Talk:Killian documents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Killian documents article.
Article policies
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
This is not a forum for general discussion of Killian documents.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Index


Contents

[edit] Callmebc

Just a note to avoid confusion, I have just reinstated the indefinite block on Callmebc for tendentious editing and attacks on living individuals which have caused yet another complaint to the foundation. Callmebc was unblocked on the basis that there would e no further disruption, but it appears that the zeal for WP:TRUTH has unfortunately got the better of this editor again. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  • It's a sad situation. Despite the tendentiousness, I think he means well. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the few good suggestions he has made about the article (I think "but were later shown to have been insufficiently authenticated" is one) are massively outweighed by the infinite representation of his other points, and most significantly IMO by the repeated accusations of "IDIDNTHEARTHAT" etc. I don't think there's a single instance where BC ever wrote "oh...I see your point now. Guess I was wrong." Kaisershatner (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I did think it was interesting that he thought he had a Better Way to format Talk pages and tried to impose it without explanation. Looked to me like he chose Nonnested_Name_Prefixed_Format_2, as if that hadn't been tried already in 1982 and found to be unsatisfactory. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I suspect Callmebc's persistent violation of the do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point guideline, with the apparent purpose of violating the Wikipedia is not a soapbox policy, is the sort of thing which inspired the No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man essay. — Athaenara ✉ 04:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CBS response

As you may have noticed, I have been updating the references somewhat systematically, using the updated templates and accessdates; I think only one link thus far was totally dead and I found a replacement. However, the next sections are going to require more copyediting- anyone else want to take a stab at it, or want me to bring it to Talk before making changes? Kaisershatner (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The lack of alterations to your recent edits suggests you're doing OK. Go ahead, everyone will edit. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The article said Caputo in the CSM reported early, but the cite is from 9/14: "and Michael R. Caputo in the Christian Science Monitor.<ref> {{cite news | title=Campaign Panic in Perfect Times Roman |author=Michael R. Caputo |date=September 14, 2004| url=http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0914/p09s01-coop.html | accessdate=2006-03-20 | publisher=Christian Science Monitor}}</ref>" I pasted it here temporarily while I look for an earlier cite to support this, if there is one. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Coverage by other papers, uncited in article: "Other newspapers that carried stories questioning the documents' authenticity on September 10 or 11 included The Houston Chronicle, The Chicago Sun-Times, and the Daily News (New York)." still looking for cites for these; may not be strictly necessary as the basic point is that the media was noticing in general. Other views? Kaisershatner (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Searching the article for "september 10" already finds assorted media reports on that date. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
"The statement was replaced later that day with one that omitted saying that CBS was convinced of the memo's authenticity and removed the claim.[1]" I don't think thisis an essential part of the narrative; if it is, it is unclear. Moved it here for comments just in case. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I put it back because the removal by CBS is similarly interesting to the mention of people who saw the creation of the documents. The reference should source to The Note (ABC News) but I can't change the reference due to politics. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I can update the reference to the Note, but can you explain what the point of the sentence is? That CBS first claimed there were people who saw the docs created and then retracted that claim? To me it seems like over-reach by the spokeswoman, but if you think it is integral to the story in some way, I guess I would err on the side of inclusion and let the reader decide. Do I understand your view correctly? Kaisershatner (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Let the reader decide what it means. I can't decide whether it reflects errors or confusion, but it does seem like behavior which should not have happened if clear verification had been done. The later discoveries illuminate the earlier situation, even if through a fog. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting some quote boxes

Anyone interested in this proposal? (see here). Just something I have been playing around with. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The "see here" links to a test page with text in boxes. Although visually appealing on a wide screen, it competes with adjoining text and on a narrower browser window both normal and boxed text become narrow columns. I don't think the first test (diff) improves the article. The quotes should be next to text which discusses it (easily remedied by moving it down a little) and the existing text actually tells the events with quotes woven in the story. To unweave the telling would probably require longer quotes accompanied by redundant text which says pretty much the same thing. And there are existing tools for formatting longer quotes (changes to the style of other templates are a separate issue). -- SEWilco (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, will undo it. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
And speaking of formatting, this may be the same monitor size discrepancy problem, but I liked the picture at the top where it was before (upper right) rather than next to the TOC. Would you put it back? I think it breaks up the long block of text and makes it less tiring to read. Note that most FAs have such an image in that spot. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, back up it goes. I was placing a priority on screen usage rather than artistic license. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "It was reported..." and missing documents

Here is a section I cut from the article. If it is to be included, it has to be cited first of all, but second, it is chronologically unrelated to the KD scandal and probably belongs in GWB military service controversy, not here. Other views? Kaisershatner (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"It was reported that the new Killian memos were inconsistent with his endorsement of Lt Bush's May 1971 performance review, a year prior to the date on the disputed documents. Killian endorsed the rating officer's evaluation of Bush, which in part described him as "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot". However, the more applicable performance review for the May 1, 1972 - April 30, 1973 period had all "Rating Factors" checked off as "Not Observed" and with the comment by the rating officer, "Lt Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of the report." This "Not Observed" rating report provoked the USAF, which overseers Air National Guard pilots, to issue a "Notice of Missing or Correction of Officer Effectiveness Training Report" on June 29, 1973. USAF Master Sgt. Daniel P. Harkness, wrote "Ratings must be entered on this officer in Sections V & VI. An AF Fm 77a should be requested from the training unit so that this officer can be rated in the position he held. This officer should have been reassigned in May 1972 since he no longer is training in his AFSC (Air Force Service Category, or job title) or with his unit of assignment." The inquiry evidently ended on November 12, 1973 when Harkness's request was denied by Major Rufus G. Martin with the comment, "Report for this period not available for administrative reasons."[1] Analyses of these and other official records released by the Pentagon regarding Bush's military service [2] suggest that some documents that should be in the official records are inexplicably missing: "Each of these actions by any member of the National Guard should have generated the creation of many documents that have yet to be produced," AP lawyer David Schulz wrote the Justice Department Aug. 26, 2004. White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said there were no other documents to explain discrepancies in Bush's files. [3]"
It is a whole lot of speculation about stuff that isn't known. It also ignores the context that the Vietnam air war turned out to be different than expected (air-to-air missiles controlling the sky), with a need for machine gun dogfights and SAMs. Not only was Bush's aircraft found to not be useful in Vietnam, by the time of these memos there were Vietnam veterans flooding the Air Guard and the pilots for Bush's kind of aircraft were not needed. There are a number of reasons for encouraging evaporation of pilots. But all the above seems more relevant to the GWB controversy article than the Killian documents, as for the most part the Killian documents controversy was quite focused on the documents and those who touched them. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additional news items and related sites

About the "additional news items" that are left after removing all sources already cited in article and dead links, can they be cut, should I just leave them alone? Same goes for "additional sites," I doubt we need to link to TKS, and I could move the Mapes link elsewhere (I would vote to keep that one). Kaisershatner (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, done distributing these except for two sources:

I would like to cut them both; the DNC action alert adds little to the story, in my view, and the CNS news source merely cites doc examiners who can't be sure about anything, and otherwise duplicates multiple sources from the same time period already in the article. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the CNS piece. Those are a couple of prominent typographers (Haley and Collins) that I don't immediately recall seeing quoted elsewhere. Though as you say, they don't say anything particularly amazing/different. 24.18.183.97 (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)