Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Callmebc (talk | contribs) at 17:15, 25 September 2007 (→Proof?: Removed unsuitable section as per WP:NPA WP:TPG and WP:CIV (for starters)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1 up to September 22, 2004 Archive 2 through end of 2004 (includes article name vote) Archive 3 up to April 15, 2005 Archive 4 up to December 2005 Archive 5 up to March 2006 Archive 6 up to September 2006 Archive 7 up to April 2007 (has the Edit History of this discussion page up until 11 April 2007)

Archive 7, Edit History

I apologize for this stuff-up. I created Talk:Killian documents/Archive 7 by moving the page (which takes the edit history along), whereas previous archives were done by cut-and-paste (which leaves the edit history behind). The result is that the edit history of this discussion page prior to 11-Apr-2007 is now attached to Archive 7. Again, my apologies. CWC 11:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've WP:ARCHIVEd this page (because it was getting way too long), but copied the sections that seem to have on-going discussion here. If you wish to reopen one of the discussions I didn't copy, you can in decreasing order of preference

1. Link to it using wikisyntax like
       ]
2. Copy and paste the relevant phrases
3. Copy and paste the whole section

Remember: this page is for discussing improvements to the Killian documents article, not for general discussion. Cheers, CWC 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Esther Kartiganer

(Copied from Talk:Killian documents/Archive 7 by CWC 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

Missing from the Aftermath section is the "reassignment" of Sr Producer Esther Kartiganer, who sued CBS as a result. No time to add this myself...but the story element is readily Googled. Andyvphil 14:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Initial LACK of skepticism in MSM

(Copied from Talk:Killian documents/Archive 7 by Andyvphil 12:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

The section "Initial Skepticism" doesn't explicitly cover the initial lack of skepticism in MSM. See the AP Story with it's repetition of the misidentificaltion of Stoudt as heading TANG. And see (search for "Washington Post"). The significance of this story is that that was overcome, so the initial gullibility/resistance maybe needs to be covered better? Andyvphil 13:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good point. You're a good editor, Andyvphil — do you want to have a go at it? Cheers, CWC 13:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks muchly. So much need for improvement, so little time. Andyvphil 01:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack and WP:BLP warning

(Copied from Talk:Killian documents/Archive 7 by CWC 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

I'm going to make a general warning on this page about avoiding personal attacks (such as and ). Everyone in this discussion should also realize that Misplaced Pages's WP:BLP policy does indeed apply to article talk pages, as some people on this page have already stated. Anyone repeatedly violating these policies could be blocked. Best,--Alabamaboy 17:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible Conflicts of Interest By Certain Editors and Contributers

(Copied from Talk:Killian documents/Archive 7 by CWC 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

It appears now that some of the people who have been attacking me in one way or the other perhaps have been doing so for reasons beyond what was represented: they are apparently supporters, or perhaps even members, of the Little Green Footballs blog site. Since LGF via Charles Johnson was one of the main instigators of the forgery charges, and since some of my cites undercut both Johnson's CYA memo experiment and his credibility, that would create a clear conflict of interest for this Wiki topic and a violation of WP:COI:

A Misplaced Pages conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Misplaced Pages, to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of individual editors. These include editing for the sake of promoting oneself, other individuals, causes, organizations, companies, or products, as well as suppressing negative information, and criticizing competitors.

You know who you are -- please recuse yourself from any further editing here unless you intend to follow the official Misplaced Pages policy for this situation:

If you feel the need to edit Misplaced Pages articles despite a real or perceived conflict of interest, we strongly encourage you to submit content for review on the article's talk page or file a request for Comment, and let trusted community members judge whether the material belongs in Misplaced Pages.

FYI. Callmebc 22:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been a registered commenter at LGF for years, and have not yet managed to accuse anyone here of intentional deception. Your attempt to sell your private page here, as well as attempting to surpress the negative information about the Killian documents, might be a better example of a CoI. htom 23:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, it was nice of you to come forward like that. Good for you. But, unfortunately, you do have a really major conflict of interest here, so.....sayonara. Maybe you can honestly contribute to a more suitable Misplaced Pages article. Tell Charles that, well, research and logic does what research and logic does -- it's nothing personal. Callmebc 23:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc: Again, please avoid attacking other editors. Accusing people of conflicts of interest without proof violates Misplaced Pages's guideline of assuming good faith. This is the cornerstone on which Misplaced Pages is built. Best, --Alabamaboy 00:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, "Alabamaboy," but you have no business being here, either. I'm a little embarrassed that it took me so long to figure out the pattern of attacks here. I'm putting back the full R.I.P. Rathergate post tomorrow night, as well as an obviously very necessary "Clean Up" tag on the main page. If you delete it again without a legitimate, specific reason, well -- you can't say I haven't given everyone more than enough chances to do the right thing (so to speak).... Callmebc 00:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Play nice

No user has the right to run off another user through intimidation or personal attacks. If you think another editor has a conflict of interest problem, please go to WP:COI/N and post a notice. In any case, you must be civil to other editors. That is non-negotiable. Jehochman (/_Contrib) 05:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sysop steps in

I have blocked Callmebc from editing for 72 hours for various policy violations. To other editors, my general recommendation about how to handle WP:COI is to declare affiliations in your own user space and exercise personal restraint at relevant articles. The safest route where COI is obvious (such as an article about one's place of employment) is to post material and citations to the talk page and let uninvolved Wikipedians evaluate it for inclusion in the article. Regards, Durova 07:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Clean Up" banner for main page until improvements made?

(Copied from Talk:Killian documents/Archive 7 by CWC 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

Lost in all the recent acrimony on this discussion page is the whole issue of what to do about the main page for the "Killian documents" -- if nothing else, I've demonstrated that there is a vast amount of information highly pertinent to both the memos and the forgery charges that are not referenced in any way. According to the Misplaced Pages's own "Encylopedia" article:

Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain. Works vary in the breadth of material and the depth of discussion, depending on the target audience.

And by any defintion of "important accumulated knowledge," the main page is severely lacking. In particular:

1) The forgery charges originated with and centered on unsupported claims regarding the capabilities of 70's and even 80's office technology, but the main page has no references whatsoever indicating what 70's era office technology was really like, despite such information being readily available.

2) The contents issue, aka the "Fake but accurate" charge is also never addressed, despite the DoD maintaining a database of all of Bush's released military records. Actually, it appears that the DoD site is not even mentioned -- a very serious omission.

3) Many of the forgery charges center on format issues, often comparing the memos format to that of official records. However, Official USAF writing guides are available that clearly define the purpose of those memos and their recommended format, but again the Misplaced Pages main page has no reference to these either.

4) The main page is often wrong, lacking or extremely misleading in important details. Examples: both CBS and USA Today got 6 memos from Burkett -- CBS chose only to use 4 of them; Peter Tytell is a typewriter expert whose family up until 2001 owned a typewriter shop and not a "document expert" per se; there is an invalid passage that goes It was reported that the new Killian memos were inconsistent with his endorsement of Lt Bush's May 1971 performance review, a year prior to the date on the disputed documents. Killian endorsed the rating officer's evaluation of Bush, which in part described him as "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot" -- this is highly misleading since the relevant performance review (aka a "Rating Report") that covers the time period of the memos is the 1972-1973 "Not Observed" rating report; Charles Johnson's animated overlay "experiment" of the "CYA" is noticeably featured but there is no reference to his inability to duplicate that with any of the other memos or to a similar graphic illustrating what happens when you do attempt that with one of the longer memos; and there is no link to a much more comprehensive interview of Marian by the Drudge Report where she essentially confirms that Staudt was indeed pressuring Killian, as well as no clarity on Knox's actual status -- was she indeed just a "pool clerk/typist" as has been alleged by Killian's son Gary? -- that would be very important in relation to what sort of memos and documents she would be privvy to.

Given all these inadaquacies of the main page in being able to "convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain," it would seem very wise and prudent at this time to place a "WP:CU" "Cleanup" banner at the top of the main page until many if not most of these issues are addressed. Agree or disagree? And please state specifically your justification for either. Callmebc

I've added a section head for you. While the page needs work, I think that your conspiracy theory and lack of understanding of the issue doesn't need a place thereon. htom 17:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a nonresponsive answer in regards to any of the points I made. I clearly asked "please state specifically your justification for either." Your comment "conspiracy theory and lack of understanding" is clearly an insult without merit. And there was no need to create another section for this discussion. If you have anything civil, relevant, and valid to add, please do so. If you wish to make insults instead, your behavior will be duly noted. Callmebc 17:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Section headings are important divisions of long pages, bringing topics to the attention of users and editors. I thought it was more appropriate to put the heading just before the question, because I didn't want to rearrange your text. I think you should move the last paragraph to be the first of the section, changing the reference from "given these" to "given the following". I don't agree with accepting them as "given", but that's another discussion. As far as your note taking, /shrug/ sharpen your crayon. htom 18:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with accepting them as "given", but that's another discussion.?!

Do you have any concept of what actually constitutes a "discussion"? One person raises a point and then the other person agrees or disagrees, and if disagreeing, addresses the point raised with some sort of counterpoint based on logic or evidence. If that second person disagrees, but only resorts to name calling, then by the generally accepted rules of debate, that person loses by forfeit. Your "shrug/ sharpen your crayon" comment therefore means you lost. That means I get to put "htom" down in "favor" of adding a "clean-up" banner. I'm leaning towards the "This may need a complete rewrite." version -- any thoughts regarding that? Callmebc 18:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

1. clean up tag. No.
2. your theories. No.
3. three: complete rewrite: No.

htom 19:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm....correct me if I'm wrong, but appears you still haven't actually stated specifically any justifications for you not agreeing with my points. It's really hard to have a "discussion" when the other person simply states and restates general opinions that don't deal in any way with the issues raised. I'll give you yet one last opportunity to respond in a meaningful way: given all the inadaquacies of the main page I laid out earlier (and feel totally free to point out if and where I'm incorrect on any particular point), would it not be very wise and prudent at this time to place a "WP:CU" "Cleanup" banner at the top of the main page until many if not most of these issues are addressed? And please state specifically your justification for either agreeing or disagreeing. If you state yet more generalized comments and opinions in response, then I would have more than enough justification to claim that you had every opportunity to object and discuss adding the "Clean Up" tag, but that you kept refusing to offer up any specific reasons that in any way negate my points for adding the tag. Callmebc 22:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

PS -- how's that new login procedure for searches working out for you guys? Callmebc 23:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Haven't tried it. Didn't use it before, so I don't have any standard to compare it to. htom 23:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Updates and Edits

I see that Andyvphil is the first one back at editing. I'm still not quite ready to re-contribute yet, but I thought to stick in this new subsection for people to note or suggest updates. -BC aka Callmebc 15:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm baaaack.... Actually, I'm not back, though this page is still on my watchlist. Which is why I reverted Qworty's deletion of Category:Political Forgery. To which callmebc demurs. But, to repeat, this would be a Political Forgery article even if the memos were in some sense authentic... Andyvphil 00:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm back for real. That was a strange, goofy interlude, but things worked out for the best, I think.... Whatever. My original intention had been only to update my posts from the fall, get into a few debates/arguments and then leave. I wasn't even going to touch the main page. But now, hmmm...I don't know. The forgery thing is a joke now as some of you well know, which kind of makes the Wiki entry for the Killian documents a wee bit awkward: it's one thing to discuss what the best current evidence shows, it's another to put that into the main article if it completely countermines what is generally believed to be the truth, as well as possibly impinge on the verboten "original research" especially where I'm concerned. On the other hand, if someone curious about the Killian memos comes here for info, what should he/she expect and deserve -- what is an encyclopedia for after all? Any thoughts? -BC aka Callmebc 01:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's clear that most of the people commening on this article - and most experts, and most of the general public - disagree with your claim that "the forgery thing is a joke now." Most folks looking at the evidence, even including the additional information you've provided, are coming to a different conclusion than you are.

It would be interesting to see how much talk discussion would be left if you included only people who voted in the opposite direction of their opinion on the memos' authenticity. Thomas Phinney 18:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was hoping you might drop by again. There are three basic issues that currently undermine the forgery claim: one is that sophisticated word processing systems with at least a minimum of 9 unit proportional spacing were widely available beginning in 1972; the second is that no modern word processor can accurately recreate all the memos; and the third is that the Feb. 2nd, 1972 memo that CBS had but did not use in its report could not have been forged under any circumstances because the key info that would have been needed to create part of its contents, Bush's flight records, was released only after CBS had obtained all the memos. Ipso facto.

And since you conveniently happen to be a typographer, think you could you identify the font used in this August, 1973 draft press release regarding an early word processor, ? It looks kinda close to a recreation I did in Arial 12pt Bold, 1.5 line spacing here, , but Arial wasn't created until about 1982 so how can that be? Curious minds might perhaps want to know.... -BC aka Callmebc 01:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The font on that other doc is not Arial. Nor is it Arial's cousin Helvetica (Arial is designed to match the advance widths of Helvetica). Many of the letterforms are much wider than Arial or Helvetica, almost extended. Also, the line-lengths "fingerprint" between your re-creation and the original fails in the relationship of the second to third lines. Finally, there is also some very visible pixillation similar to what one would see on a dot matrix printer, or some low-resolution digital device. Remember also that most old proportional typewriter fonts do not exactly match any particular non-typewriter typeface. These fonts were often adapted/created specifically for the device in question, which is why typographers tend not to know them. However, I wonder if the device in question was a typewriter or word processor at all - the text suggests that it was a typesetting device instead - until about 1985 that was a fairly distinct thing.

As for the "three basic issues," the first is not an issue at all. I mentioned the IBM Executive in my interview with CreativePro.com - but 9 unit proportional spacing is not the same as the 18 unit proportional spacing used in the memos. The second point is subject to debate: I have demonstrated that at least the line-length fingerprint *can* be exactly reproduced on a modern computer, while in the couple of years since, nobody has produced a device (short of a full-on typesetting machine) available in 1972 that can reproduce that fingerprint. Personally, I make no assertions as to the content, which is another matter entirely. Thomas Phinney 05:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That old psuedo/faux Helvetica sample versus modern Arial is directly analogous to the font/typeface used in the memos versus modern Time Roman/New Roman -- you had some sort of word processing system (or "intelligent typewriter" as they were also called back then) using a printer mechanism and printer element that approximated a standard typeface. How accurate the approximation was dependent on the typeface size, usually close to 12 point, versus the horizontal resolution, which apparently had common values around that time of 1/60", 1/72" 1/84", 1/96" and 1/120", with the three middle values being Selectric-based (the I/O version) and the two end values being daisywheel-based. The entire document the print sample came from is 5 pages long and when you recreate it with Arial Bold, you get some lines that are dead-on replicas, while others noticeably misalign just like in that sample -- as well as with the Killian memos. You yourself did an overlay experiment with the August 1, 1972 memo, , presumably with a best fit, and look at how again variable the alignment is, especially in detail: . David Hailey got very similar results with the same memo,, which is taken from this later report of his: .

To get a sense about the capabilities of the old printers, I had worked out a formula to figure out the horizontal resolution you need to print proportionally at a given "Units per em": U/F x 72 = horizontal increments/inch where "U" is units, and "F" is the font point size. So for, say, 18 units/em at 12 point for standard Times Roman, the formula gets you: 18/12 x 72 = 108 increments/inch. Potentially, even the 1/60" resolution of the first daisywheels can get you 10 units/em spacing, slightly better than the 9 units/em rating of both the IBM Composer and the later "MC/ST" word processor that was a hotseller for IBM in 1972. One thing that has been a head scratcher is the capabilities of the OEM I/O Selectric mechanism that IBM was selling to other companies -- according this Feb. 19, 1972 Business Week article, , by 1972 IBM was selling 20-40,000 of these OEM units annually. With a resolution of 1/72", this gives a theoretical units/em capability of 12. I had also done a manual count of the character widths of CG Times Roman Bold, which approximates the character spacing of at least the latter daisywheel printers, and came up with only 15 unique widths. That's awfully close, but I haven't seen anything firmly indicating other companies using the I/O Selectrics for proportional printing at all. IBM's own MC/ST does show it could be done, however. The existence of that 5 page, faux-Helvetica draft from Aug., 1973 -- and it was indeed a draft with a number of handwritten corrections and some messed up printing -- shows that such capabilities were more than theoretical back then.

As far those three issues I had listed and that you addressed, the first issue is still an issue -- my exact words were "least a minimum of 9 unit proportional spacing were widely available beginning in 1972". See that word minimal? The daisywheel printers from the mid-70's could do 18 unit spacing, so the question is what the slightly older ones could do. Also neither you nor anyone else has established the unit spacing to be 18 for the typeface shown in the memos -- the reasoning has been something along the lines of: oh, that looks like Times Roman, and you need 18 unit spacing to do true Times Roman, therefore the memos use 18 unit spacing. You had created a "virtual IBM Composer" based on specs from what, the mid-60's? That's too much of a guesstimate to be that useful. Also, as I demonstrated, your own overlay experiment, tied in with that faux-Helvetica sample, indicates that the typeface used in the memos is no more than an approximation of a standard Times font. And the high variability in alignment relative to a Word recreation points to the unit spacing being less than 18 (or having very different font metrics at the very least). Which brings us to the my second issue -- you cannot accurately replicate the memos (plural) with a modern word processor. This isn't subject to debate because nobody has been able to do so, not Charles Johnson, not you, nor anyone else as far as I know. Your assertion that "the line-length fingerprint *can* be exactly reproduced on a modern computer, while in the couple of years since, nobody has produced a device (short of a full-on typesetting machine) available in 1972 that can reproduce that fingerprint" is grossly disingenuous and not exactly true: those old office systems from the 70's have been obsolete and scrapped for decades, and given their complexity and mechanical nature, even if one was found in a garage kept under cover, the odds of it coming to life and being usefully functional are slim to none, even if you don't factor in the supplies issue; and where is "the line-length fingerprint" "exactly reproduced" in your overlay experiment ? Apparently our definitions of "exact" line up about as well as your overlay -- an "approximate" matchup is not, um, exactly an exact match.

And while you may not want to make any comments about my third issue regarding the contents, issue, it's kind of hard to ignore the fact that the contents of one of the memos could not have been forged under any circumstances, and since that memo has the same print characteristics of all the other memos, well.... Ipso facto, as I keep saying. -BC aka Callmebc 04:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Goofing around

This 1967 IBM paper, The IBM Selectric Composer - Philosophy of Composer Design, , has a genuine print sample from an IBM Selectric Composer (page 5). As an exercise in curiousity, I recreated the print sample with WordPerfect 10 (WordPerfect handles that sort of right-justified typesetting a wee bit more gracefully than Word), first with CG Times Bold, and then used JASC's "Animation Shop 3" program to animate a transition from the original in blue to a recreation in red. I then did likewise with Times New Roman and that's the current animation on the right. Full justification warps true font comparison, but the end result is kind of amusing and served as an excuse to practice creating animated GIF's and posting them here. I'm thinking now of doing the same for the memos -- as shown a little further up in my response to Phinney, recreations with Times New Roman (and Times Roman) don't overlay that accurately, especially with the the longer memos. If you do a best bit overlay, including resizing, words and individual characters drift in and out of alignment in exactly the same way as with that Selectric Composer overlay animation. The pro-forgers have maintained from the beginning that multiple recopying/refaxing was done to make the memos look old, which people like Joseph Newcomer and especially Charles Johnson then used as as excuse for why overlay experiments like Johnson's (in)famous animated "CYA" GIF, , don't work for other memos -- that supposed deliberate aging process, in some not-too-well defined way, introduced too much distortion.

However, a close look at the misalignment shown in recreations by both Thomas Phinney,, and David Hailey ,, pretty clearly indicates that the misalignments are a bit more likely the effect of overlaying a modern digital rendition of Times (New) Roman over a version or close knock-off created with older, very likely non-digital technology.

I won't post the memo overlays here since that would be a little bit more serious than just goofing around -- it would kinda constitute WP:OR in Misplaced Pages parlance. While replicatable by anyone with the appropriate software, it would nevertheless not be an easy process.

According to the March and May, 1972 issues of the Business Machines Executive Newsletter, in 1971 IBM revenues from their MT/ST-MC/ST word processors exceeded typewriter sales, with about 3600 units being shipped monthly, and these were $7000-$9500 machines. The latest IBM model at that time was the "MC/ET" ("Mag Card/Executive"), which utilized 9-unit proportional spacing much like that of the earlier Composer model (which was introduced in 1966), producing 6 different letter widths, as well as offering automatic centering and supposedly a bunch of other features. The MC/ET unit came out in April, 1972, and was in such demand that there was a 14 week waiting period on it, as well as hurting the sales of the older Mag models.

The point of all this, of course, being that the forgery charges were from the beginning based on widespread ignorance of common early office tech, an ignorance that the news media, mainstream-wise or otherwise, did not exactly make much of an effort, if any, to correct. Eff Why Eye. -BC aka Callmebc 15:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not So Goofing Around

This was a pain to do, but for anyone interested: . -BC aka Callmebc

Categories

Misplaced Pages has a complicated sophisticated category system. To be useful (and Misplaced Pages's is very useful), such a system needs subcategories (ie., categories that are members of other categories). See Misplaced Pages:Categorization.

We have a Category:Killian documents. It has 3 parent categories:

(1) Category:Journalistic hoaxes

We should not call something a journalistic hoax without good evidence that journalists were knowingly perpetrating a hoax. Since both the main CBS journalists are still alive, WP:BLP requires very good evidence. I haven't seen any such evidence in this case, so I've just removed this as a parent category.

(2) Category:Political forgery

The description of the "Political forgery" category certainly fits the Killian documents (emphasis added):

This category deals with events, organizations, or people that have at some point been referred to as involving forgery for political ends or about political figures.

That still leaves the question of whether the category is appropriately named. Categories can be renamed.

(3) Category:United States presidential election, 2004

Finally, an easy one.

Thus this article and its category are both now in (2) and (3) but not (1). I think this is right. Does anyone disagree?

Cheers, CWC 17:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really seem to have been a "journalististic hoax"; it appears that the journalists were willing dupes, not instigators. I'd be in favor of adding it to one of the general "hoax", "document forgery", or "forgery" categories, although which of those I'm not sure of. htom 17:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess it depends on who was actually "duped" and what exactly was the "hoax," eh? As a side note, what is it with Wikipedians and their glacial response to even simple questions, if they respond at all? Gawd.... (Also a PS: ) -BC aka Callmebc 23:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

September, 2007 discussions

A marker for a future archivist. Please put new discussion below (or in) this section. Thanks, htom 19:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I see I'm not the only one still paying attention. I don't suppose you would know who's hiding behind IP 68.242.152.17, would you now? As annoying as I found the last battle, I'm not adverse to doing it again if need be. With that said, I hope things have been well with you. -BC aka Callmebc 20:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No idea, no desire for an edit war, either new or resumed; just hoping to make life easier for some future archivist. Personally, mostly well, except for a sprained ankle (Mom was right, don't run up carpeted stairs.) I hope you're doing well, too. htom 21:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Left-leaning political bias vs. Karl Rove subterfuge

One has evidence supporting the allegation and one does not. Mary Mapes had contact with the John Kerry campaign about the progress of the story and put them in touch with Bill Burkett. That's a fact. That's clear evidence of Mary Mapes aiding a political campaign. The assertion that Karl Rove orchestrated the forged documents ruse in order to undercut attacks on Bush's military service has no evidence whatsoever. There is no sound reason to put forward these two theories in the lead as if they are equally credible. Until I see that sound reason, I'll keep making the change to reflect the crucial difference in the two theories.74.77.208.52 00:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your personal hypthesis is hardly relevant. -BC aka Callmebc 04:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't report theories according to editors' judgment of their credibility. We report what's notable. Prominent people (a U.S. Congressman and a DNC Chair) have voiced the Rove theory. That makes it notable. JamesMLane t c 04:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And I'm not suggesting excising it. I'm only referring to mentioning that those "prominent people" offered no evidence to support their claims, unlike those suggesting political bias at CBS. The lead previously only mentioned the two theories, making no distinction in terms of supporting evidence.74.77.208.52 04:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And your offering your own judgement as being a valid arbitrator, but your comments and edits indicate you have very little understanding of the subject matter aside from what you've obviously read in right wing sources. -BC aka Callmebc 04:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, right wing sources like USA Today and CNN. 74.77.208.52 05:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit made

I have removed the last para from the lede. Please see my edit summary for reasoning. I would support the same textr elsewhere in the article, but not in the lede. 64.191.50.138 04:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think this recent rash of edits are making the article worse because: they include too much of the right wing beliefs (which are wrong); leave off far too much of the content issue; don't indicate the context of the story -- it came a day after a release of official records by the DoD as the result of an AP FOIA lawsuit filed months prior; key backing refs are lacking; and don't include nearly enough source material related to the press coverage (which was specious and dumb) and the attitude of the right wing blogosphere (which was malicious and dumb). I think the editors need to do a wee bit more research before doing any more edits. I hate to toot my own horn, but my site does have by far the most info on the matter and it's heavily hyperlinked to reliable and original sources, many of which are difficult if not impossible to track down on your own, like copies of the pages of the manuals that were cited for Bush's suspension and such. I'm in the awkward position of being an accidental expert on this stuff and knowing that the forgery charges were never more than a pile of utter, confused nonsense, driven by malicious bloggers and aided by lazy reporters, that just falls apart completely with any serious scrutiny and research, but the way the Wiki works is that I can't really use this knowledge because it's original research. So unless it gets cited by a "reliable source," it's off limits. But consider this an education of how things are often not quite what you have been led to believe.

With that said, I will have to start spending more time cleaning up and improving the main site, assuming more people will come to it thanks to Rather's lawsuit, and this appears having to undo and modify a lot of the changes made. I will try to mention what I'm planning in advance as a courtesy (unlike the bulk of these recent edits). But I strongly recommend editors get a bit more familiar with the topic and its underlying foundation before making any more ill-considered edits. -BC aka Callmebc 06:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc, The recent edits to the introduction you mention above have been your attempts to insert your POV from your personal Killian website, acheckofa, into this article. The introduction has been stable for months and the only changes in the last year for this artcle really just need to be Dan Rather's new lawsuit against CBS. If you want to write lots about the issue, please keep the partisan stuff on your website. Please cease your disruptive reverts to the introduction. 68.242.64.112 14:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's all opinionated, unsupported nonsense on your part. I've listed my reasons for making the changes, and none of your comments have addressed them. You have been using different IP addresses to revert the changes without a shred of reasoning given to justify them -- you're basically a vandal with no interest in improving the article. The article has serious problems with lack of context, references and proper NPOV. All I want now is semi-protection in order to deal with nuisances like you. Also, and I suspect you know this quite well -- I know "a heck of a" lot more about this stuff than you do, and that you're just here to try to keep the article unbalanced towards the view of some right wing web site. -BC aka Callmebc 16:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Improving the article

Alrighty then, enough with dealing with "74.77.208.52's" little fantasies, as amusing as that might be, and not just because that sort of insult-exchanging argument is against the Misplaced Pages policy of etiquette. I hate to be the one to point out rules of any sort, but I was reminded of how Misplaced Pages does have a few rules that make sense:

1) WP:NPOV Neutral point of view -- meaning that just because you personally think CBS was involved in a conspiracy and that Bill Burkett was a deranged liar doesn't exactly make it so, however firmly convinced you are, especially without any sort of supporting evidence from reliable sources.

2) Beware of playing fast and loose with the biographies of living persons -- meaning that just because your teddy bear told you that Dan Rather is evil again doesn't make it so. Generally speaking, smearing a person who is still around, especially without a shred of actual, verifiable evidence is a big no-no.

3) Verifiability -- research is your friend, and also it's in very poor form to add information in article edits, most especially major ones, without providing a backing reference via, again, reliable sources. Stuff you heard at a bar, overheard on a bus, discussed in a blog and/or such are not considered reliable sources.

4) Consensus -- meaning that before you decide to add/delete/change key aspects of an article, you should discuss the changes in the talk page first. However firmly you believe that, say, global warming is a vast left wing hoax or that Martian unicorns were behind the Killian memos conspiracy, there may be others who do not share those views, and they may actually even have supporting evidence for their side.

5) WP:DISRUPT Disruptive editing -- meaning that you shouldn't ignore evidence, logic, well-reasoned objections and such just because they don't fit in with your beliefs about what information should be put into the article. Tendentious editing just makes you a nuisance, if not an outright vandal, that will only likely get you blocked.

Please bear these basic elements in mind and not only will this help in making a useful, enlightening article, but it will help us all just get along. -BC aka aka Callmebc 05:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit of 07:51, 24 September 2007 Callmebc

The text of this edit is not supported by the sources. The CJR piece does not deal in any depth with the authenticity of the documents, addressing only two of the many document experts and being written before the Thornburgh-Boccardi report was released. Linking to Bush's entire military history does not justify "the contents of the memos appear supported by an analysis of Bush's military service records"; in any case if the documents were forgeries you would expect them to tally with his service records. Unless you can produce better sources I will revert it. Dcxf 12:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The original version was vague and had no refs or sources to support the statement "Subsequently, a number of expert forensic document examiners concluded that the six memos are almost certain forgeries." Also it was lacking in crucial detail, even for an introduction -- the CBS story was part of a long, ongoing overall investigation by the media into Bush's Guard service, and the memos were only a very, very small part of it. Indeed the very day before the story aired, there was another release of Bush's guard service records by the Pentagon thanks to a successful FOIA lawsuit by the AP . The CBS report in that context was nevermore than a "me too" story, and the "Killian documents" only became only became notable because of the charges of forgery orginating from and driven by the right wing blogger, most notably at the Free Republic, Power Line, and Little Green Footballs. There were numerous reports throughout the year, completely outside of the memos issue, that had analyzed the sporadic releases of Bush's service records and found problems consistent with the contents of the memos. The NY Times report I linked to was just one of many -- here are a few others: ,

By not mentioning the context of the Killian story, you give the highly false impression that this was just some singular, isolated effort by CBS. Therefore, it would be irresponsible to leave the intro as without at least mentioning the connection to the greater question of Bush's Guard service. Since there is nothing refutable here, I will again attempt to remedy the situation. In regards to the CJR piece I included -- that provided a detailed summary of how the bloggers originated and drove the story, and how the mainstream press covered it.

Unless you have a better, more factual response, I suggest you and the others concentrate on aiding in improving the article. -BC aka Callmebc 14:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the intro needed work but this is not an article about Bush's military record, it is about the Killian documents. To support the edit that you want to make you would need a source that specifically describes correlations between the content of the Killian documents and Bush's service record, and a source that specifically addresses all the document authenticity issues. Really the latter is better left to the Killian documents authenticity issues article. If you think the article needs more context the "Background" section would be a better place for it. The current edit ] is a reasonable compromise I think. Dcxf 21:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You claiming that "this is not an article about Bush's military record, it is about the Killian documents" is about as logical as claiming that the polar ice cap melt is not about global warming. The sole reason there was that CBS report in the first place is because of long standing questions and issues about Bush's Guard service record. Indeed, from the Thornburgh-Boccardi report:

The interests of Rather and Mapes in pursuing a story about President Bush's TexANG service date back to at least 1999. At that time, and again during the presidential election of 2000, they investigated allegations that then-Texas Governor Bush had received preferential treatment in getting into the TexANG in 1968. Although Rather did two interviews about the subject in 1999, no story was put together for airing. They did little further investigating on this matter until 2004, when numerous stories appeared in the media about both presidential candidate's military service during the Vietnam War era.

I do believe this clearly refutes your contention and helps supports my point that the article as is, especially at the very beginning, is grossly misleading. It's lacking context, accurate history, relevant refs, and is overall a very poor, uninformative article. Corrent me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that the idea with an encyclopedia entry is not to misinform and confuse people -BC aka Callmebc 23:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the problems with your citations at all, to quote WP:TE: "Your citations back some of the facts you are adding, but do not explicitly support your interpretation or the inferences you draw. The policy on original research expressly forbids novel syntheses of other sources." Unless you have a specific, up-to-date source for "no firm proof of this has ever been produced" and "that the contents of the memos appear supported by an analysis of Bush's military service records", you should not add these claims. If you believe the article needs more context, why not put it in the Background section? Dcxf 01:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is clear from your website at aheckofa.com that you have a strong partisan pov on this subject and feel strongly about George Bush. However this article is supposed to be npov and is not about Bush directrly but about the Killian papers. Please stop adding your bias to the long-standing introduction and reverting any edits that attempt to improve on your edits. 68.242.64.112 15:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Aheckofa.com contains a vast amount of sourced and excerpted information regarding the memos, official DoD records, 70's office technology, military document formats, and refs to books and journals that can't be found anywhere else on the Internet. If the net result (so to speak) is that it makes the forgery charges and Bush's behavior not very credible, that's just how the pieces fit. But how does any of this relate to my list of reasons and justification for updating the article page, and your weaselly, unjustified & unsupported reverts? Please stick to the topic at hand. -BC aka Callmebc 15:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It is requested that the semi-protected page at Killian documents controversy/Archive 8 be created. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

I've been dealing with all these anonymous sockpuppet IP's (they are obviously familiar with Wiki editing, yet have only a very short history of IP edits to one or two articles) blocking any changes to the main article, which has a teeny bit of a problem with refs, POV and context starting with the opening paragraph. I've requested semi-protection but a sysop put on a full lock for edit warring, which make no sense since I'm dealing with sockpuppet IP's who've demonstrated no real intention of discussing matters. Please consider putting back this last change: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Killian_documents&diff=160027375&oldid=160015582

Thanks in advance. -BC aka Callmebc 16:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a sock puppet. I just changed my router. My history is here:74.77.208.52 That's the IP address I was using when I began this with you. You're the one who doesn't want to discuss matters, since you're attempting to remove the argument that you lost from this talk page. Really bad form, but no surprise from you.74.77.222.188 18:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet either and I am not 74.77.xx. BC, since you know so much more than us about all things Killian, why don't you call Dan Rather and CBS and work with them to find the documents? It would be more productive than trying to turn this page into a public version of your existing Killian editorial site. 68.242.64.112 18:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe anything you say, given your "history". Don't you have a pot to crack? -BC aka Callmebc 19:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

BC, Your joke obscures the issue that your pushing your POV here. You pretend to be the only expert here and keep pushing your view while saying everyone doesn't know what they are talking about. We all know extreme pov from your website you push now and then. Why don't you take a week off and go edit your "Killian docs are real" website? 68.242.64.112 20:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Do I really need to point out that you never back up anything whatsoever you say/claim with any refs or anything resembling logic/reasoning? Like I said, go find some nice pots.... -BC aka Callmebc 23:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of the Talk Page

Callmebc vandalized this talk page on at least three occasions, excising arguments that didn't go his/her way. They're now back under their headers of Proof? and Journalistic Ethics. Callmebc has a website here, where it's claimed that it's impossible for the Killian documents to be forgeries. Impossible. The mental gymnastics gone through to arrive at such a conclusion are mind-bendingly humorous, with nothing more hilarious than BC's final conclusion. BC claims that Killian must have been so upset over George W. Bush that he sought legal counsel and thus went to a law office to type out the infamous Bill Burkett memos. According to BC, that's the only place Killian could have likely found the technology that typed those memos. Of course, Killian's own wife has no knowledge of her husband being upset about Bush in the least, let alone being so upset that he went to a lawyer. In fact, she has the opposite recollection: that Killian was happy with Bush's performance under his command. But BC is undeterred.

Now, I just finished a long stint in the military, including in the Reserves. The idea that a Lt Col in the Air National Guard would go to a lawyer over such a scenario is absurd to the extreme. Only someone with zero understanding of the military environment and protocols would suggest such a ludicrous scenario. That's why it's BC's thesis. A thesis so absurd that I can destroy it with one link. Does that look like a memo requiring a trip to a law office? Do any of them? Do you think Killian made trips to a law office from February of 1972 and on into 1973 to type up six memos on their high-falutin' equipment? Trips that no one who actually worked with Killian has ever suggested took place? BC even ridiculously suggests that Killian may have transcribed all of the memos on the same day in 1973 for clarity. Yeah, for clarity. That's actually suggested on BC's website. I wonder if BC even realizes that that would mean there's two sets of originals out there that have never been found.

BC, of course, has zero evidence that Killian did something so absurd. The entire scenario is a BC fabrication. Pure speculation. BC just knows that that's the only way those memos could possibly have been typed by Killian. He invents a legal office, a lawyer, and a secret file, the existences of which have been found by no one, not even by the likes of CBS, Dan Rather and Mary Mapes, who happen to have the most obvious reasons to want such an absurd scenario to be true. That's BC's thesis. That's the only way the memos can be genuine. So, the most passionate defense of the memos' veracity to date ends up merely reinforcing how outrageously and obviously phony they are. Good work, BC. Oh, and if you're curious as to the motivations of BC in creating that website, just look at the very bottom of it. It's the very picture of anti-impartiality. 74.77.222.188 06:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests