Talk:Killian documents controversy

Talk page dispute

Instead of removing bits of the discussion and combing through BLP and NPA violations, I've just archived it all in hopes that this will help inspire the participants to start fresh. Some things to keep in mind:

• Do not start new sections that serve no other purpose than to complain about or attack another user.
• Do not use this talk page to expound upon your opinions about or to needlessly restate facts about the controversy or its participants.
• Attacks on other users or on living individuals will not be tolerated and will be removed.

Thank you. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Article title

Why is this article titled "Killian documents" when these memos are widely considered as not originating from Killian at all, including by his own family? I think this article should be called "Burkett documents" since Bill Burkett is the sole source for these six documents. 74.77.222.188 02:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A reminder:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Killian documents article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

-BC aka Callmebc 02:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your reminder doesn't pertain to the subject I am raising at all. I'm obviously discussing improvements to the article. 74.77.222.188 03:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL -BC aka Callmebc 03:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI 74.77.222.188 04:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's stay on topic, please. The title should reflect the most common term used to refer to these documents, not the one which we personally think is the most correct or accurate. There is no evidence that the phrase "Burkett documents" is in widespread usage, so it should not be used as the title of the article. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 03:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. But, then, the previous title of this article, "Rathergate", is in far more widespread usage than "Killian documents". 74.77.222.188 04:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that is true. I certainly haven't observed any widespread usage of "rathergate", much less a usage significant enough to change the title of the article. That is not the only consideration, however. On Wikipedia, we favor more formal, neutral, and dull titles, as opposed to loaded, colorful, slang titles, e.g. White House travel office controversy instead of "Travelgate". Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 05:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a way to see what redirects and titles get the most traffic? "Rathergate" redirects here. How many times does that get typed into the search box vs "Killian documents"? I certainly agree that "Killian documents" is more neutral than "Rathergate", but I don't think it's neutral enough, in the sense that it implies Killian wrote them, which, as we all know, is very widely considered to not be the case. No one disagrees, however, that the documents came from Bill Burkett. Just food for thought. 74.77.222.188 05:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

See Article naming -BC aka Callmebc 07:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Corrections and improvements needed for the opening paragraph

1) For one thing, there is no key background or context whatsoever given for CBS's airing of the story, most especially in not mentioning that CBS's report was only one of many press investigations into Bush's Guard service, not just in 2004, but also notably during the 2000 presidential campaign and during Bush's run for Governor of Texas in 1994 [1]. In fact, just the day prior to the CBS story, Sept. 7, 2004, there was another major release Bush's Guard records and these too showed that there were issues with Bush's Guard service [2]. CBS's interest in obtaining the Killian documents was a direct result of these longstanding questions, stirred up even further by Sen. Kerry's Vietnam service and his later antiwar activities being heavily targeted by right wing groups.

2) It is patently misleading to claim that "Many media sources have asserted that the memos are forgeries" -- those "Many media sources" are actually almost exclusively conservative/right media sources and especially blogs hostile to Kerry, CBS and Dan Rather. A quick Google shows this.

Articles and programs from The Washington Post, CNN, USA Today, and numerous other mass media sources, have characterized the memos as probable forgeries. 74.77.222.188 03:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITE; Neutrality_and_verifiability

[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] 74.77.222.188 05:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, I clicked on the first few and did a search on any word beginning with "forg" and only the 3rd mentions forgery, but only the context of quoting what someone else believed, and that someone was right wing fave, Joseph Newcomer. Could you please find some mainstream, reliable refs that actually say the memos are "probable forgeries"? That is what you're claiming, is it not? -BC aka Callmebc 05:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought you could read between the lines. You could try the other links, but if you want major mass media sources blatantly calling the documents "discredited", "now-discredited" and "widely discredited", here you go: [14][15][16]

See: WP:SYN

You're probably the kind of guy who likes to split hairs, but the reason they're considered discredited is because they're considered to be phony. In other words, forged. 74.77.222.188 06:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, for obvious reasons, I have to be super careful. But as far as your assertion goes, see [17] and again: WP:SYN -BC aka Callmebc 07:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

3) The comment "aired by CBS on September 8, 2004, less than two months before the 2004 Presidential Election" falsely implies that this was somehow a singular effort by CBS in order to cast questions on Bush's service, when in fact other media outlets, most especially the Associated Press, were also raising the exact same questions using official Guard records. In fact obtaining the Guard records from the DoD was an effort in itself, causing the AP to file an FOIA lawsuit that resulted in those records that were released on Sept. 7 [18].

It doesn't imply that at all. It's a factual statement and it explains exactly why the story was so explosive and part of why it became so infamous. 74.77.222.188 03:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Information suppression

Considering your record of deletions on this talk page, you are the last person who should be bringing up information suppression. The story aired on CBS in the middle of a presidential election. That is crucial to the story. Your attempt to excise that information is unconscionable. It doesn't falsely imply anything. The idea that CBS had no idea their reporting might impact the election is, of course, absurd. 74.77.222.188 05:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, was there something factually wrong with my 3rd point? Were there not a lot of other press investigations about Bush's service record all year long, up to and and even after the time of the memos [19]?And in regards to your last comment, see [20]. -BC aka Callmebc 06:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC) An -BC aka Callmebc 06:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, you can't possibly be suggesting that this page not focus on CBS. Can you? Those documents are a CBS story. It was their scoop. They aired it. 74.77.222.188 05:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

How would giving a mention of the context of CBS's story change the focus away from the memos? I do believe tt's called introduction and background. -BC aka Callmebc 06:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

4) Given the above, not including a link to the George W. Bush military service controversy right off the bat along with Killian documents authenticity issues also shows a lack of proper context and backgound.

A logical, accurate, and fair assessment, no? -BC aka Callmebc 02:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. I think your one man crusade is in direct violation of WP:COI since you are the creator of this website. You have a clear bias and as such have no business editing this article. 74.77.222.188 03:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Let the facts speak for themselves

-BC aka Callmebc 03:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Facts

1 - The originals have never turned up to date.

You are stating this without a source. Also none of the DoD docs are originals either, plus Xerox machines were plentiful even in those ancient days.

Without a source? You must be joking. The originals turning up would be a news story on a par with the Ark of the Covenant turning up. As for your other point, there is obviously a huge difference between copies coming from the Department of Defense and copies coming from Bill Burkett. 74.77.222.188 07:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out that you keep saying "This happened, and that happened, and he said, and she said, and so on, and so forth...." without citing stuff refs to back up each item. Getting refs for every assertion may be a pain but you need to do it. While some things may be generally known and have been discussed as length at in newpapers and on TV, some others may be just questionable stuff "discussed" on places like "Hannity & Colmes" and circulating in right wing blog sites. I've always done this regardless as good research, and Wikipedia requires it, WP:CITE. Stirring in sketchy stuff and opinion with known facts just makes for a sketch and messy argument.

And why should it be that the DoD is allowed to use copies and nobody else, especially given DoD's behavior in releasing the records, from "accidently" destroying records to having a judge intervene. That judge bit is especially significant because the files that were released because of that, the ones labeled "Documents Released on September 24, 2004" located on the DoD site contained the only proportionally printed record in the whole DoD collection, along with a couple of other funkily formatted documents. The Sept. 24 date is especially curious when you look as what had happened just before then: [21] and [22]. But regardless of this, Xerox machines and such were indeed common then, a point of mine you failed to address, along with microfiche and microfilm machines for archiving documents. If you look through all the DoD copies of Bush's records, not only will you see vast differences in quality (the flight logs are particularly bad) but even multiple, variable copies of the same records that had been stored in locations unknown. The memos also show similarly highly variable quality, especially when you try to do the Times New Roman match-up trick -- actually a couple are so bad that they look much more like they came from microfilm/microfiche as well [23], [24]

2 - The supposed author of the memos, Jerry Killian, is dead.

Yeah, so is Harris. Sad. But wait -- isn't Bush still around? Gosh, maybe if someone just asks him if the memos are real or not, we could end all this bickering and maybe have a beer. I for one would be happy to be proven wrong -- the idea that the President would just let people like Mapes and Rather dangle in the wind for no good reason....makes me nervous.

The story from the White House has always been that he did his duty fully and honorably and the official documents from the DoD support that. 74.77.222.188 07:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Read that back to yourself out loud. Also check out what then White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett gave to "Stephen from Colorado Springs" when asked about the CYA memo during an "Ask the White House" Q&A session. That really cleared up matters, eh? I should mention also that Bartlett knew Burkett and was one of the people Burkett named as having been involved in scrubbing Bush's records about 10 years ago [25] -BC aka Callmebc 13:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

3 - Jerry Killian's wife and son say he didn't write the memos and that the content of the memos reflect the opposite of his true opinions of Bush.

Hmmmm...that's funny, Marian Knox, who was actually working at the base, says otherwise: [26]. Also from I know personally, family members are often if not pretty clueless about what the dad does at work, especially military guys. But you say you're an ex-Yeoman -- your significant other knew all about what you were doing?

Killian's son was also in the Guard. He says no officer in his right mind would ever write memos like that. He also says Bush requested to go to Vietnam. Twice. As for Knox, the record says otherwise. Actually authenticated Killian documents say that Bush is "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot." 74.77.222.188 07:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

And how would Killian's son know that Bush requested to go to Vietnam twice? And you're being deliberatelyh a teeny bit misleading about what the "record says" -- you're quoting an older rating report from when Bush was apparently still mostly doing his service acceptibly well. His last rating report, which was done amid all the skethy and questionable stuff, says quite the opposite: [27]. -BC aka Callmebc 13:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

4 - The only source of the documents is a notorious Bush basher and a man who admitted to lying about where the documents came from.

"notorious Bush basher"? I think you have to remove this as per: WP:LIVING

He's notorious for bashing Bush. That's just true. 74.77.222.188 07:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

5 - After being caught lying, this known Bush basher and admitted liar said he got the memos from a mysterious woman.

Again I think you have to remove this as per: WP:LIVING

6 - This mysterious woman has never been identified.

Sort of like using anonymous IP addresses, eh? Intriguing, but this has to do with...what now?

It illustrates that Bill Burkett is the sole source for the documents. 74.77.222.188 07:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

7 - When pressed about the originals, the known Bush basher and admitted liar said he burned them.

Again: WP:LIVING

8 - No one has been able to reproduce the memos with technology from the time period. If you can do it, there's a $50,000 reward in it for you.

I checked and the offer is no longer there. I doubt that they would have paid up anyway -- I could only find functioning daisywheel printers going back to the early 80's. There is this 1973 document I have that's in that faux Arial font [28], but that's not Times Roman. Oh well....

Oh well. Of course, according to your website, daisywheel printers might be found in law offices, but not the TANG. 74.77.222.188 07:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

9 - The source of the memos said on Democratic websites and email lists prior to the airing of the story that "down and dirty" tactics were justified to keep Bush from winning election.

WP:CITE

[29] 74.77.222.188 07:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

10 - He also said that he and others had "reassembled" documents damaging to Bush a few weeks before the CBS story aired.

I hate to be a nudge, but: WP:CITE

[30] 74.77.222.188 07:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what those facts say to User:Callmebc, but they speak loud and clear to most of us.

Hmmm....[31]

LOL! That's a good one. But, come on, Bill Burkett's history and statements have to give you pause about the veracity of the documents that he is the sole source for. They couldn't have come from a less credible source. 74.77.222.188 07:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

74.77.222.188 05:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it for you to remove your personal attacks on Burkett -- see [32]. -BC aka Callmebc

I'd remove them if they were untrue. A prerequisite of libel is that the information is false. Bill Burkett is famed for bashing Bush and is an admitted liar. 74.77.222.188 07:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Again: WP:CITE and WP:LIVING -BC aka Callmebc 14:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to repeat your opinion of Burkett over and over again. Please refrain unless directly relevant to the immediate discussion. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding a "Commonly believed misconceptions" section?

As you can see from the above debate, a large number of unsubstantiated rumors and outright falsehoods regarding the memos are in wide circulation, especially among the right wing/conservative media and blogosphere. I think it would therefore be very wise, as well as save on needless, unending debate, to create a new section that lists at least the most common of these misperceptions along with a description of where and how the misperception originated and then contrast that to what the actual verifible evidence indicates. I think that would help alleviate much of the circular bickering this topic tends to cause.

And please follow Wikipedia policies when objecting or debating this suggestion or specific issues with it. The above "Corrections and improvements" section is actually in violation of several Wikipedia policies, but I for one will leave it alone. But any further unsourced assertions (including using refs that don't specifically support the contention) or personal attacks on living persons will be summarily removed as is done in the discussion pages of other controversial wiki topics such as Global Warming. Remember, as the masthead says: This is not a forum for general discussion of Killian documents. Any such messages will be deleted. along with This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Killian documents article. -BC aka Callmebc 14:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)