "gating" of scandals (LOL I prefer Killianquiddick anyway).  However, there's nothing right-wing about my POV that the stupefying incompetence (and possible malice) behind CBS using these documents and asserting on the air that they were real is a bigger story than the rather anemic "new evidence" potentially represented by the documents, if they were/are real.  There's my POV, but it's not in this case right-wing.  Is it illiberal of me to want truth and accuracy in reporting?  :)  Kaisershatner 16:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * of course not; i have no problem at all with your response above. my response wasn't actually to you K; it should have been less indented. it was a generic response to the suggested title based on googling popularity. peace. Derex 16:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A moment of peace on this talk page...definitely one of the seven signs of the apocalypse. Thanks!  Kaisershatner 16:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't suggesting really that "Rathergate" was a great title (although it is definitely a clearer one), but the story of the article and the "scandal" or whatever you want to call it around CBS and Dan Rather's support for the story. There is already some coverage in other articles about the AWOL stuff. Perhaps "Killian Document Story" would be a better name for the article. Daniel Quinlan 20:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * i see your point, that the article should be about CBS, but the title makes it sound like the story is the authenticity of the documents. at present, the article is about both, so the current title works.  were the article reworked (as i suggest below), i wouldn't be opposed to adding "scandal" or "affair" at the end of the title.  but, i'm not sure that it really matters so much.  the main thing is to have a usefully descriptive, but neutral, title and let the article speak for itself.


 * i do agree that the article is schizophrenic. i'd really rather have it just be about CBS, with a one-paragraph statement that no competent examiner has authenticated the documents and several have identified suspicious aspects.  i doubt that's going to fly though, because there's demand for a lengthy discussion of evidence pro and con. i don't feel that an encylopedia article is the appropriate place for that.  and, i'd be up for stripping it all out and making the story CBS if there's a consensus for that. (despite having spent a full day on 'evidence' last month). i would, however, be opposed to selective culling of the lengthy evidence discussion, rather than a brief summary.  Derex 22:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think spinoffs would be a much better idea than just deleting it. IMHO, an encylopedia article is the perfect place for evidence pro and con - when an underlying fact is in dispute, you list the verifiable evidence and arguments and let the reader decide.  (Whoops, forgot to sign -- TheronJ 14:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC))


 * well, you could have one 'scandal' article with a _brief_ unauthenticated statement as i suggested above and a separate article on the documents themselves and the debate over them. i think we would need careful agreement to separate out the parts though. the problem is that once you start getting into why bloggers got worked up, then it naturally leads to pressure for a lengthier discussion on neutrality grounds.  of course, one does need to at least indicate that bloggers were the fuse behind the explosion.  but one has to be careful then not to imply that the reasons were valid ... and most of the early ones actually weren't.  seems like a lot of work. Derex 22:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * OMG, this is a sign of the apocalypse. I may have to plow through the archives but about a year ago I strongly advocated a major retooling of this (107k) article, basically along the above lines.  My logic was that the article should be more focused on provenance, presentation of, and reaction to the Killian documents.  I proposed moving the bulk of the authentication sections into a subarticle (keeping medium-length summaries in the main line).  My recollection is that the major objections came from users who thought that (1) framing this article around CBS' conduct "missed the point" about Bush being AWOL or (2) downplayed the possibility that the docs were genuine, but I'm not really qualified to represent their views, I just remember there was opposition.  FWIW I am strongly in favor of a trimmed Killian docs article along the lines Derex has proposed above.  Kaisershatner 14:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * K, that didn't take long. Here's my old sandbox version.  Please keep in mind that the main sections have undergone considerable improvement since May when I cut this together, so this example  is not meant to imply we should return to the old text.  It gives an overview of what a shorter article might be like.  I'll try to piece together a newer version and maybe we can talk about it.  Kaisershatner 14:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)  See also: User:Kaisershatner/sandbox2 and feel free to cut that up as you see fit.  Kaisershatner 14:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC).  And finally, here's the previous discussion of this issue:  Talk:Killian_memos/Archive_4  Kaisershatner 14:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't oppose a split along these lines, but:
 * "Scandal" shouldn't be in the article name (unless the article about Bush's failure to fulfill his legal obligations is retitled "George W. Bush military service scandal"). We usually use "controversy" as the neutral term in such cases.
 * The article about authenticity issues can be simply "Killian documents authenticity issues"; to say "Killian documents typographical and authenticity issues" seems redundant.
 * We might have a fairly brief article at "Killian documents", giving the overall perspective and linking to both "Killian documents controversy" (with the material about CBS, etc.) and "Killian documents authenticity issues". I suggest this because some people typing in "Killian documents" or following an existing link would be looking for the information about typefaces, and others would want to read about the CBS panel.
 * JamesMLane t c 17:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * agree, and i particularly like the brief 'master article' idea. someone wanting a basic idea of the story shouldn't have to wade through this much stuff. plus, it sets the two sub-parts in a parallel structure, which seem sort of neutral. Derex 19:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I would advocate two articles, the first essentially sections 1-3 and the second "Killian documents authenticity" including 4-5, but basically any partition of this article would dramatically improve it. A three-way break per user JML, might include roughly the first paragraph of the current version, with edits (ie changing the title and focus to identify what the documents actually are), then breaking out the other intro paragraphs and sections 1-3 into the next article, and 4-5 remaining as the third.  Kaisershatner 20:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)  NB we could then address the referencing issues mentioned below. Kaisershatner 20:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If the impetus for the split is mostly because the article is too large, as seems to be the case reading the above, an effort should be undertaken to reduce the size of the article. The most obvious recent redundant increase in size resulted from the implementation of the {ref} template and the Notes subsection, that should be undone. There are likely other areas where size can be reduced. Conceptually, the controversy over the documents is the issue, though, given that there are two controversies a split could work if the sub article is specific to Killian documents authenticity controversy and this article would contain everything else (60 minutes, media controversy, politics) and it could perhaps then be renamed to something like Killian documents controversy or Killian documents 60 Minutes controversy (though maybe not). Just Killian documents could be a small disambig/synopsis page + the actual text/image of the documents. Though, the document authenticity controversy only started in response to and after the 60 Minutes segment aired, so the controversies are highly related and intertwined, the timeline would be lost in in any split. And in many historic cases within Wikipedia splitting an article has decreased abstract understanding of the subject, so I am infinitely wary. zen master T 20:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I took a stab at it. Please, please, PLEASE, assume good faith.  Kaisershatner 21:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No response to my above comments? When you say "assume good faith" do you mean "give the benefit of the doubt"? The timeline of events is now even more lost after the split, the authenticity controversy, or "issues" as you've called it, started in direct response to the 60 Minutes segment controversy. It seems as if the authenticity controversy was damage control to downplay or obviate bush's vietnam era military service controversy. In my interpretation some segment of the media and their hand picked documentation experts weren't utilizing the scientific method to examine the authenticity of the documents, they were instead trying to portray conclusiveness a certain way. Regardless, this article and the new related article you created Killian documents authenticity issues should be more closely intertwined (if not the split undone). Isn't the reason the 60 Minutes segment is controversial is because the authenticity of the documents is disputed? This article is titled Killian documents but since it no longer covers the documents directly it should probably should be renamed to 60 Minutes Killian documents controversy or similar. What do you think? zen master T 20:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Zen-master, I think the meaning of "assume good faith" should be clear from the article it links to, but just to be extra clear, I mean "assume that I have no ulterior motive and that my changes are intended to clarify and improve the article." With respect to your above comments, (1) I took the title of the "authenticity" article from the comment made by User:JamesMLane.  Other titles might also work.  (2) I strongly disagree with your view that "The timeline of events is now even more lost after the split," as the my moving of the two sections into the subarticle in no way altered the timeline of the article; it merely moved the detailed authenticity analysis sections into the sub.  (3) your concern that "the authenticity controversy...started in direct response to the 60 Minutes segment controversy" is directly answered in the current article, which, like the previous united version, includes sections on the origin of the authenticity controversy, prominent organizations/individuals associated with the conflict over authenticity, the views of CBS, Rather, document examiners, etc., all regarding authenticity.  It even includes the sections speculating about the meaning and possible interpretations of the authenticity issues, as well as the entire timeline of when these issues were raised and when they received a response. (4) With respect to our point-of-view differences about the meaning of the authenticity controversy (you write, "It seems as if the authenticity controversy was damage control..." etc.), I would reply that my changes removing the point-by-point authenticity challenges into the subarticle do not take a POV on the meaning or origin of these issues (although I imagine one could argue that it weakens the "pro-forgery" school of thought, which I happen to favor).  For the same reason, I would prefer not to debate with you in reply to "In my interpretation some segment of the media and their hand picked documentation experts weren't utilizing the scientific method..." because neither your view nor mine is the point here - presenting the objective facts about the Killian documents ought to be our common goal.  Finally, to answer your question "Isn't the reason the 60 Minutes segment is controversial is because the authenticity of the documents is disputed?" I suppose views will differ on this.  My POV, and one that appears to me is shared at least in part by editors such as User:Derex and User:JamesMLane, whose political tendencies are somewhat to the left of my own, is that the controversy partially stems from CBS' conduct and false claims they had authenticated documents that they in fact hadn't, but either way I'll let those users represent their own views, and reiterate that our POVs aren't the main issue here.  I stand by this change and I would invite other comments on whether removing the detailed authenticity "one's versus ells" etc. sections in some way alters the narrative or subject of this article, as Zen master contends.  Thanks,  Kaisershatner 14:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Assume good faith" often discourages an investigation or a realization of facts. I need not assume anything but I do give you the benefit of the doubt. As far as the split goes please forgive me for not being clear, I mentioned timeline because at just that moment I realized the degree of importance of the fact that the Killian documents authenticity issues or controversy began and persisted in direct response to the 60 Minutes segment. It is true you left the presentation of the timeline as is, I meant the timeline was previously only inferable and now is much harder to infer (basically it was a criticism of the previous version of the article made somewhat worse by the split). Some explicit mention of the timeline and responsive nature of the authenticity controversy should be put in the intro(s) perhaps. And given the multiple intertwined controversies the intro(s) should have a higher level overview feel to them perhaps, the whole thing seems a bit all over the place and indiscernible to me. My other tangential comments above (4) was my randomly interspersed POV and wasn't a criticism of the split. To continue my POV: in my interpretation the document examiners were acting quickly to portray the claims and evidence in the 60 minutes segment as conclusively flawed to help Bush, haste is noteworthy and indicative of all sides in a controversy. In my interpretation these examiners weren't just examining the documents using the scientific method and reporting their findings they were attempting to lessen the Bush military service controversy (perhaps legitimately if CBS or others fabricated the documents). I currently believe CBS acted improperly/hastily but the criticisms of Bush's service record, as discussed in the Killian documents, are likely valid but the document examiners were hand picked in an attempt to quickly portray the criticisms of Bush as discredited.


 * Side question: are document examiners still actively investigating the authenticity of the documents? It seems to me claims such as typography should be conclusively provable one way or another? Isn't the "Independent experts" subsection a part of the authentication issue, should that be split too? This article is also currently missing a citation for the statement: "The 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 constructed with the use of modern word processing software and printer technology". zen master T 15:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No one is still examining it, as far as is publicly known. And here's where CBS really screwed up.  No professional document examiner is ever going to authenticate anything that's been photocopied and faxed.  It doesn't matter whether they're real or not, you just can't tell.


 * On the other hand, the case that they can't be authentic can't be proven either; so that's completely overstated. I don't think "the majority of" sentence holds up as written either, not when you actually start counting them up.  Rather, all of them won't authenticate; some of them note unusual features; and two of them state they are fake.  In fact, I don't even think the two are actually professional document examiners, but rather folks who have some relevant experience. Derex 22:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Who specifically are the two you're talking about? What do you actually know about their qualifications? 71.212.31.95 00:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, both sides of the split need some work to make them viable. To start, I would change the title of the main article to "Rathergate" or "Killian documents scandal" or something - it's not about the Killian documents any more, it's about CBS and the Bloggers' responses to those documents. TheronJ 14:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not thrilled with either of those titles, see above discussion. I need to have a look at K's work before commenting further. Derex 22:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Notes section citation middle layer?
I think most if not all citations should use the standard URL bracket method, citations should directly link to the source of the info and not go to another subsection within the article when not necessary. Why did someone go to the trouble of creating the Notes section and splatter the {ref} template all over the place? zen master T 22:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

A Note
I'd just like to leave a note here thanking all those who have contributed to this page. This has become a very thorough, balanced, and cool headed account of the situation. Well done. Arkon 05:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"Primary Source" Edit War
Maybe we should have some talk page discussion before we go through too many more reversions on the "primary source" issue.

FWIW, I think the documents qualify as primary sources. (See also No Original Research for a discussion of primary vs. secondary sources.) Calling them "primary sources" doesn't mean that they're not a copy of another document, it just means that the documents themselves are historically relevant, rather than a commentary on historically relevant items or events. In other words, a link to scans of the Hitler diaries published in Stern or of the handwritten diaries presented to Ster would each qualify as a primary source, because those are the documents that the article is about. The fact that the handwritten diaries were fake, or that the Stern article was a typeset and edited copy of those diaries, doesn't change the fact that the documents themselves are historically significant to the topic, and therefore "primary." Commentary about the diaries, OTOH, would be "secondary." TheronJ 14:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you've got it absolutely right; as I said in an edit summary, for George W. Bush military service controversy they are not primary sources, but for this, an article about the documents, they are. I have some reservations about actually labelling sources as "primary" and "secondary"; can we put them under a header that non-awkwardly marks them as the Killian documents themselves? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps in a strictly analytical sense, a nuanced reading of a literal definition supports AF's view. However, I have read the above, the prior edits and the edit summaries and I agree that the anons have a point. Using the term "Primary Source" here, for this, has a propensity to mislead. A title of .pdf copies of CBS released Killian Documents would suffice.

For an example context where there could be a problematic use of "primary source" in discussing documents, see Zimmermann Telegram. The true primary source there was the intercepted, coded communications. The Mexico retrieved information was only ostensibly the primary source.

Along these lines of thinking, in the Killian instance, since no true primary source has ever been corroborated, I object to that term. There are many other turns of phrase we can use without raising a needless ruckus. Merecat 05:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Odd sentence
 Several are "certain" that the documents are fraudulent.

I don't understand what value this adds to the article, and I'm not sure what "certain" is in quotes. It just strikes me as an odd remark altogther, and I'm highly inclined to just remove it. Anyone want to champion it? M00 09:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

the new in-line links system stinks
The best use of a link to an external source is so the reader can quickly open that link to verify the asserted fact. With this new system of pointing in-line links to footnotes, the reader gets confused. Will someone please explain why we are doing it this way? 70.85.195.227 20:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel your pain. Arkon 22:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the new system sucks and I wouldn't care if someone put it back. Also, Arkon noted that there are a lot of unused footnote that belonged to the authentication question (now forked into a new article).  He was going to prune them but hasn't yet.  I certainly can do it as well. Thatcher131 22:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I also edited the Independent experts section to add the info I placed in Killian documents authenticity issues. However I think the whole section could be deleted since it is in the other article.  Not just Hailey but also the "The majority of..." part.  Does it really need to be in both places? Thatcher131 22:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed all the references back to inline refs using the method. This keeps the text of the reference right in the article where it belongs, so its easier to keep maintained, but it also creates automatically numbered footnotes, which is useful when the ref itself is not a url. Thatcher131 12:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations
I just wanted to say congratulations to all the editors who have worked on this article. It seems a fair and accurate account of the controversy, and I hope you all awarded each other barnstars for patience and civility. I personally think it was a good idea to split the analysis into a new article, and although I think Rathergate and Memogate should redirect here, the present title is the best (mostly because -gate is a trendy and overused neologism). Thatcher131 23:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)