[WikiEN-l] Killian documents

Wolfman, I'm not ignoring you. It's just that the Wikipedia has forked itself up, which really sucks (see [[autofellatio]] ;-) Here's my considered opinion about how we should treat the [[Killian documents]] controversy: ==the documents were faked== I think the phrase ''the documents were faked'' should not be used in the text of the article. First of all, it represents a point of view. Secondly, it states that POV in a confusing way. The chief issues here are: * Did Killian actually write the documents in question? ** Does dictating notes to a secretary, who then types up an UNSIGNED document count as "Killian writing the documents"? Then it's just a matter of (1) Did Killian dictate those notes; and (2) Did his secretary type 'em up for him? * Was the copy CBS published "real", or what? ** To what extent can a reconstructed document legitimately be presented as an "authentic copy" of an original? ** If I use Office 2002 to word-process a copy of a decades-old document (which I have in my hand, but I can't get it to a xerox machine) - and if I use a Courier font so it '''looks like''' it was typed, how much of these details am I obliged to reveal? (A related example concerns my "far-right-wing" church. When I received bookkeeper training in 1991, my church treasurer told me that the IRS will accept hand-written or typed "receipts" for petty cash expenditures, in lieu of printed cash register receipts. This is primarily intended for purchases such as buying soda from a vending machine, or using a pay phone. You just had to make sure you didn't overdo it; accounting for 100% of petty cash with reconstructed receipts would positively be a violation, and the treasurer would, er, "stomp" on me way ahead of any IRS audit, maybe even remove me from my position if I stayed out of compliance. The point here is that '''reconstructed documents''' are allowable in certain contexts.) The question for Dan Rather and 60 Minutes is whether this '''single case''' of presenting a document as evidence of a political claim is: # A straightforward presentation of an '''original''' document # A '''permissible''' reconstruction''' of an authentic document # An '''illegitimate''' reconstruction''' of an authentic document # A forgery, i.e., he never wrote that; he didn't dictate anything like it to his secretary; he never even thought that Considering the importance of the issue, I think we'd be better off ducking all conclusions. It opens too many Pandora's boxes. Let's not call them "faked documents" but "documents relating to George W. Bush's service in the Air National Guard. Let's mention that the matter was investigated and aired during the last election (the won he didn't "really win", remember?) and that they brought it up at the last minute AGAIN for this election (with a link to [[October surprise]]). Oh, and don't forget to mention that at least '''part''' of the furor was over the "authenticity" of the documents. We should handle this dispute with as much care and sensitivity as the death of [[Rachel Corrie]]. ~~~~ Re: The Censorship Lie >> << Message: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Autofellatio - NO to that image >> << Message: Re: [WikiEN-l] Reply to Tony, David, and Christiaan >> << Message: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Autofellatio - NO to that image >> << Message: [WikiEN-l] Re: The Censorship Lie >> << Message: Child porn and wikipedia (was [WikiEN-l] Re: Autofellatio - NO tothat image) >> << Message: Re: [WikiEN-l] Naughty/violent pictures >> << Message: Re: [WikiEN-l] Naughty/violent pictures >> << Message: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: The Censorship Lie >> << File: Digest Footer >>