Talk:Killian documents controversy/Archive 4

Military service arguments

I moved this text from the article. To me it seems more appropriate to put under George W. Bush military service controversy. This article is about the documents themselves, including their presentation, provenance, content, portrayal, and consequences, not about what other evidence may or may not exist to corroborate their allegations. (Such as testimony from people who think the content of the documents is true regardless of their validity). I think this may also reduce the article size below 60k. (Kaisershatner)

Here's the text-

Brigadier General David L. McGinnis (ret'd), who once worked for an assistant Secretary of Defense, said that the documents proved that Bush did not complete his national service commitments, even if the records showed that he had been paid during this time. Lawrence Korb said that a truthful evaluation by Killian would have resulted in Bush's being drafted for active duty in Vietnam. The two men made these statements immediately following the CBS broadcast, apparently on the assumption that the documents were genuine. Aside from the documents newly publicized by CBS, however, Korb, who was an Assistant Secretary of Defense during the administration of Ronald Reagan, had already concluded, based on undisputed records, that Bush did not fulfill his Guard obligations and could have been ordered to active duty as a result. [1]

Marian Carr Knox, Colonel Killian's secretary at the time, has denied typing the memos, but insists they reflect the truth about Lieutenant Bush.

Corroborating evidence is extremely important because it would nullify the very controversy over the documents. Since this article has info on the CBS and Dan Rather side of controversy it certainly has to include allegations and evidence the documents accurately reflected Killian's criticisms of Bush. zen master T 17:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization, POV problems

Sorry, actually not trying to create controversy. My edits did the following: (1) concisely summarized the entire affair in several sentences in the opening paragraph, including the factual summary of what the documents were and why they are worthy of an article (2) created a chronological history of the story, which was absent from the previous version and made it difficult to follow (3) reduced the emphasis on the Rove conspiracy theory, which as noted has never been substantiated by any evidence, and (4) moved up the gif showing the 2004 MS Word document, which in a single picture elegantly summarizes the long list of textual criticism of the memos, which I left undisturbed further down the article. Finally (5) my sections illustrated the movement of CBS on its own story, from releasing the story to defending it to admitting there were problems to the results of their own internal investigation. Now can we take a sober look at it before reverting away from it?

Kaisershatner 20:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is my opening paragraph, to be compared with how it looked prior to my edits---

The Killian documents are controversial documents that were publicized during the 2004 US presidential campaign. The memos were purportedly written by the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian and on September 8, 2004 they were presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes II story on CBS criticizing President George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard (TexANG) during the Vietnam War. Near-immediate questioning of the validity of the documents on internet forums and weblogs, intially focusing on the typographical characteristics of the memos, spread to the mainstream media and eventually led to an internal investigation by CBS. The investigation concluded the segment had made false assertions about the provenance and authenticity of the documents, and listed a series of other serious criticism of CBS's report and its handling of the aftermath. Mary Mapes, the segment's producer, was fired, and after CBS apologized to viewers it demanded the resignation of several senior executives. The affair, sometimes referred to as Rathergate, damaged the reputation of CBS News and Dan Rather while bringing considerable attention to the blogging phenomenon. A related controversy exists over whether the allegations in the disputed documents are actually true (see: George W. Bush military service controversy

Here's how it looked before me: The Killian documents are controversial documents that were in the news during the 2004 US presidential campaign. The memos were purportedly written by the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian and were presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes story criticizing President George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard (TexANG) during the Vietnam War. After questions over the authenticity of the documents arose, initially on political blogs and then in the traditional news media, CBS ordered an independent investigation. The blue-ribbon panel reported it "was not able to reach a definitive conclusion as to the authenticity of the Killian documents," but found that CBS News had badly mishandled the story.(pdf) (http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/CBS_Report.pdf) A large majority of document experts consider the documents to be fake. The affair, sometimes referred to as Rathergate, has damaged the reputation of CBS News and Dan Rather while bringing considerable attention to the blogging phenomenon.

Some defenders of Dan Rather and CBS, including a member of Congress, have alleged that Republicans, possibly Karl Rove and/or Roger Stone, preempted potential controversy regarding President Bush's service record in the Texas Air National Guard by supplying the false Killian documents used in the 60 Minutes report - so as to discredit a potentially legitimate source of criticism. Some Republicans dismiss that allegation as being groundless and suggest that an opponent of Bush, possibly Bill Burkett who admits to bringing the documents to CBS, falsified the documents. The origin of the documents prior to Bill Burkett and CBS, as well as the provenance of their actual form (photocopies), is not substantiated and is disputed.''

We spent too much time arriving at the version we have now for you to make all those changes. What you call concise, I call removal of information. Usage of the term "conspiracy theory" is POV, a member of congress has alleged this (the entire "rathergate" controversy seems focused away from facts regarding bush's national guard service). I don't like the animated gif, I think we need a before and after sort of comparison image. CBS admitted there were problems with the document evidence they used in the broadcast (documents likely fake), but I believe they have actually defended the overall accusations in the story though admit there is less evidence now (all that was lost in the "rathergate" controversy brouhaha). zen master T 20:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll jump in and repeat the suggestion I made earlier, which differs from both of the other versions:

The origin of the documents remains unclear. CBS received them from Bill Burkett, who has said that he photocopied them from originals given to him by a former TANG employee. A former TANG secretary has said that they are not real but that the content is genuine, so that they may have been re-created from originals. Bush's supporters have charged that they were simply fabricated during the 2004 campaign for political purposes, by Burkett or by someone else who wanted to injure Bush's reputation. Some Bush opponents believe that the documents were fabricated by a Bush supporter who hoped that the forgery would come to light and would tend to discredit all criticism of Bush over the issue.

The idea is to mention all the main theories early on, to give the reader a broad perspective. The current version elaborates on the CBS-was-biased idea before even mentioning the POV that Rove was involved. Yes, that is a POV, but so is the criticism of Mapes. The NPOV policy means that we report such POV's. We need to resist the temptation to try to cram all the supporting evidence for a favored view into the lead section. In this instance, the lead section doesn't need to include either Mapes's contact with Lockhart or a Congressman's endorsement of the Rove theory, although both those points deserve mention later on. JamesMLane 20:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

James, your version is pretty good, definitely concise. Note: the congressman's allegation was added to the intro section after someone removed all mention of the counter allegations from the intro, they claimed there were no notable supporters or defenders of CBS or Dan Rather. They may have also been claiming it was a "conspiracy theory" which is turning into a broken record on wikipedia. zen master T 21:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What really seems to be a broken record is this recurrent idea that NPOV requires us to ignore even the existence of a point of view. (Usually, though, this argument is made only to exclude a POV that the editor disagrees with.) I agree with you that "conspiracy theory" shouldn't be tossed around as a blanket excuse for removing material. Some conspiracy theories are notable enough to be reported. Some of them are even true. JamesMLane 21:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can appreciate both of your views on this. I even like the idea of JamesMLane to incorporate all of the theories, but sticking to the objective facts seems safer to me. Here's the current opening para with my commentary:

The Killian documents are controversial documents that were in the news during the 2004 US presidential campaign. The memos were purportedly written by the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian and were presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes story criticizing President George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard (TexANG) during the Vietnam War. (No mention of when they were presented, unlike my version) After questions over the authenticity of the documents arose, initially on political blogs and then in the traditional news media, CBS ordered an independent investigation. The blue-ribbon panel (what is a blue ribbon panel?) reported it "was not able to reach a definitive conclusion as to the authenticity of the Killian documents," (misleading as the commission was not tasked with validating the documents, and also omits the point that the expert consulted by the panel thought the documents were forged, which is mentioned in the report section of this article) but found that CBS News had badly mishandled the story.(pdf) (http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/CBS_Report.pdf) A large majority of document experts consider the documents to be fake. The affair, sometimes referred to as Rathergate, has damaged the reputation of CBS News and Dan Rather while bringing considerable attention to the blogging phenomenon.

This was inserted by me, to put it above the (unsubstantiated allegations in the) para that follows: Critics of CBS and Dan Rather suggested that CBS's decision to air the story reflected an attempt to influence the United States Presidential Election of 2004. Mary Mapes, the producer of the piece, was faulted for not appearing objective by calling Joe Lockhart, a senior official in the John Kerry campaign prior to the airing of the piece and offering to put him in touch with the source of the documents.

Some defenders of Dan Rather and CBS have alleged that Republicans, possibly Karl Rove and/or Roger Stone, preempted the controversy over President Bush's service record in the Texas Air National Guard by creating and supplying the questionable Killian documents used in the 60 Minutes report in order to misdirect from a potentially legitimate source of criticism. (This has never been substantiated by any EVIDENCE) Some Republicans dismiss that allegation and claim an opponent of Bush, possibly Bill Burkett who admits to bringing the documents to CBS, falsified the documents. The origin of the documents prior to Bill Burkett and CBS is disputed.

This part is awkward: I summarize this sentence more concisely be saying "a related controversy is...see also:" A related controversy exists over whether or not the allegations contained in the questionable documents are actually true. Democrats generally have focused on the allegations of criticism of Bush's Vietnam era National Guard service while Republicans have focused on the questions regarding the authenticity of the documents themselves.

You don't need to repeatedly paste the article on the talk page, what specifically don't you like with James' version? Responding to James: yes, I am extra suspicious of users that seemingly only want just their POV in an article. The problem with "conspiracy theory" is that it is used to discredit the subject on an initial, fundamental level. The apparent POV pusher doesn't want anyone to even think about the subject they are discrediting. According to wikipedia's own definition of conspiracy theory it "connotes that the subject is unworthy of being taken seriously" which should exclude it's usage on an encylopedia in my opinion since everything should be taken seriously, factually and neutrally presented, and any conclusions of "conspiracy theory status" should be left as an excersize to the reader. zen master T 21:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master, I'm pasting the article in an effort to show the justification for my edits, something that you demanded after reverting my changes. And rather than specifically criticizing JamesMLane's paragraph, I'd rather ask you to justify what you didn't like about my changes. With respect to JML's point, I agree that labelling something as a conspiracy theory can be a way to remove something under the cover of NPOV, however, I specifically did NOT remove that information, since it is a legitimate, factual part of this story that some people, including a US Congressman, alleged it was all a Republican plot. Just as much a part of the story is that there is no evidence at all to substantiate those allegations. Which I also left in the article. I will return to editing the article and justify each of my changes as I go. Just as I did with my initial series of revisions, you will find that all of my changes are factually accurate. I don't think you should just revert my changes (without justifying the reversion on factual or NPOV grounds) and then demand that I justify it all to you. Kaisershatner 00:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll reiterate one specific problem I mentioned above, that of too much detail. The lead section shouldn't mention Lockhart, shouldn't name Rove or Stone as possible culprits, etc. The current second and third paragraphs don't provide the best introduction for a reader who's coming to this article with no prior knowledge. My version was an attempt to put that reader in the picture by simply listing notable theories, with their elaboration to come in the body of the article. As for the fourth paragraph, Democrats have paid less attention to the question whether the allegations in the documents are true than to the underlying (undisputed) facts about Bush's TANG stint. It would be more accurate to say that Republicans have focused on the questions regarding the authenticity of the CBS documents, while Democrats have emphasized criticisms of Bush that are based on undisputed facts pre-dating the CBS broadcast. JamesMLane 00:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While I was writing the above, Kaisershatner was editing the lead section to make it even worse. Try reading it as if you had no prior knowledge. JamesMLane 00:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Debate before massive changes

Kaiser, you aren't actually debating or defending the changes you are proposing? We spent weeks here coming up with the version that is currently in use. You are going to have to point by point, on the talk page, explain why your version is better? Redundantly pasting your version into the talk page doesn't count as debate. I believe your version is worse and borderline POV vandalism. zen master T 01:27, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zen, I actually both debated and defended the changes I proposed (see above where you write that I don't have to paste the text into the talk page. Furthermore, each of my changes the SECOND time were accurately labeled with the details of my edits. (ie, adding the date of the story). This article is bloated (over 68k last I checked), meandering (no narrative or timeline), and before I started editing was even more POV than it is now. (Check the version prior to my 1st edit, you'll see that the Karl Rove/Republican conspiracy theory is mentioned in detail, but no mention is made of ANY alternative explanation). You have accused me of "borderline POV vandalism." Well, if you're going to resort to ad hominem attacks to justify reverting my edits, I won't respond. Since JamesMLane has engaged me on the merits of the facts, I will answer his point: I agree that the Rove angle and also the Lockhart angle don't belong in the opening para. If you guys insist on putting the Republican conspiracy story into this article than at minimum the objective fact that the reporter contacted the Kerry campaign must be mentioned. That part of this history is actually proven to have happened, in stark contrast to the "evil Rove" theory some people want to include.

Kaisershatner 22:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't resist reiterating my original point, before Zen started slandering my motives. Here's the opening para BEFORE I EVER CHANGED ANYTHING. Note that it is (1) ungrammatic, (2) omits the dates of the CBS story, (3) misattributes the story to 60 Minutes, not 60 Minutes Wednesday, (4) describes the internal investigation as a "blue ribbon panel", which is a nonsensical term, this isn't a county fair, (5) prominently features the quotation that implies the panel couldn't conclude the documents were fake while omitting mention that the panel's expert concluded the documents were created on a computer and also puts this interpretation above any mention that the vast majority of document experts think the documents were fake, (6) and then prints the allegations of a Congressmen and un-named others that the whole story was a Republican plot, something that is totally unsupported by any evidence; when you also consider that (7) the opening para doesn't mention that the producer of the segment was terminated and the other damning conclusions of the internal review (noting only that the panel didn't say the docs were fake), it's hard to see how you could call my changes vandalism. Again, I'll ask you to re-examine my revised opening para, which corrects all of those errors while EVEN RETAINING the Democratic/left aspect of this argument, namely that the allegations in the (probably fake) documents may have been true (see also: GWB military service controversy). I'll suggest instead that by refusing to accept my fact-based and sourced edits, you are engaging in an egregious attempt to prevent the introduction of objective fact into this article. Please do read that paragraph and note that my (7) points are all correct.

Kaisershatner 22:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing. This article is so POV that it is even more sympathetic to CBS than CBS's own story reporting the panel's findings: [2]

Quotations from CBS should be added, that is a good source, However the allegations that the service controversy was preempted by republicans by allegedly faking the documents should not be removed from the intro, that was my primary reason for reverting your massive changes. There is equally no evidence that CBS news faked the documents either. I spent weeks going back and forth with people to get those paragraphs to where they are today. Some of your other proposed clean ups to the article look good. zen master T 23:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well I appreciate your concilatory tone, and I can appreciate the hard work you put in to get a consensus (regrettably that consensus still isn't neutral in my opinion), and I'm not trying to destroy your work. However, your "primary reason" is incorrect. In the version that you reverted those allegations were still in there: check Revision as of 00:50, 16 Apr 2005 If that's your only objection, can I put my para back in and can we start with that as the new basis for negotiation? I look forward to your view. Kaisershatner 23:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, that version did remove information on the allegations of republican involvement from the intro, which I consider to be central to this issue because, if true, the entire "rathergate" brouhaha controversy would lack legitimacy. zen master T 00:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The version of the article that discusses allegations re. Rove, etc. in the lead section is not the consensus version. Bush opponent JamesMLane objects to it above, the fact that he considers Kaisershatner's version at the time worse notwithstanding. I agree as well that those allegations should be discussed in the body of the article, but not mentioned in the lead section. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 00:20, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

I think what JamesMLane said was that the intro shouldn't mention Rove or Stone by name, as it also shouldn't mention Maples by name either, that hardly supports the drastic changes Kaiser attempted. I disagree with your statement that the current version did not have consensus, and does not have near consensus now. The point of working toward consensus is that you should actually be trying to convince me I am wrong. Maybe we should have a vote on the two different versions of the intro/article? zen master T 00:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Allegations of Republican involvement are hardly central to this issue, since they're just a fall-back position for some of the people who would prefer to still believe the documents were genuine. They deserve discussion in the article for the same reason creationism deserves mention in Evolution--and about the same prominence.

—wwoods 00:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zen, you're avoiding the issue. You reverted my edits to the opening paragraph, although you agree that my point by point analysis/justification is accurate. Your "primary reason," you say, is that I removed the Karl Rove allegations, when that is not correct: "However the allegations that the service controversy was preempted by republicans by allegedly faking the documents should not be removed from the intro, that was my primary reason for reverting your massive changes." My edits preserved that (and as Wwoods notes, probably gives them too much prominence, but I was trying to go with consensus). If what you objected to in my version (again, check Revision as of 00:50, 16 Apr 2005) was the use of the word "conspiracy," I would agree to remove it. Otherwise, you have basically reverted my changes while (1) agreeing that they make sense (2) objecting to something I didn't actually do, and (3) trying to preserve a previous consensus that currently doesn't exist. I'm not part of that consensus, and it looks like I'm not the only one. I would like to reinstate my edits to the opening para, 99% of which you have agreed were not controversial, and I will take out the word conspiracy. Since you haven't objected to anything else, I don't know what else you won't like, but I am willing to continue debate on this. Please read the para before reverting it. 68.173.44.81 00:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) Sorry, re-sig: Kaisershatner 00:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How am I avoiding the issue exactly? You are removing information. I stated support for just removing only "possible Karl Rove and/or Roger Stone" from the intro, nothing else from "my" (consensus) version should be removed. How does that support the massive changes you keep trying to make. zen master T 01:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zen:

(1) please identify what information you allege that I am removing. (2) please explain why you object to my changing the following:

I added the date of the story

I changed the misattribution of the story to the program 60 Minutes II

I added the fact that Mapes was fired for producing the segment

I retained the anti-Republican allegations and the point that Democrats make regarding the possible truth of the information in the documents.

(3) you do not own this article (4) you have repeatedly reverted my edits without justification other than a claim that I am making "massive changes." 68.173.44.81 22:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) Kaisershatner 22:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) So what's the deal, are you trolling or do you want to debate this?

I will ignore the personall attack and you were indeed making massive changes, we can go through the history if you would like to? The first two proposed changes are ok. The way you worded Mary Mapes being "fired" seemed inaccurate to me, there are no accusations she falsified the documents. If Mapes is in it would be consistent if mention of Rove and Stone also remain in as well, don't you think? You did not retain the republican involvement allegations to the requisite level of detail if clarity is the goal. zen master T 22:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zen, Kaisershatner made massive changes because the article needs them. Please stop making reverts you can't justify. This is an article about the Killian documents. Mapes produced the CBS story that presented them as authentic. Rove and Stone have no known connection with them. Why is it inconsistent to mention Mapes but not Rove and Stone in the intro? Anonip 00:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because there is an equal amount of proof (0) that any of them actually faked the documents. Determining who actually faked the documents is the key to figuring out whether this is a legitimate controversy or not. CBS has established (perhaps circumstancially) that the documents reflected Killian's opinion accurately. So there is no logical basis to claim Mapes should be included but not Republicans (since each accusation has equivalent proof). There isn't enough context if the article just states "Mapes was fired for mishandling the documents/controversy" (or similar). She indeed did something wrong, but the essence of the controversy is over who faked the documents, the article should reflect both/all sides' allegations equally. zen master T 02:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zen, No one alleges that Mapes faked the documents. She obtained them from Bill Burkett with assistance from Joe Lockhart. That is not disputed. Mapes is included in the introduction because she was the person responsible for airing the documents without proper authentication. Burkett and Lockhart also probably should be included because of their roles in providing the documents to CBS. In contrast, Rove and Stone have no known connection with the documents. Anonip 04:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kaistershatner has pointed out a number of serious issues with the opening paragraph, including the most salient, that it is more of a whitewash than even CBS produced. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I created a compromise version, hope everyone is happy. My point on your talk page remains though, Kaiser claimed there was a factual dispute with the older version of this article, the information your/his version tried to remove was and is actually factual. So that is disrupting wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please dispute that if you can. zen master T 03:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zen, Please do not remove dispute warning tags without prior approval from the editors who placed them. Anonip 04:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Jayjg removed Kaiser's disputed tag, so in the hope for additional compromise I thought i'd remove npov as well. I am 100% support npov remaining in an article if even just one person wants it there. Do you or anyone think the proposed compromise version I came up with is progress at least? zen master T 06:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Somehow the intro now omits the central fact that the documents are fakes. That doesn't seem like progress to me. Anonip

Indeed; the introduction manages to discuss all sorts of peripheral issues without managing to mention this key point. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We should add back the sentence that use to be there that went something to the effect of "most document experts consider them forgeries", but I dunno if we can say fake directly because that implies that CBS faked them which there is no evidence for plus there is cooroborating evidence that the "fake" documents reflected Killian's opinion accurately (if that is true are the documents really fake?) plus there is counter allegations of preemptive falsification by Republicans. Feel free to clean it up further, I admit the intro has grown a bit unwieldy overall. zen master T 06:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zen, I was disputing the factual accuracy of attributing the story to 60 Minutes, rather than 60 Minutes Wednesday. Maybe the tag was overkill. I appreciate your compromise version, and a review of my commentary from above will show that I have continued to attempt to find a productive way to edit the article and introduce more objective facts (not "POV vandalism"). There are still many issues but I think they can be resolved. To begin with, I would like to introduce the date of the story into the article, and change the program to 60 Minutes Wednesday. About "fake," Zen is correct that the documents have never been "proven" to be fake in the sense that a forger has been identified, however, it is also true that (1) not a single document expert has shown that they are authentic, and (2) most experts consulted by CBS as well as independents concluded they were fake or computer generated, and (3) while the CBS panel didn't take a final position, the expert they retained believed the documents were fake. I think the opening para should reflect these facts, but for the moment I will stick to adding undisputed items such as the date/program, in the hope that we can all work together on this. Kaisershatner 16:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to determine who faked the documents in order to prove that they're fakes. It's sufficient to show that they were produced using equipment not available to their puported creator at the time they were purportedly created. That's what experts in typewriter and computer typography have done in proving the Killan documents to be fakes. Anonip 15:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'm a little gunshy about changing anything, but there is an enormous amount of redundancy in this article, and in addition, I really think the story would be much more clear if it were presented chronologically (like the panel report) so readers can get a sense of how it unfolded. This was one of the things I attempted in my earlier revisions but I don't want to get started on that again if it's going to be trouble. Finally, I'm worried that saying Burkett was a "controversial" source, which is what the panel said about him, will be considered POV here. Is it? Kaisershatner 16:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And I would like to return to the parts of the intro that include the Mapes/Lockhart contact and the Rove/Simon allegations. I agree with JamesMLane that this can be moved down (I proposed a section "Explanatory Theories") but shouldn't be removed. Kaisershatner 19:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, right now some RL considerations leave me almost no time for Wikipedia editing, but I'll say that Zen-master's understanding of my comment was correct. The theory that the documents were created by Bush supporters in hopes of achieving precisely what did occur -- a discrediting of perfectly valid criticisms of Bush based on undisputed TANG facts -- deserves to be mentioned in the lead section. The details -- that Rove or Stone might have done it, that a Congressmember has endorsed the theory, etc. -- should be left for development in the body of the article. Similarly, the lead section should include the theory that the documents were forged by Bush opponents, but the details, such as the Lockhart contact, would be down in the body of the article. For that matter, along with all these theories of forgery, the story offered by the acknowledged source of the documents, Burkett, should be mentioned. We shouldn't endorse that version of the facts, or any other, but it's undisputed (AFAIK) that CBS got the documents from Burkett, so his statement about where he got them is notable and deserves mention in the lead. Just so my suggestion doesn't get buried, I'll repeat it here:

The origin of the documents remains unclear. CBS received them from Bill Burkett, who has said that he photocopied them from originals given to him by a former TANG employee. A former TANG secretary has said that they are not real but that the content is genuine, so that they may have been re-created from originals. Bush's supporters have charged that they were simply fabricated during the 2004 campaign for political purposes, by Burkett or by someone else who wanted to injure Bush's reputation. Some Bush opponents believe that the documents were fabricated by a Bush supporter who hoped that the forgery would come to light and would tend to discredit all criticism of Bush over the issue.

This was my attempt to do what the lead section should do -- give the reader the gist of the different positions, with all evidentiary amplification deferred to the body of the article. I was trying to give a completely NPOV presentation of each of the main theories that I knew about. Is this wording biased in any way? JamesMLane 20:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that the opinion of the TANG secretary that the content is genuine implies your conclusion "they may be been re-created from originals," which is what your sentence says. Her stated opinion is a fact, but drawing that inference is your point of view. For example, she may believe the content is genuine, but there may never have been memos of this kind to "re-create." No way to decide between those interpretations based on the fact of her recollection. I think her viewpoint should be in the article (and it is) but not that conclusion. I also agree that the Burkett provenance should be in there, probably in the lead. Kaisershatner 22:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The "former [TexANG] employee" was Burkett's second(?) story (of three?; not his last anyway). Explaining that is probably too much for the intro.

Despite what the secretary says, the content is dubious, both in form and substance--to the best of my knowledge, there's never been any explanation of why Killian would have ordered Bush to take his physical in early May. And a "re-creation" would still be a deliberate attempt to deceive, unlike an affidavit that "I once saw a document that said [thus-and-such]."

Surely it isn't only "Bush's supporters" who believe the obvious explanation is the true explanation.

—wwoods 23:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In answer to both the above comments, I give you this abstract of the New York Times story, from [3]

ABSTRACT - Marian Carr Knox, secretary for George W Bush's squadron at Texas air base from 1957 to 1979, says she never typed documents in which late Lt Col Jerry B Killian criticizes Bush's conduct and believes they are fakes put together from originals, although she confirms that facts are accurate and that Killian was putting in writing his concerns about what was going on; debate over four memorandums reported by CBS continues (M)

So the idea that the documents are based on genuine originals isn't an inference, it's what she said (though we might as well say "put together from originals" instead of "re-creations" because of the slight difference in meaning, if Republicans will forgive my Democratic predilection for trafficking in those despised "nuances"). Furthermore, her comment isn't Burkett's story. He may have referred to her at some point, but she was directly quoted in the media giving her own opinions. I agree that a "re-creation" or a "put together from", in circumstances where the clear representation is that the documents are photocopies of genuine originals, is deceptive, but so what? If you think the primary purpose of the Wikipedia article is to support the charge that CBS is biased to the left, then obviously it doesn't make any difference, but if you think that the article is to inform the reader about the whole subject, then the secretary's first-hand knowledge (unlike Rather, Burkett, Buckhead, etc.) makes her hypothesis notable. Finally, I used the phrase "Bush supporters" because it was in the context of "charged" -- they're naturally the ones who are most likely to sling charges. Perhaps we could leave that sentence as it is (in my suggested version) but follow it with the reference to what most experts think, thus making clear that the opinion isn't limited to Bush supporters. JamesMLane 00:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here are the actual quotes from Knox: [4]

But she also said they accurately reflected the thoughts of the commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, and other memorandums she typed for him about Bush. "The information in them is correct," the woman, Marian Carr Knox, 86, said in an interview at her home in Texas.

"But I doubt," she said, pausing, "it's not anything that I wrote because there are terms in there that are not used by Guards, the format wasn't the way we did it. It looks like someone may have read the originals and put that together.

"We did discuss Bush's conduct, and it was a problem Killian was concerned about," Knox said. "I think he was writing the memos so there would be some record that he was aware of what was going on and what he had done." But, she said, words like "billets," which appear in the memorandums, were not standard Guard terms.

Note that Knox indicates both the format and the wording of the documents are not authentic. Her suggestion that the person who faked the documents had read some originals is entirely conjectural, but she makes it clear that if it was an attempt to "recreate" authentic originals, it was a failure. Anonip 01:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Put Back the Animated GIF!, Pictures

Hey, who removed the animated gif? It was very informative, a picture is worth a thousand words of blather. Were someone's delicate aesthetic sensibilities offended or what?

I put this back in, I think the removal was inadvertent. Kaisershatner 19:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added a Rather pic. I moved the animated gif up higher, I have to agree that it does a better job of summarizing all of the typography arguments than the discussion does (very technical stuff). Plus, it helps the reader see the CYA allegation and the actual subject of this article right from the start. Kaisershatner 15:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master, I see you've changed the location of the pic I uploaded. I prefer it the other way, and if you review [[5]], and look at the pages for the Declaration of Independance, the US Constitution, Federalist Papers, the 9/11 Commission report, the majority is consistent with the style I had introduced. If you don't mind too much, would you change it back? Kaisershatner 17:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Next to TOC saves space and I detect a suspicious attempt at damaging the look and feel of the bottom of the intro that describes the counter allegations. Every article I've moved an image next to the TOC has not be reverted so your wikipedia policy claim is inaccurate. Don't you think it looks better and it saves space? zen master T 18:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "saves space," but I noticed it didn't take long for you to make an unsubstantiated personal attack about my motives. You also misrepresent my "claim," which as anyone can see, doesn't mention wikipedia "policy," but does assert that the documents at the link I provide consistently are in the style I mentioned (something that is objectively verifiable). Also, for what it's worth, my request was deliberately extra polite, but that seems to have gone un-noticed. I thought the way I had it allowed the reader to see the doc immediately on coming to the article rather than having to read down the page, and since this is an article about the document(s) it seemed nice to have it there. Maybe some other readers care to opine? Also, I'd love an apology, Zen. Kaisershatner 18:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are completely mischaracterizing the details. Given the historic edit wars over the content in question it's not unreasonble to theorize that someone might try to damage its readability by squeezing it next to an image. I wasn't directly saying you were doing that, I was assuming good faith by simply asking you your intentions. Your over the top response seems custom made to trick people into thinking you have been wronged, but I admit that is also my opinion. I don't care if you are polite or not, I care only about the quality of articles.

I believe the image looks better and saves space (no extra scrolling) next to the TOC (which is usually blank space anyway). I think most people would agree with my change, should we call for a vote? zen master T 18:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Characterizing someone's edit as "suspicious attempt at damaging the look and feel of the bottom of the intro" isn't exactly assuming good faith. --kizzle 19:09, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I stand by my claim that it was/is suspicious, the image is way too wide to put next to content, it squeezed things into less than 1/3rd of the page. The articles Kaiser cites have images an order of magnitude smaller than the image in question here. I am assuming good faith by asking -- assume good faith does not mean ignore things or don't be honest. zen master T 19:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will let people independently decide if I mischaracterized what you said, and if you were "asking" or "insinuating." But I would be happy to have a vote on the picture. I encourage voters to review the United States Constitution, the Declaration of Independance, and the other docs I mentioned at [[6]], as I mentioned intially. (Kaisershatner, not signed in). 146.203.128.1 19:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I took a look at the US constitution article and those images are 1/3rd the size of the killian document image, there is no chance of squeezing content. So your comparison is at best apples vs oranges. zen master T 19:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zen, I checked the version history, and my last version had the image too large; I just changed it to what I had intended (a smaller size offset), which was what I meant to do originally. I think I had a browser problem or something. I don't think this version has the problem of cutting off the text, which the other version did (inadvertently!). When I checked the history I saw why you objected. I'm afraid this whole problem was my error. Sorry. Kaisershatner 19:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thx, I accept your apology/explanation of misunderstanding. But I think the image is still too wide for use in the intro (or you can't read it if you make it too small). And you restored the cruft images that I removed for size concerns? Those images really aren't needed, especially so in an article 74k+ in size. zen master T 20:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. As I see no other way out, let's encourage further discussion or vote. I propose we use this version: [7] Kaisershatner 20:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you talking about the killian document image specifically or also the images I consider cruft additionally? If both, why do you like those images? zen master T 20:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Revisions going forward, April 20

Zen, I see that you have resumed editing as well, and I'm hopeful we can cooperate. So far, you've changed some things I put in, but I understand why and I think they are reasonable. I may try to copyedit a bit (you use "Bush" three times in the last sentence of the first para).

Going forward, I'm hoping to re-establish the timeline of the story (1) broadcast (2) blogs (3) mainstream media reaction (4) defense by CBS, and (5) repudiation of memos by CBS and independent panel. I will do so without removing information, and with special sensitivity to the allegations of the left, so as not to appear other than NPOV. Sincerely, Kaisershatner 19:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's hard not to use Bush many times to convey the level of clarity necessary (it's a complex issue and the allegation is precisely that the document controversy was created to undermine legitimate critisms of Bush). Timeline wise you mean in the article or in the intro? I think the intro gives a good overview of the timeline currently, perhaps we need an explicit timeline sub section? I think the article/intro should also mildly indicate that one evidence for Republican involvement was the speed with which conservative bloggers discredited the documents (something like that had been in the article previously). zen master T 19:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's not evidence of Republican involvement--that's evidence of CBS's incompetence and gullibility. They wanted to believe too much to properly check out the docs.

—wwoods 19:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is circumstantial evidence the discrediting of CBS was pre-planned. zen master T 22:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that such a motive would not be under Karl Rove, and probably fits in his playbook, is there even a shred of evidence at all that this was pre-planned?--kizzle 22:53, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Huh!? How do you figure? Were Buckminister, Powerline, et al. primed (Psst--look at the font! And the abbreviations!), or did the fiendishly-clever forgers deliberately include flaws that they knew would be invisible to CBS's experts AND obvious to somebody else?

—wwoods 23:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: Timeline, I meant in the body of the article, not the intro. Stay tuned. Also, in the article under "initial skepticism" the rapid response and technical nature of the Buckhead reply is noted to have "fueled speculation on the political left that the entire document controversy was a right-wing conspiracy." That is a factual summary of those events that doesn't take a position on the merit of this viewpoint either way (neutral point of view). Kaisershatner 14:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Made some structural changes WITHOUT deleting anything except some duplicated sentences. I don't have good access right now so major factual work which I think needs to be done is coming later (for example, nothing really explains why CBS changed its mind about the story because there are lots of facts omitted from the Sept8-Sept20 time period, like the parallel stories at ABC/CNN/FOX etc., and the details of the CBS examiners recanting their "authentication," etc.). Kaisershatner 16:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Is neutrality still disputed? It isn't by me; while I think the article still needs serious editing for factual incompleteness, it isn't horribly NPOV right now from where I'm standing. Anyone from the left want to weigh in on this? Kaisershatner 16:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the NPOV of ths article remains disputed. Anonip 21:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Anonip that the NPOV is disputed. In the article's current form it is biased to the right. Edits have removed the information that "Rathergate" is a coinage of right-wingers and does not have general currency. The lead section gives more prominence to the facts adduced in support of bias charges than to straightforward information about the documents themselves. This choice reflects the right-wing obsession with "working the refs" through constant reiteration of the claim of liberal media. The presentation of the hypothesis of Republican conspiracy is biased. First, it shouldn't be attributed to "defenders of Dan Rather and CBS" (another example of the "bias" obsession). The charge of bias is worth reporting, of course, but pinning the affair on Karl Rove has much broader implications than exonerating CBS. (In fact, it would be logically consistent to argue that CBS is biased and that Rove cleverly exploited that bias by faking the documents to move the discussion off the "Bush-AWOL" question.) Moreover, the statement that there's no "factual evidence" for the charge is false; circumstantial evidence is factual evidence, and note also the blatantly disparaging way in which the evidence for one POV is dismissed. (By the way, in checking the article's current status to assess its POV, I note that the flurry of edits has left the "Explanatory theories" section in a very disorganized state. The earlier version of the Rove hypothesis, which presents the information fairly, is still in there, but the biased version has been inserted ahead of it, resulting in duplication.) JamesMLane 00:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I thought this article is about 1) whether the memos are accurate 2) the actions of Dan Rather and CBS News. Too bad Dan Rather is hardly mentioned in the article. Did he or did he not play an important row in this controversy? Why put the "Explanatory Theories" in the second section? People have the right to know the facts before they are fed with conspiracy theories. I think the article should be structured as such:

1. introduction and background
2. detailed discussion of the memo (typographical)
3. non-typographical discussion (views people who knew Killian)
4. actions of CBS and Dan Rather before, during and after memo airing
5. possible explanations

- Anon IP

I'm with anon on this one. --kizzle 23:17, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Not a bad structure proposal but the current intro should remain the intro going forward. And "non-typographical discussions" really is "evidence the documents reflected the truth", right? zen master T 23:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The "evidence the documents reflected the truth" doesn't belong here. It belongs in George W. Bush military service controversy. Anonip 00:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article shouldn't include a full presentation of the evidence about Bush's stint in TANG, but some of that information is relevant to assessing whether the documents are genuine. To take an obvious example, I assume no one would edit out the fact that Killian was indeed Bush's CO. In fact, the article could benefit from a more precise delineation of undisputed facts about the TANG controversy, so that the reader could form a better picture of what was "new" in the documents. JamesMLane 00:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this article should include a synopsis of the allegations in Bush's service controversy article because the factual resolution of that determines the legitimacy of the conservative "rathergate" brouhaha. Whether the documents accurately reflected Killian's opinion is the essence of the Killian documents controversy. zen master T 07:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is not an article about the service controversy, this article directs readers to review that article, and the current article summarizes the allegations made about Bush's service record. This article is about the documents but nonetheless repeatedly gives space to the view that "the documents may be accurate" while being almost certainly forgeries. I think that's plenty of attention to an issue that isn't the point of this article. Kaisershatner 13:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with Kaisershatner. It's an article about the documents and the actions of CBS. It will never be relavent enough for judging Bush's military record. On the other hand, CBS messed up big time, and it should be accurately reflected here, not "deflected." I am not rejecting the possibility of a conspiracy, but that does not make Dan Rather's action right. And theories should really belong to the end of the article, because it's not the main part of the article. -anon user (so i don't get confused with Anonip :)

I believe Zen-master is including the "Explanatory Theories" because he is worried that this article will be used to defend Bush's military record. I propose that we take our attention away from Bush, and refocus on the memos and CBS. By doing this, we steer away from the Bush controversy, and focus on the memo controversy. There is no reason why fake memos can be used to validate/invalidate Bush's military record.

This article has become so long winded and irrelavent...

The subject of this article is very related to the service controversy, in fact I propose we combine the articles. We've already worked toward consensus to get the current mention in the article and in the intro of the service record controversy so I'm afraid you can't just come along now and rip it out just because it potentially makes your guy look bad and de-legitimitizes the entire rathergate brouhaha. zen master T 18:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand. I thought this whole controversy makes CBS and Dan Rather look bad. If you want to blast Bush, do it in another article that has supporting evidence. Using fake documents to support your view is not what an encyclopedia is about.

Also, citing the ""opinion"" of a Democrat Representative as evidence that the memos are engineered by Republicans is simply rediculous. Conspiracy theory needs supporting evidence. You can speculate that Karl Rove is involved, but please do not manufacture evidence that is not there.

The coroborating evidence is Killian's secretary. zen master T 19:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe Knox ever mentioned Karl Rove. Nor did she provide any evidence (only conjecture) that the person who created the fake memos had seen some authentic originals. Anonip 21:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The member of congress who alleged Republican involvement mentioned Karl Rove by name (this allegation was removed from the intro recently). It might be more accurate to paraphrase this as "allegation of Rovian tactics". zen master T 21:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The statement by the Democrat congressman was entirely conjectural. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT KARL ROVE WAS IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THE FAKE DOCUMENTS. Anonip 23:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The member of congress' allegation was that it fit the pattern of past Rovian tactics. You are right this is not direct evidence, but there is corroborating evidence for this theory (the secretary's statement). There is even less evidence (0) that CBS faked the documents themselves. zen master T 23:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NO ONE HAS SUGGESTED THAT CBS FAKED THE DOCUMENTS. Why do you insist on raising this strawman? The statement by the secretary provides NO EVIDENCE that Rove or Republicans had any connection with the documents. On the other hand, it is undisputed that anti-Bush Democrat Burkett gave the documents to CBS and lied about where he got them in order to make them appear genuine. Anonip 00:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not a straw man, you or others have been trying to remove or pare down mention of the "conspiracy theory" that Republicans were involved in faking the documents. If, as you say no one has suggested that CBS faked the documents, then we should treat all theories equally? The entire notion the "Rathergate" controversy has legitimacy is unfair. How did he lie about the documents exactly? Let me clear up some confusion with a rephrase: there is more evidence (corroborating) that Republicans faked the documents than Burkett did. zen master T 00:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't respond. You make no sense to me. Anonip 00:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By all means include Killian's secretary comment in this article. But we should also include Killian's wife too, for fairness. As I proposed earlier, let's focus on the memos, instead of Bush, so the memos will not be used to "validate/invalidate" Bush's record. This should be beneficial to both sides. We'll definitely link to the Bush Military Record article so people can be a better picture of his record. It's just the wrong place to talk about it.

I did agree with you that we should include the conspiracy theory, but at the end of the article. I in fact think the theory is plausible, considering how much Bush gained from the CBS mess. However, your "Possible Explanations" seems to suggest that there is evidence for the theory, when there is none. The secretary's evidence showed that Bush could still have a bad military record, but shows neither 1) the memos are authentic nor 2) the memos are conspired by Republicans.

"conspiracy theory" is not a NPOV phrase and I am increasingly suspicious of anyone that uses it on Wikipedia. What did his wife say exactly? There is an equivalent amount of evidence for the "possible explanation" as there is that CBS faked the documents themselves, the article should reflect this fact. zen master T 20:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with "conspiracy theory?" I thought we are theorizing that the Republicans conpired to fake the memos so CBS would look bad. Call it whatever you want. I am saying I think this theory is plausible, but please don't make up evidence for it. Readers are intelligent enough to form their opinions. Killian's son and wife said Killian never used typewriters, therefore the memos are likely fake.

Half of "Explanatory Theories" reflected the opinions of Hinchey (read it yourself), who was not involved in nor had insight into the memos. No factual evidence was given. That's why I think it does not belong to an encyclopedia.

Using the phrase "conspiracy theory" precisely discourages readers from making up their own minds. I wanted you to summary the facts/allegations of Hinchy to support your argument here on the talk page precisely. Killian's secretary stated the documents are an accurate reflection of his opinion. zen master T 20:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why do you make people do all the work? As I said there is no evidence provided by Hinchy, it's up to you to prove otherwise. (You can't make me prove the non-existance of something). I agree that Killian's secretary said the documents are accureate reflection, but that does not show the memos are real. What's your point?

You don't seem to realize there are a few theories presented here: 1) the theory that the memos are real. 2) the theory that CBS faked it 3) the theory that the Republicans faked it 4) the theory that Democrats faked it. etc. "Conspiracy theory" is a easily understood term that distinguishes this theory from the rest. It does not mean the theory is wrong. As I said, if you don't like it, provide a better name.

I realize perfectly. If you are going to argue something on the talk page you have to do work yes. The secretary's statement is strong corroborating evidence, she was and is an eye witness. What evidence is there that CBS faked the documents? I agree the version of the documents aired by CBS is likely fake, but they also likely reflect reality. zen master T 21:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, when a person argues that something does not exist, it's up to the other person to disprove it. Really, all you need to do is paste ONE statement from Hinchey that is based on evidence, that would be a good argument from you, right? I notice earlier that you made Kaisershatner prove his point of view, then ignored the proofs when they were presented. Just an observation.

I never implied that CBS faked the document, it's just a theory, like all other theories.

Since the memos are fake, they do not reflect any reality. Why are you using fake memos to further your point of view? The secretary's comment did not further the argument that the Republicans manufactured the memos, how could you use that as your evidence?

The memos are fake but the allegations contain therein are perhaps not. The allegation that Republicans faked the documents has corroborating evidence, there is an eyewitness, the secretary, she has publically stated the documents accurately reflected Killian's opinion. Do you have another explanation for why the CBS version of the documents would be fake yet the allegations contained therein are true? zen master T 21:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The secretary never said that Republicans faked the documents. Anonip 21:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, I never claimed she did or claim that there is direct evidence they faked them. In the article I use the term "corroborating evidence" to explain that the allegations contained in the memos are perhaps accurate. If the allegations are true or even if there is corroborating evidence that the allegations are true, then at the very least the burden of proof shifts toward the Republicans? CBS doesn't have a motive to fake the documents if the allegations in the documents are true. Republicans do still have a motive. zen master T 21:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no evidence of any kind that Republicans faked the documents. No one suggests that CBS faked the documents. The motive (for Democrats) to fake the documents if the allegations in the documents are true is that the faked documents would appear to be actual proof of the allegations. Anonip 22:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First of all, there is no proof that the content is true. There is evidence for and against it. For example, this is an excerpt from ABC News:

Her late husband was a fan of the young Bush, said Connell, who remarried after her husband died in 1984. "I know for a fact that this young man & was an excellent aviator, an excellent person to be in the Guard, and he was very happy to have him become a member of the 111th."

If you took money from Children's Fund, would you fake memos that allege you did so? No, you would more likely to fake memos based on a false accusation, not a true one. The Republicans are less likely to fake those memos if it reflects the reality, right? If the memos reflect reality, there is equal probability (if not better) that the Democrats, or CBS News, or Burkett faked them. (Again, I am not saying they did, just disputing your evidence).

zen master said, "CBS doesn't have a motive to fake the documents if the allegations in the documents are true." Why not? this statement does not follow. -Anon user (until I sign up)

The statement does follow, why would they fake the documents if the allegations are true? The wife's testimony is not about the authenticity of the allegations contained in the documents. Your logic is circular. CBS has corroborating evidence that the allegations contained in the memos are true, this is circumstantial evidence CBS did not fake the documents (since they then lack motive to fake them, who has benefitted from the documents being fake?). zen master T 21:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To repeat: No one suggests that CBS faked the documents. The motive (for Democrats) to fake the documents if the allegations in the documents are true is that the faked documents would appear to be actual proof of the allegations. Anonip 22:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is evidence (admittedly minor) Republicans faked the documents. The democrats and CBS have no motive to damage their own reputation. The Republicans do and there is corroborating evidence that the allegations are really. To re-paraphrase, the secretary is corroborating evidence to the theory that Republicans preempted the service controversy by falsifying and supplying the documents to CBS. Do any other theories have corroborating evidence? zen master T 22:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT REPUBLICANS FAKED THE DOCUMENTS. On the other hand, the obvious idea that anti-Bush Democrat Burkett faked them is supported by the undisputed facts that he is the person who gave them to CBS and he lied about where he got them in order to make them appear genuine. Anonip 22:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I agree with Anonip. If Burkett did not fake the memos, or if Republicans faked those memos, he would have been more willing identifying the source (Burkett repeated mislead investigation regarding the source of the memo).

Anonip gave you the reason. CBS would fake the memos as indisputable proof of the allegation. They didn't know their own reputation would be damaged in the process. The fact that CBS published those memos show that CBS didn't know their own reputation would be damaged. Again, I am not saying that is the case, just giving you evidence of your falacy.

That theory excludes the corroborating evidence of the secretary's testimony. zen master T 22:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We are arguing in circles. All the secretary said was that the memos reflect truth, no more, no less. How does that lead to the Republicans faking memos?

Because the Republicans have motive and the Democrats/CBS don't if the allegations in the memos are true. zen master T 22:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To repeat again: No one suggests that CBS faked the documents. The motive (for Democrats) to fake the documents if the allegations in the documents are true is that the faked documents would appear to be conclusive proof of the allegations. How many times do I have to repeat this? Anonip 22:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

zen master, a forger of evidence only cares whether the evidence furthers his point of view. In this case, those memos do coincide with Democrat/CBS motive (election and newsworthy). If the evidence reflects truth, all the better.

My point was about the legitimacy of the "Rathergate" controversy. zen master T 23:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Using the recollections of an 80+ year old woman about events 30 years ago is hardly corroborating evidence. The "Rathergate" controversy is a controversy precisely because in the midst of the election Rather and CBS ran like crazy with a story based on documents that 99% of rational people realize are forgeries, and then for 10 days they denied, denied, denied it until they finally had to admit it. Even CBS admits it is a controversy, Zen, which is why they FIRED MAPES and asked the others to resign. This is "Rathergate" because Rather repeatedly misled viewers about the authentication. If you read the CBS report it's all in there, how 4 experts turned into 2 and then into 1 who only checked a signature, while Rather was reiterating that the docs were "confirmed to be genuine." Your passionate interest in impugning Bush's service record (and there is some legitimate cause for interest in that subject) is grossly undermined by your unwillingness to let the truth about this ridiculous forgery be stated in this article. This is an article about the highly suspicious documents and the massive violation of their own news standards at CBS. Out of courtesy to the fact that there is a RELATED controversy about Bush's record, the Bush service article is repeatedly mentioned here. Finally, the Rove allegations are patently ridiculous, and there IS NO PROOF of any kind, which ought to be reflected in this article. I disagree a little with some of the above comments about Hinchey. I say include the allegations and include all of the proof (0) and Hinchey's admission that it is a baseless charge based on Rove's reputation, and let the reader decide if there is merit. My guess is that most people will look at those facts and say "what the hell was CBS thinking with this story," which is pretty much what Boccardi and Thornburg concluded, too. Kaisershatner 00:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One more thing...Zen, corroborating evidence that the allegations "might be true" DOES NOT NULLIFY THIS CONTROVERSY as you have repeatedly stated. Even if Bush was actually AWOL, that wouldn't justify CBS using forged documents to "prove" that, would it? Kaisershatner 00:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have always stated "if the allegations in the documents are true". There is more circumstantial evidence that Republicans faked the documents than Democrats/CBS because the secretary's witness testimony corroborates the criticisms in the "fake" documents so then it comes down to a question of who had motive to fake the documents, who benefited from the documents being fake. CBS/Democrats have no reason to fake documents if the allegations are true, unless the originals were lost of something. The focus should be on determining the accuracy of the criticisms in the memo, not on the documents themselves (that is focusing on the first level of the story, there are multiple levels, the readers should get the full context). I admit it's by no means conclusive. What is with all the anon IPs posting in this thread and your repeated use of all caps? zen master T 18:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why do you think the focus should be on "determining the accuracy of the criticisms in the memo, not on the documents themselves"? There is an entire Wikipedia article dealing with the Bush TANG service controvery. This isn't it. This article is the Killian Documents article. It is supposed to be about the Killian documents themselves and the controvery surrounding them. And since the documents fakes, they have no bearing on the substance of the Bush TANG service controversy. Inserting that subject here is simply inappropriate Bush-bashing. Anonip 19:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be the sole focus. Are you seriously arguing that an article titled about controversial documents should not discuss the contents nor context of those very documents? Are you saying we should only focus on typography and everything else is irrelevant? You seem to be trying to focus on just the first level of the issue, avoiding the full context for the purpose of POV, but, I will assume good faith until detrimental edits are made to the actual article. zen master T 19:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article should include a brief explanation of the Bush TANG service controversy for context, with a reference to the full article on that subject for details. It should describe the contents of the documents, and explain what they purported to add to the allegations, relevant as a possible motive for the forgery. But an extended discussion here of the Bush TANG service controversy is not warranted. The focus should be on the (lack of) authenticity of the documents, the conduct of CBS in reporting them without authentication, and the ensuing controversy. Anonip 20:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The "Bush TANG" controversy is exactly the context and literal contents of the Killian documents, they are not unrelated topics. How can you even argue that they are? zen master T 20:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I never said it was an unrelated topic. I said it was a separate topic. It has its own separate, full-length article. It should be covered fully and fairly in that article. That does not need to be repeated here. Anonip 21:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What you are claiming is a "separate topic" are the literal contents of the documents. How can the actual content of a controversial memo not be directly relevant? zen master T 22:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've said that this article should include a brief explanation of the Bush TANG service controversy, describe the contents of the documents, and explain what they purported to add to the allegations (relevant as a possible motive for the forgery). But because the documents are fakes, their contents have no significance as to the substantive questions of the Bush TANG service controversy. Anonip 23:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That would be true if there wasn't corroborating evidence the documents accurately reflected the opinion of the author. If an original is recreated to look fake does that make the originals or the opinions contained fake? I don't think so. zen master T 23:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the documents were recreated from originals to look fake. And claims that they accurately reflected the opinion of the purported author do not convert forgeries into valid evidence. Anonip 23:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is corroborating evidence, at the very least there are allegations of that. I changed the intro to use "unauthenticated copy of the documents", that seemed like the most neutral and most clear way of describing them to me. What do you think? zen master T 23:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can't comprehend the justification for your changes. There is no evidence that the documents given to CBS were copies made from authentic originals, as you're trying to imply. And the documents were clearly intend to be taken for originals. That makes them forgeries. Your language is obviously intended to obfuscate this fact. Anonip 00:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are allegations and corroborating evidence. The intro currently states facts as facts and allegations as allegations. I thought it was clear in the third paragraph, the documents are likely forgeries but may still reflect Lt. Col. Killian's opinion, what do you think of that? It all comes down to whether the word "forgeries" is appropriate if a document is recreated to look fake but the contents/criticisms in the originals are real. At this point that is a relevant and notable allegation based on corroborating evidence. zen master T 00:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look. It is a fact that the documents are forgeries. Whether they accurately reflect Killian's opinion is irrelevant. There is no evidence that they were recreated from authentic originals to look fake. This whole discussion is ridiculous. It is obvious that no progress will be made in addressing the problems with this article, and it will remain as a clear demonstration of the failure of the Wikipedia paradigm. Anonip 00:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We disagree on the relevancy of the actual content of the documents, and I interpret your rhetoric as hyperbole for effect. How are the contents of controversial documents not relevant in an article about those documents? Should the article on the declaration of independence not mention the content and only focus on whether everyone really signed it? If there is corroborating evidence that the allegations/criticisms in "fake" documents are in fact separately true that shifts the motive for the faking to the Republican side. zen master T 00:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No hyperbole intended. This discussion is clearly futile. You just don't get it. You aren't going to. And there's nothing to prevent you from dictating the content of this article. In theory, the Wikipedia community could do so. In practice, it won't. That's the failure of the Wikipedia paradigm. Anonip 01:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What argument or points are you trying to convince me of exactly? What changes do you want to make to the article? We agree the documents are almost certainly fake, we disagree on the relevancy of including details on the contents of the documents in an article about those very documents, have I missed anything? zen master T 03:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not trying to convince you. I do not believe it is possible to convince you. I am simply documenting the problem. Anonip 03:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So you are not working towards consensus? I am convinced by logic. zen master T 04:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please re-read my comments above. There is no reason for me to retype them. Anonip 05:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That isn't logic, that is POV being pushed (you appear to be trying to limit the scope of this article by ignoring or rejecting the very content of the controversial documents this article is about). zen master T 05:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will have to leave that for readers to judge. Anonip 06:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kaisershatner, I assume you are the author. I like the article the way it was a few months ago much better, concise and to the point. Can we revert back, and give a PROMINENT section at the end for "explanatory theories?"

Zen, your changes to the article that imply there is evidence that the Killian documents were recreated from originals is highly misleading, as Anonip noted above. As I mentioned in my above post, the only "evidence" you have acknowledged is the secretary's testimony that the docs reflected Killian's opinion, which as I also noted above, is hardly tantamount to evidence that there ever were any originals (this is now the third time I am making this point). Your next "evidence" is the logic of "who benefits?" and you are drawing the conclusion that since Bush allegedly benefitted from the controversy, it was obviously his plan all along. The logic of this approach is highly suspect anyway, but even if true, it still isn't evidence that any original documents ever existed. Your continued efforts to make this article about the Bush service controversy rather than the falsity of the documents and the story of how CBS publicized them in gross violation of their own standards of journalism are extremely frustrating, and your counterclaims that without information about the "context" and "content" of the documents this article is incomplete are not only incorrect in their logic, but are not substantiated by the facts, ie this article ALREADY contains the information that you desire, namely (1) the details of the allegations in the memos, or content, and (2) the context, ie that Bush's service record is controversial (see: that article) and that there are those (such as the secretary and other TANG members) who claim the CONTENT of the documents may have reflected the opinion of Killian.

In summary, you continue to introduce statements that suggest the documents are somehow legitimate because of the possible truth of their allegations, when no-one editing this article is seriously disputing that possibility, you continue to resist attempts to make the article about the Killian Documents primarily reflect the nature of the forgery and the history of CBS self-described poor judgement in publizicing them, you continue to give the circumstantial evidence that the content of the faked memos might be legitimate equal weight with the objective evidence that they were forged and that CBS denied and ignored this for almost two weeks, and finally, as Anonip has repeatedly pointed out, there is very little that can be done about this. I'm less familiar with the process than Anonip, so I have a small hope that maybe some kind of arbitration is possible, but basically, I agree with Anonip that logic will not convince you. Logic cannot convince you that this article should be about the Killian documents and not about Bush's service record, and that's the main point of contention, and logic cannot convince you that the totally unsubstantiated allegations that "originals" of these memos exist should not be given any serious weight. Kaisershatner 18:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To the previous poster who asked if I am "the author," I don't know what you mean; if you check the article history you can see where I came into this, and prior to my involvement, the opening paragraph attributed the story to Karl Rove, and didn't mention Mapes or CBS's "minor" hand in bringing these docs to public attention. So I'm not sure it was really a better article before I tried to drive it back toward reality. Kaisershatner 18:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bush's service record generally is a separate controversy, but the contents of the Killian documents that are a part of that service controversy are very relevant to this article. "corroborating evidence" is exactly what it is. Why are you trying to exclude circumstantial evidence? It's more than just an "allegation" and we include (cited) allegations in wikipedia all the time. zen master T 19:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

al·le·ga·tion (l-gshn) KEY

NOUN: Something alleged; an assertion: allegations of disloyalty. The act of alleging. A statement asserting something without proof: The newspaper's charges of official wrongdoing were mere allegations. Law An assertion made by a party that must be proved or supported with evidence.

Marion Carr Knox's statement that the documents "may have been copied from originals" is an assertion that is unsupported by EVIDENCE, ie original documents of some kind.

Please indicate that there is "supporting evidence" that the documents were copied. Ideally you could support this with an external reference, ie some kind of neutral or mainstream source who supports your contention that there is "supporting evidence."

And again, you claim "the contents...are very relevant," and again, I state: the contents are already a part of the article and do not justify your edits. You are not editing to introduce the contents of the documents, which are already in there, but to change the focus of the article away from the forged docs and CBS' conduct, as well as inserting unsupported statements like the above regarding "evidence."

Kaisershatner 11:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Recreated from originals"

Zen, when you write "recreated from originals" I assume you mean someone created documents that were not authentic but would appear to be authentic. Isn't that the definition of forgery? Kaisershatner 14:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kaisershatner, I think your assumption is incorrect. I believe Zen means to imply that someone (Karl Rove and his minions) had the authentic originals but created copies that appeared to be fake, so that people would think the originals were not authentic, when actually they were. Anonip 16:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's removal of some text inserted by Kaisershatner

As part of a larger edit, Kaisershatner inserted the following sentence:

Republicans allege that the blatant disregard for common journalistic practices that CBS itself admits were violated represented an effort to influence the 2004 US Presidential Election.

There are two problems with this, in my opinion:

1. "Republicans allege..." Which Republicans? Cite sources. Name names. If this comes from a press release, all the better. Cite it.
2. "the blatant disregard for common journalistic practices that CBS admits" doesn't seem particularly factual to me. It sounds somewhat overlarded.

I have removed that sentence for reconsideration. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I agree with your basic point, "allegations" should be cited. But why didn't you remove/demand cites for the "corroborating evidence" that Zen-master claims exists regarding the existence of original documents? Kaisershatner 18:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The corroborating evidence is already in this article, farther down, and has been explainted on this talk page countless times. The secretary's statement that the documents accurately reflected Killian's opinion is the corroborating evidence. zen master T 18:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And I have already replied to that - the secretary's opinion isn't "evidence" of anything other than her opinion. Here's a way out of it: I won't dispute it if you want to write something like the documents are considered by most experts to be forgeries, "but in the opinion of Killian's then-secretary, Marion Carr Knox, they may have been recreated from originals." I think you could even provide a cite for that, she really did say something similar. This will avoid the Zen/Kaiser debate of the validity of that "evidence" and let the reader decide. I don't dispute the objective fact that she said that, she certainly did. Kaisershatner 19:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zen, since you insist on reprinting that there is "corroborating evidence," but won't list it, I have listed it for you. If there is other such evidence that you think should be cited, please feel free to cite it. Kaisershatner 21:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I may clean up your word choices but overall looks good. But I should point out no one claimed the corroborating evidence was "uncited", they simply just tried to remove it completely from the article or intro. I just posted on your talk page about how there are two massive redundant "Background and timeline" sections in the article now. zen master T 21:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In answer to Kaisershatner's question, I followed the affair and was well aware of the secretary's corroboration from memory of Killian's opinion of the young Bush. It's a weak corroboration, given the fallibility of human memory, but significant nonetheless. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since Killian is deceased and because the secretary was in a position to have knowledge on the accuracy of the criticisms contained in the documents her statement is indeed corroborating evidence. Just because the documents are likely fake doesn't mean the content alleged in those documents is as well (this is why the Republican's allegedly preemptively engineered plan has been so effective). We need to be more careful not to commingle the physical with the abstract. zen master T 21:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

zen, we have mentioned several times that the secretary's comment should be included in the article. It's your logic we are questioning. Furthermore, you very conveniently ignore comments from Killian's son and wife. Jackbean 22:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do the son and wife have knowledge of the criticisms contained in the (original) Killian documents specifically? Or are they stating generically that they support Bush or even that Lt. Col. Killian generally liked Bush's politics (separate from his apparent quality of service criticisms of Bush during the 1970s)? Succinctly summarize what the son and wife are saying as it directly relates to the Killian documents specifically here and we can discuss it for intro inclusion or article inclusion (if it's not in there already). zen master T 22:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But I already showed you an excerpt from ABC News earlier!! Here it is again:

Her late husband was a fan of the young Bush, said Connell, who remarried after her husband died in 1984. "I know for a fact that this young man & was an excellent aviator, an excellent person to be in the Guard, and he was very happy to have him become a member of the 111th."

We should suspect everybody's political inclination equally. You suspected Killian's son and wife of supporting Bush, why didn't you suspect Knox of supporting Kerry? Jackbean 22:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That statement is not about the Killian documents specifically. Lt. Col. Killian may well have liked Bush overall but that does not erase the apparent fact he seems to have criticized Bush's quality of service in the TANG back in the 1970s. It could be that Bush eventaully corrected all those problems to the satisfaction of Killian but that does not mean the criticisms don't exist. If Killian did criticize Bush that de-legitimizes the entirety of the manufactured "Rathergate" brouhaha. zen master T 23:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zen, you have repeatedly stated essentially that "if the allegations are true" then it "de-legitimizes...the 'Rathergate'" brouhaha. It's not really something we necessarily need to agree on to edit this article, but are you really saying that if the allegations are true, it doesn't matter that CBS news lied about the authenticity, lied about what their experts said, and kept it up for days - you're ok with that, it isn't controversial to you that a major news network and anchor could do that?

Zen, please answer these questions posed to you. Otherwise please refrain from asking others questions.Jackbean 17:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Corroborating Evidence

On another note, I think the breakthrough Zen-master and I had is that we probably will never agree on what constitutes "corroborating evidence," but we can certainly agree that Knox said the things she said. Let's all keep working on introducing the facts. Kaisershatner 16:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CBS should have admitted the documents were sketchy earlier, but that does not undermine the point that the allegations contained in the documents are likely true. The secretary's testimony is precisely corroborating evidence, you can't spin that away, you could try to undermine her as being politically motivated, or contrast with the family's statements (about the documents specifically), but her statement is exactly corroborating evidence. Technically, you can't really say a document is fake if the content is true (that's all a part of the preemptively engineered plan). What about what the major networks did with Kerry and the swift boat BS veterans for truth? That was 1,000 times worse (if you are going to go down the "fairness" road). zen master T 21:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Corroborate: To strengthen or support with other evidence; make more certain. [8]

• is this definition disputed?
• is it disputed that the secretary's testimony "supports" the theory allegations contained in the documents are true?
• is it disputed that the secretary's testimony is "other" evidence than the document?

Frankly, this is purely rhetorical, because if anyone disputed any of these things, I'd laugh. If you really hold that view, K, then you can rest assured that nobody will ever agree with you. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:01, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

The documents are fakes. They're not valid evidence. The secretary's statements can't strengthen or support them. Her statements actually corroborate the fact that the documents are fakes (see the quotes I included above). To the extent that her statements are direct evidence concerning the allegations about Bush's TANG service, they should be included in the article on that subject, (George W. Bush military service controversy). Anonip 01:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Documents are tangible things that can be real or fake. The abstract contents of documents can also be real or fake. Being forgeries in the pyshical realm doesn't mean the contents are also fake. To be more specific, the secretary's statement is corroborating evidence to the theory that the documents, while forgeries, still accurately reflected Lt. Col. Killian's opinion. The entire allegation of Republican's preemptively engineering a controversy over the documents is exactly that, faking the very documents that truthfully form the basis of a legitimate criticism of Bush. zen master T 01:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's true, documents can be real or fake. These are fake. And yes, the contents can be real or fake. The contents of these are fake. The secretary's statement corroborates this. Whether the allegations supposedly supported by the fake contents of these fake document happen to be true or not has no significance whatsoever. Anonip 04:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zen, since you think the content is the main thing, maybe you'd be interested in an "authentic" Declaration of Independence I'm selling for $100,000 (very cheap for an authentic antique). The content is 100% accurate, but I think most experts would have some questions about the signatures, typography, paper, provenance, etc. Still, if content is what's important, that's a pretty good price, no? Kaisershatner 13:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey zen, I found this type-written journal of John Kerry during his Vietnam War service. The journal detailed how he deserted his comrades. It must be fake because Kerry probably did not carry a typewriter with him during the War. The content is probably true because the Swiftboat Veterans' statement partially confirms it. According to your logic, the Democrats faked this journal because there is no reason for anybody else to fake it. And because the content is partially confirmed by people who knew John Kerry, he probably deserted during the Vietnam War. Good logic, zen.

Speculation and fact

There's rather too much weasely speculation of the "some say", "some think" kind in this article, in my opinion. We know the blogs and whatnot are full of silly conspiracy theories on either side--statements from blogs that have had a significant effect should be reported, but idle statements that amount to no more than speculations have no place in this article except where we report on who voiced them and what effect this had.

Hard facts are sometimes missed, too. It should be in the lead that the White House initially accepted the documents as authentic (presumably trusting the journalists to get things right) and this was taken by NBCCBS as confirmation of their authenticity, which at that time had not been sufficiently determined. Armed with the confidence that White House communications director Dan Bartlett wasn't challenging authenticity, NBCCBS made a bad call and went to air with it story, shorn of a section where Rather interviewed a handwriting expert. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NBC? Wasn't it CBS? Anonip 18:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Apologies for the confusion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Corroborating Evidence

Creating a section to address this, since Zen has made changes but doesn't reply to my concerns listed above. To reiterate, I have repeatedly asked that the "corroborating evidence" he alleges exists be indicated. Since the Carr testimony in my OPINION is not corroborating evidence, but in Zen's view IS evidence, I suggested a compromise - rather than a subjective claim that there is evidence, let's print the OBJECTIVE facts: that Knox thought the docs were forged but that they reflected in her opinion, Killian's view of Bush. That would appear to resolve that dispute, wouldn't it? Kaisershatner 21:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Zen was posting reply to my talk page when I wrote that: The change you made to the intro to mention the secretary by name, include her agreement with the finding of forgery, and then clarify she is the corroborating evidence was a good change. Separately, I think changes you made earlier today have resulted in there being two redundant "Background and timeline" sections. Can you clean that up? zen master T 21:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I retract my objection to this small point, and again, I'm hopeful that by sticking to the undisputed facts we can put together an article. Kaisershatner 21:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rathergate

Zen, I think the phrase, "also known as Rathergate", is accurate and appropriate. It simply informs the reader that the controversy is known by this name. What's your objection to it?

If that term was common usage I'd agree, but since it's called that primarily by conservative media outlets and critics such usage is inaccurate. I think "critics of Dan Rather and CBS" is the best (my recent change) but I am planning to add "primarily by conservative" criticis or something like that since it's only the folks that want people to focus on just the surface level of the controversy that call it Rathergate. zen master T 05:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The phrase I'm suggesting is "known as" rather than "called". It simply informs the reader that the controversy is known by this name. It avoids the need to characterize usage. And while I recognize your POV that it refers to what you believe is "just the surface level" of the controversy, that is what the mainstream media reporting and the CBS investigation focused on, and what the general public is aware of. Anonip 06:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am specifically saying there is a need to characterize the usage, especially considering so much about this subject remains in dispute. It's not the "mainstream media" even, it's primarily by conservative media outlets like I tried to put in the article. zen master T 06:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Despite whatever personal opinions I might have about the actual circumstances of the killian piece, it is well-knkown as being referred to as "Rathergate", and I believe the article should reflect that.--kizzle 06:48, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but that isn't the issue. The issue is how widely known and by whom (need of caveat). It's by no means common usage and using it focuses on just one level of the issue so it's additionally misleading/POV. zen master T 06:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Both terms are common usage. If you google "Memogate" you will find references at USA Today, NPR, and the Wall Street Journal (left and right of center sources). "Rathergate" does seem to be used mostly by right of center sources. That was my finding. If anyone else finds differently, post it here. I think both "Memogate" and "Rathergate" should be reflected in the article. Would the phrase "the affair, also referred to as "Memogate" and "Rathergate," be a reasonable compromise, without explicitly spelling out who calls it what? Kaisershatner 14:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm ok with that. --kizzle 18:12, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

That would be inaccurate, it is POV to ignore the issue of legitimacy of nomenclature. The fact the conntroversy is called Rathergate is actually evidence of Republican preemptively engineered plan. It makes it seem like Dan Rather personally faked the documents himself. I do not support that. zen master T 18:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Democrats believe the fact the controversy is called Rathergate is actually evidence of a Republican preemptively engineered plan." Should we include this statement? Anonip 18:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please don't, unless you can cite it from a prominent democrat. As for "the legitimacy of nomenclature"...it is irrelevant where the source came from, we as editors don't evaluate the appropriateness or significance of slang or other such terms, if its in the vernacular we report it as such. Should we go to the South_African_English page and justify why each idiom is correct or not? --kizzle 18:54, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as there are also redirects from "Memogate" and "Rathergate" coming to this page, I'm going to insert Kaiser's text. --kizzle 20:49, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Sure we do, the 2003 invasion of Iraq article specifically says "refered to by proponents as the 'Liberation of Iraq'". Though I am ok with a brief mention at the very top of the article on memogate and rathergate as long as we leave in in the intro the sentence about Rathergate's usage being primarily by critics of Rather (not common). If that is all you guys wanted I apologize (I thought you were saying we should remove any mention of the fact that critics of dan rather and conservative media outlets are primarily the ones that use Rathergate). zen master T 21:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Partisan interests

I removed the section: (1) the documents' supporters and detractors are documented in the body of the article, along with their political leaning, (2) the validity of the documents is a separate question from what partisans on either side thought, which in any case is already addressed in the body, (3) the Pajamahadeen section is already in the body, (4) the Thornburg/Boccardi info is already in the body. Kaisershatner 15:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

One common thread to the debate over the documents' authenticity lies in the partisanship of the debate participants. Most obviously, there is the fact that the most influential bloggers currently supporting the claim of authenticity are well-known for holding liberal views [9][10], while the earliest and most influential bloggers to question their authenticity such as Little Green Footballs [11][12], Power Line (blog) [13], and Jim Geraghty at National Review Online [14][15] generally holding conservative views. The conservative bloggers even began to refer to themselves collectively by a self-deprecating name, the Pajamahadeen, in reference to comments made by a CBS executives. Those bloggers viewed this affair as confirmation of a "liberal bias" at CBS News, particularly because CBS went ahead with the report even after doubts were raised by some of their own document experts. The Thornburgh/Boccardi Report, however, concluded that an eagerness to land the story was at fault rather than a liberal bias, while acknowledging that Mapes' contacting the Kerry camp was "a clear conflict of interest."

Typographical and Other Issues Sections

Here's another proposal: Move the all of the typographical and other authenticity issues to a subpage, linked from the first paragraph via something like "a detailed analysis of the typographical and other authenticity issues is HERE," making the article under 70k, and allowing the addition of some pictures. My thinking is that the average reader isn't interested in the microdetails of typesetting and font widths, etc., especially since at this stage, the fact that the documents were forged isn't disputed much at all (in my research on this article I found that even DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe calls them forgeries). Since all of the typographical & content issues are still quite important, I thought maybe giving them their own page would be possible. I may try to make a trial subpage if I can figure out how to do that, to provide an example, but do you guys think this is a horrible idea? Kaisershatner 16:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC) Check this out: [[16]]

I posted comments at Zen-master and JamesMLane's pages requesting their input on this suggestion. 207.122.19.254 16:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to keep typographical concerns here. It might kind of make sense to move the typographical details to a sub page if the main page pretty much concludes that the version of the docs aired by CBS are indeed fake (so the details are redundant). But in the interest of being fair and balanced, and the need to present all sides of the issue, I think the typographical details should remain in this article. Though there is likely a huge potential for deverbosification if article size is a concern. zen master T 18:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I wish to add some more issues to the fact that these documents are forgeries.

1. The word-wrapping is reproducable by Microsoft Word, but ONLY in Word 2000 and later. It is NOT reproducable in Word 97 or earlier versions. The default breaks occur at different points. This would indicate that the forger used a fairly new version of the software available to do the job. My source is that I performed tests on multiple versions of Word myself, but you are welcome to verify this independantly.

2. ALL military documents since WWI use the same kind of folders for storage. (My wife was working for a company copying information out of such folders recently, and pointed this out). All such folders have the two pronged fold over metal holder, and as such use a two hole punch in the top of the page. Most of the time, such punches go thru headers. None of these documents displayed these holes, or even photocopies of these holes.

3. You missed the other cute stupidity the forger left in. The memo ordered George Bush to report for a physical on Mother's day, when the entire base was closed.

Mycroft 7 Jan 2005

Carr's statements

I added statements and links by Mrs. Carr before the 60 mins interview, along with the source here.[17]-bro 172.133.83.48 30 June 2005 08:18 (UTC)

Section Needed re Possible Sources of Document

The article exhaustively analyzes the authenticity and motivation re the forgery but does not discuss at all any evidence re the document's sources. This should at least be mentioned, as far as either stating no one has yet been prosecuted and the obvious suspects have not been charged.

This is a Scandal

Any attempt to whitewash the scandal and say it wasn't a scandal is an example of POV. A Google search of Killian Documents Scandal yields 16,000 results. A scandal is a scandal is a scandal. Sadly POV continues to rear its ugly head here.--Agiantman 04:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't mean "scandal" is a neutral or even an accurate description. zen master T 06:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Ironically, Agiantman's justification of a google search leads:

• killian documents controversy - 16,800 results
• killian documents scandal - 15,700 results

By your google justification, controversy would be more appropriate. I'm not sure why you wouldn't look that up before you use google to justify. --kizzle 07:41, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

All scandals are controversies. Not all controversies are scandals. The 6.6% difference you found shows that only 6.6% of writers do not identify the killian documents scandal as a scandal. They see it as a mere controversy. The rest, 93.4%, identify it as a scandal. Thank you very much. Case closed.--Agiantman 22:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true.

• killian document controversy (excluding "scandal") - 10,200 results
• killian document scandal (excluding "controversy") - 8,970 results

Those who exclusively refer to this as a controversy and NOT a scandal are more than those who refer to this as a scandal and NOT a controversy, thus rendering your comment that "93.4% identify it as a scandal" incorrect. --kizzle 22:41, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

These are only so-called "documents"

Referring to these "documents" as documents adds a false patina of legitimacy. The heraldy, provenance and genesis of the source papers from which these images of faxed photocopies were (we've been told) created, has never been established. Rather, what has been established by the preponderance of the evidence is that these so-called "documents" are forgeries. When one forges paper money, one ends up with a piece of paper, but that paper is NOT money. Likewise, when one forges documents, one ends up with papers, but those papers are NOT documents. By calling them anything other than purported or so-called, we are framing the debate as if the papers have been established to be genuine. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 04:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

No, there are plenty of illegitimate documents out there. A piece of paper with writing on it doesn't cease to be a document just because the writing is false, or is falsely presented as having been created at a time and by a person other than the actual time and author. On the right-wing website Little Green Footballs, where they agree with your view of the authenticity, they addressed the issue under the topic heading "forged documents". [18] Our article makes abundantly clear that Wikipedia is not asserting the authenticity of the documents. JamesMLane 07:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Again I point out to you, when the legitimacy of a document is in question, it is better to refer to that document as a "document" so as to make clear to the readers, that we as editors are not putting any patina of legitimacy about so-called documents being anything other than "documents". As for "asserting", you missed the point; the current language infers, it does not assert. Even so, I am opposed to any inference that these so-called documents are anything other than so-called "documents". As you surely must know at this point, there is nothing which exists in the public dialog on this topic to indicate that anything other than multi-generation (faxed) photocopies of some papers of some sort (of unknown origin) may be in the hands of some people in the media. But, as to where they actually came from or who truly originally created them, nothing has been proved. As a result, by calling them documents instead of "documents" if they are (as most seem to agree they are) forgeries, we helping the forgers aim by adding a patina of legitimacy to them. In fact, I want this page to be renamed to: The Killian "documents" controversy. It would be a more accurate title. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 18:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tutorial - refresher course

Rex has deleted substantial information with the stated rationale that the deletion is "to bring closer POV balance in text amounts to opposing theories". This is improper. To the extent that there is any imbalance, the appropriate course of action is explained in Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance: "The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it." JamesMLane 06:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

JML is seizing on a guideline and trying to use it as a rule. And frankly, it's not readily possible to get tons of explanations into an edit summary (yet when I explain at length on talk pages, JML doesn't respond anyway "Although I won't be responding..." [19] ) - JML knows this, but he tosses the edit summary back in my face! Suffice it to say, there is no need for advancing a bunch of crackpot theories. In fact, this wiki also has guidelines against pushing crackpot theories. Those mulitple, speculative "Rove did it" "the Republicans did it" snippets are just flat out crackpot and including so much of them does wreck the POV balance. What JML is saying above is basically this "I (JML) want lots of anti-Bush crackpot theories in the article. Rather than delete them, you can add lots of pro-Bush crackpot theories to balance them". Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 06:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Rex, you are certainly entitled to hold and express your personal opinion that these theories are crackpot. The problem, of course, is that your personal opinion is utterly, completely, and totally irrelevant. From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#The original formulation of NPOV: "Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so." That doesn't mean we have to catalog every theory that's out there. The standard is whether "a viewpoint is held by a significant minority," one test for which is "to name prominent adherents". Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue Weight I trust that not even you will deny that Hinchey and McAuliffe are prominent by virtue of their offices.

By the way, Rex, as to your edit summary reading in part "restore (4) discrete edits which JML reverted with single wholsale revert", a frequent theme of yours -- there is no requirement or sound reason why, when you make multiple successive edits without making use of the "Show preview" button the way most people do, I should have to emulate your inefficient procedure. If all of your edits are ill-advised, then, yes, I will revert them wholesale. Why not? If your edits are almost completely ill-advised but with some scrap of merit, then it's frequently easiest for me to use the earlier version as a base and incorporate the comparatively minor portion of your edit that merits retention, or some variation thereof, as I did in this instance. I'll now do so again to make sure that there is a link to your newly created article, while reserving my opinion about whether there should be such an article. JamesMLane 08:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

We could always insert, verbatim, the Lucy Ramirez article (as it now stands) into Killian documents if that helps you out. As for "crackpot", it's a lot easier to toss around unverfied (and unverifiable) allegations - which is what the "Rove did it" "Republicans did it" claims are. Frankly, I don't believe that you are being on the level when you insist on a 3-1 or 5-1 ratio of shrill, crackpot charges. As to what people believe, well I suppose if enough people keep lying to them on this topic, they just might come to believe that "Rove did it". Of course, if that were even remotely true, Dan Rather would still have his job. So I suppose the Brass at CBS doesn't believe the way you surmise "Hinchey and McAuliffe" has supposedly been able to lead a "significant minority" to believe. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 08:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

As is obvious from my first comment in this thread, I don't "insist" on any particular ratio. The quotation from Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance makes clear that focusing on a ratio is misguided. Notable opinions should be included. If some are missing, add them. Don't delete information in the name of a "ratio". Your comment about CBS's belief is completely incomprehensible to me, but since it doesn't appear to relate to the subject of how the Wikipedia article should read, I won't trouble you for an explanation. JamesMLane 10:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Rex, if you can't find anything to add to make something balanced/proportional, that's a clear indication that either it already is balanced/proportional, or it needs more weight on the other side than the side you want to add to, to make it so. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 16:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Kevin, I don't agree with that logic at all. If I go around saying "Volkswagon is responsible for the death of President Kennedy", "Volkswagon is responsible for the death of Will Rogers", " Volkswagon is responsible for the the death of Fatty Arbuckle", simply if I am able to get those allegations published in the press, does not mean they ought to also get into a wiki article. Suffice it to say, by including so many far out allegations, the article borders on the absurd. There is no and has been no bona-fide inquiries which returned as a bona-fide result, information indicating anything other than these "documents" being fed into the food chain via anti-Bush partisans. It's patently silly for us to give more ink to absurd conjectures under a section called "explanatory theories", that we give to the single theory from the R side which is "liberal bias" (in this instance, aka anti-Bush partisans).

Even so, if you are now saying that you want me to flesh out in the explanatory theories section various contentions against Mapes, Burkett, Rather, Rather's daughter, Travis County Democrats, etc, with an approximately equal number of words that the crackpot theories are getting, then if you insist on jamming more finger pointing in the article, well so be it.

And please take note, one of my main objections to the "crackpot" theories is the volume of them being included, diminishes the scholarly value of the article. Instead of it being a reasoned conveyence of the most probable facts, it becomes a hodge-podge of sillyness - surpassing some of the "black helicopter" crowd for crackpot-ness. At least that's how I feel. Suffice it to say, by leaving the wacko claims in, we reduce the reception level of the readers from being willing to say to themselves "hmmm, looks like there was a bona-fide scandal here" to "all the politicians do is point fingers - bah". And it's the latter of the two results which helps wrongly downplay this whole sordid affair. Of course, the less credible any reports on this topic becomes, the more it keeps egg off the face of the anti-Bush partisans who are the actual culprits. And frankly, that's an editorial tack that I oppose. I oppose the inclusion of excess "crackpot" allegations on the grounds that including them undercuts the legitimacy of the entire article - by making it seem absurd.

Personally, I think a single para, for each "side" in that section is enough. However, I'm gonna pledge flexibility here - as Alan King once said to Ali McGraw in a movie, "just tell me what you want". And since it appears, you are telling me you want copious amounts of finger pointing (crackpot or not) embedded into the article - in the explanatory theories section - then that's what we shall have. Or am I reading you wrong? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 18:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I very much doubt that that's what Kevin means, but if it is, then I disagree with him. JamesMLane 19:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello all. I can't say that I'm that surprised about the edit conflicts, but since I haven't been involved in this round until now, I hope to be able to provide a fresh perspective. I share Rex's viewpoint that the allegations made against Rove and Stone are unsupported by evidence, and are basically just cui bono speculation. However, I agree with JamesMLane that they should be included in the article, provided that they are (1) sourced and (2) presented objectively (ie, that it is noted that the accusers made their claims but never presented any evidence to support them). (I do disagree w/JML that just because someone is a congressman their view is in some way notable or valid. Plenty of total a**ses get elected to things. We should include Hinchey's views, but not because he's in Congress.)

This seems to be a moot point, since I don't think Rex is disputing their inclusion at this point. W/R/T the Lucy Ramirez page, I think it's a fine idea, for the same reason. Maybe it's a crackpot theory, maybe not, but it's not for me to decide - let the reader draw their own conclusions from the objective facts. A person reading this article should be able to draw a line from these objectively provable occurrences:

(1) Burkett provides documents that make Bush look bad,

(2) CBS consults 4 experts who can't authenticate the docs,

(3) despite this, Rather claims they are authentic on the air,

(4) bloggers and document experts, both right-wing and Democrats like Newcomer, cast enormous doubt on the validity of the docs,

(5) CBS and Rather defend their story for two weeks,

(6) CBS caves,

(7) an internal investigation finds dozens of substantial failures of process and questionable motivation, and cans the responsible people, and

(8) there are Democrats and others who think the whole thing was a Republican plot, but beyond the actual claim there is only circumstantial occurrence (the speed of the response and the fact that Roger Stone has a Hispanic wife), something that even the accusers admit (in Hinchey's case).

If after all that a reader still decides the "Rove must have done it" view is more credible than the "Rather ignored his own experts in order to make Bush look bad" view, then they are free to draw that conclusion. Was it Daniel Patrick Moynihan who said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts?" So let's concentrate on making the article objective and label speculation as speculation, okay? Kaisershatner 01:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but if we publish too much crackpot material, to some readers, the sheer volume of the material tends to persuade. Suffice it to say, though it's not all (or even many) people that fall for malarkey, we have a duty to keep the malarkey level down, so as not to fool those members of the reading public who are easily misinformed. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 03:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we have a duty to present all of the factual information, in as neutral a point of view as possible. This ensures that the fewest number of people will be "fooled," and there is nothing at all that can be done about members of the reading public who draw poor inferences from the facts as they are honestly presented. It's my own POV that people who find Hinchey's totally unsubstantiated theory more credible than the idea that Rather and Mapes got bad info from someone with an extensive history of making up bad stuff about the President, and were so excited about influencing the election they pointedly ignored their own "standards" to make false claims about documents they "didn't take the time" to authenticate (ie, that were incontrovertibly NOT authenticated by their own paid experts). I mean, I love to imagine that Rove et al. were so confident in Rather's egomania and dislike of Bush that they were sure he'd use the "fake documents" that took 20 minutes to show were forgeries, but why they would want to draw more attention to Bush's service record is beyond me. Anyway, my POV, and yours, and JamesMLane's aren't really the point. The point is, include the facts, source them, remove editorial language, and let the reader decide. Cheers, Kaisershatner 00:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The Lucy Ramirez page

Can be found here: Lucy Ramirez. Please do not delete this wiki link. Thank you. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 07:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

No link to Karl Rove

Karl Rove is only mentioned once in the article, re Hinchey's allegations, and then his name is not even hyperlinked!!!! Truly amazing. This really smacks of an active Repugnican sanitizing effort on this article.

He's not mentioned more because other than listing the allegations against him, there has never been any evidence of his involvement (see: tu quoque). Kaisershatner 16:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

whoooops, I meant cui bono. sorry. Kaisershatner 16:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The evidence is circumstantial (as the article notes), but that's not the same as no evidence. The theory of Rove's involvement should be presented along with the other theories, with the evidence and arguments laid out. The current presentation is quite POV, as for example in italicizing the point that those implicating Rove "acknowledge" that the documents are forgeries. Also, Rove's denial of involvement was included at one point, but has somehow been dropped. His side of the story should obviously be reported as well. JamesMLane 18:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: I've rewritten the section along the lines suggested above. The section had included the following text:

A recent book on the 60 Minutes series claims that Rather's celebrity status and his busy schedule meant that he simply lacked the proper amount of time (1 day) to properly investigate the report, whereby he and Mapes made a foolish choice to assert its authenticity, misrepresent their sourcing, accuse critics of political bias, and defend the story for two weeks.

This passage doesn't properly belong in the section detailing the theory that the whole affair was a setup by Bush operatives. I'm not sure what book is referred to or what this might add to any other section, so I'm noting its deletion here for the benefit of anyone who wants to elaborate on the source and insert it at some other point in the article. JamesMLane 19:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

James, I am not a lawyer, and unless I'm mistaken, you are. Could you explain to me how any of these three things are circumstantial evidence of Rove's supposed involvement in this: (I quote our article):

"The circumstantial evidence cited by supporters of this theory includes:

• Rove's history of deceptive tactics ([20]);
• the speed with which the arguments for forgery were developed and presented, by people who supposedly had no knowledge of the documents before the broadcast ([21]); and
• the failure of any federal or state prosecutors to launch an investigation to identify and prosecute the forger ([22])."

I could see some people thinking the latter two are circumstantial evidence of something if they really wanted to believe it - but nothing connecting it to Rove - and the first one, even if granted as unimpeachably valid, just points out Rove has supposedly done bad things before, but again doesn't actually tie him to this. "Rove did dirty tricks before. This is a dirty trick. Therefore Rove might be involved?" Is there some different definition of circumstantial evidence we're using? Kaisershatner 14:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's our job to assess the validity of such a theory, but if it can be attributed to a notable person on the matter along with a rebuttal that no evidence has ever surfaced that Rove was involved, we're reporting both sides. --kizzle 19:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, I have absolutely no problem at all with reporting the theory. In fact, I agree with you 100% that we must report the theory. My problem is with characterizing the three points in the article as "circumstantial evidence." They're not. As it stands, we are taking a position on the validity of the theory by asserting that there is circumstantial evidence to support it, something that I think is objectively not true, no matter what your politics are. My preferred method of addressing the "Rove involvement" theory is to mention it with attribution, as you have stated, and mention that there is no known evidence supporting the theory, and that none of the (prominent) adherents have produced any. Kaisershatner 21:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The second and third points are certainly circumstantial evidence. The first point isn't stated with legal precision; Rove's record of dirty tricks is an instance of using past acts as evidence of a propensity to act in a similar fashion, and it's coupled with the circumstantial evidence that Rove had the resources to do so here and had a motive for doing so. For us to assert that there was no evidence would be flatly POV (and wrong, in my opinion). I don't think this article should get hung up on analyzing formal rules of evidence. For example, under the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rove's past dirty tricks probably wouldn't be admissible to show propensity, but by the same token Saddam's past actions also wouldn't be admissible, yet "he used weapons of mass destruction on his own people" was one of the Bush administration's favorite mantras in promoting and defending its aggression against Iraq. The point of the Iraq example is that, outside the courtroom, people don't always restrict their arguments to what the FRE would allow. If the word "evidence" is the problem, let's just change the passage to read "The facts cited by supporters of this theory include:" etc.

As it stands now, the placement of the passage is confusing. The section is generally about the theory that the documents were forged for the purpose of helping Bush. The second and third points in the list support that theory. It then discusses the possibility that the culprit was specifically Rove, then the possibility that it was specifically Stone. Kaisershatner is right that the second and third points don't give reason to believe it was Rove rather than Stone, or Rove rather than some local Bush supporter operating completely without the knowledge of anyone else. They belong in this section, however, because they support the general point that it was a pro-Bush tactic. I'll take a stab at re-ordering the material to clarify the distinction. JamesMLane 23:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

James, thanks for your input. I agree that we don't have to apply the FRE. I also agree that what's troubling me is the use of the word "evidence" and the fact that the argument as stated doesn't support Rove as the culprit more than Stone, or any number of other "potential suspects." So changing it to "facts cited by proponents of this view" would go a long way to satisfying me. I haven't yet looked to see your edits, but I'll check that out now and weigh in. Thanks again, Kaisershatner 13:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Why did you delete the point about the minimal impact of the documents, compared to what was already known? I think it's strong evidence for the view that this was a Republican setup. If you were going to forge documents from Bush's National Guard days for the purpose of getting him in trouble, you'd want to forge something more potent, like a reprimand for his having broken into the unit's petty cash box to buy booze. The actual documents, even if accepted as authentic, don't add much to what was already known. That, of course, is what you'd do if you wanted to forge documents to help Bush -- you'd be hoping that the debunking would lead people to think that the whole TANG issue had been debunked, but, just in case the documents were believed, you'd want them to be not all that harmful to your candidate. JamesMLane 17:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I may have been overzealous - I saw that point as another restatement of see also: George W. Bush military service controversy. The other charges and evidence for them are mentioned above this section. Based on your view, I can see why it might be important to retain that point. If you want to reinstate it, that's ok with me, or if you prefer, I'll do it. I'm sure we can find a way to keep the point you want and not make it a restatement of the previously mentioned charges. My apologies. Kaisershatner 19:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

James, here's the deleted sentence: "(For example, it was known that Bush had not taken the required National Guard physical and had accordingly been grounded from flying. The CBS broadcast added only the allegation that Killian had directed Bush to take the physical by a particular day.)" I'm not really sure what to do with it. Kaisershatner 19:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Manual Kerning

The article now reads:

Some typewriters that were available at the time, the IBM Executive and the IBM Selectric Composer, were capable of a limited form of proportional spacing. Kerning on these models was not an automated process that made consistent micro-adjustments to overlap letters, but the effect could be achieved through additional operations such as backspacing or manually moving the carriage back slightly.

The caveat here is idiotic. Even if one of these typewriters could have been manipulated in this way in the 1970s in order to approximate the features of a later personal computer, what possible motivation was there to do so? This simply illustrates the lengths to which some Wikipedia editors will go in denying reality to maintain their partisan POV.

I concur. I've expanded the discussion of IBM's proportional spacing. It should be clear enough now that kerning on an IBM Selectric Composer isn't feasible at all, and that doing so with an IBM Executive would be laborious, and not at all plausible for someone who's just writing a memo. The fact is that these documents are not only forgeries, they are incompetent forgeries. This is so utterly obvious, that Rather and Mapes couldn't bluff their way out of the mess.

Given the incredible level of detail with which this article presents the argument that the documents were forgeries, it doesn't seem inappropriate to summarize what's been said on the other side. No one could read this article and complain that it was biased against the claims of forgery. And, for the record, my "partisan POV" is that they were forgeries. JamesMLane 16:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

That's not a "partisan POV", it's a demonstration of your keen grasp of the obvious ;-)

The documents have been shown by experts to be forgeries, beyond any reasonable doubt. The article's failure to report this is clearly the result of partisan bias to the point of irrationality. This issue is a simple litmus test for left-wing lunatics. No one who denies that the documents have been shown by experts to be forgeries can have their views taken seriously on any subject.