Talk:CIA Memorial Wall

Paul C Davis

@User:FDW777 Paul C Davis's inclusion, sans details, in uncontroversial. It's shown on several Wikimedia resources and on the CIA website. There's no reason to remove his name. Nuncle Jimmy I (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• It's illegible in that photograph. The only other information that I can find is a photograph that has been quite visibly doctored, with the text of the names not lying flat on the page of the book, in a grainy black and white picture in a book in 1989. So what reliable sources do you have for confirming this name? Because with my reader hat on, I cannot confirm what you've claimed from the source that you've cited, or from any other source. Uncle G (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Here is a link to the PDF that the image on Wikipedia is from - on page 14. Memorial Wall Publication (cia.gov) https://www.cia.gov/static/Memorial-Wall-Publication.pdf

    Nuncle Jimmy I (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

    • So you've now pointed to two photographs, once in the article and once here, purportedly of the same source that you claim to support this; one of which has this name, all blurred and illegible and quite possibly not this name, in the bottom left of the verso, and the second of which has this name in the middle right of the verso. And you are seriously telling readers that this is your source, without spotting this? Uncle G (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
      • His name is perfectly legible and, unless you're sincerely arguing that a publication put out by the CIA itself is suspect, I see no reason why it should be excluded. Your argument against it on the grounds that it might be doctored is bordering on paranoid trollery. My eyesight isn't 20/20, but it clearly says Paul C Davis (as well as several of the others that were removed.) It's also a PDF, so you can zoom in. Nuncle Jimmy I (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Uncle G and FDW777: there's clearly no consensus to include the material on this page. This discussion will, therefore, be closed shortly. Cheers, ——Serial 13:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Nuncle Jimmy has provided a link to the CIA's own website: a PDF which includes a photo of the Book of Honor with Paul C. Davis clearly visible. [1](p.22, per the page numbers in the document) How is this not a reliable source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  • No, xe has proffered two markedly different photos, seemingly oblivious to how this makes the "This is my source." claim look to we who refer to the source proffered. Are they both the source consulted? Where was the name on the page, and how come it is moving around between different columns on the page from photograph to photograph? If the only things being proffered are a blurred and illegible photograph ("it's visible in the picture" being false) used as a banner image on a WWW site and a PDF that clearly is not the same, it seems fairly reasonable to question whether this book has actually been read at all, or that even the photographs are being used rather than the book. Because surely one would spot that the name (presuming that the roughly matching blur is the same name) is not in the same place. Uncle G (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Has it not occurred to you that the CIA will update the Book of Honor from time to time? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I know people here get a bit jumpy when it gets to photos however in complete fairness, it is not only an official CIA publication about a (Now deceased) member of theirs, the photo quite clearly shows his name and other sources also claim as such ShovelandSpade (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

As already pointed out by others, a blurry photo that could say anything after "Paul" isn't a reference. Due to the edit-warring report filed after I objected to this non-reference, I'm not feeling particularly inclined to make any comment on the PDF. FDW777 (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

References