This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pentagon Papers article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 13, 2004, June 13, 2005, June 13, 2006, June 13, 2007, June 13, 2008, June 13, 2010, June 13, 2015, and June 13, 2021. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is "traitor-in-keeping-with-his-kind", added on June 9, 2010, really voice neutral? 75.145.19.1 (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's the "credibility gap"? Maybe someone should start a stub for that. Kent Wang 07:07, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Within several months (as soon as the online interviews are active) someone should remove the link to http://www.bplcarnegie.org/oralhistory/ from this page to the "external links" section of the article -- the Boulder Carnegie Library's oral history program has a copy of a video interview with Daniel Ellsberg about the Pentagon Papers that will be put online sometime in the future.
There is far more detail to the story behind the Pentagon Papers in Mike Gravel's and Daniel Ellsberg's own biographical articles that I think should be included in this article.--Waxsin (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am reading David Rudenstine's The Day the Presses Stopped: A History of the Pentagon Papers Case (1996) and he claims that the official title of the Pentagon Papers was "History of U.S. Decision Making Process on Vietnam Policy." This conflicts with what the wiki page says---and there is not citation for what it up there now...wondering if Rudenstine is right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarletfires (talk • contribs) 21:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.archives.gov/research/pentagon-papers/ says "Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force" 24.118.168.217 (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... about the Pentagon Papers? This article doesn't really say how or why their publication mattered, only that they were the start of a series of events leading to Watergate, etc. What did the PPs say that was so alarming? What was the broad consensus on their implications? LeoTrottier 16:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is trying to explain what they were. What happened to them, and what they did is a such a larger multidimensional question, it staggers the mind. Literally, and that is why most of the above answers, barely scratch the surface: What they were, is a secret report on the history of the objectives of a failed policy of hostilities in a country that was, in appearance, a significant deterrence to communism, and a quagmire of failed preparedness and policies that cost a significant amount of causalities for objectives that had changed perceptions during the duration of the conflict. It is not possible to explain why 7000 pages of a classified report were necessary to explain the breadth and history of the impact of this policy. There have been books, and movies made about it, some of which capture some of the breadth of the impact better than others. Why their publication mattered is explained in the first sentences of the article, but only covers the aspects of the impact of what happened in politics, no attempt was made to cover the impact it had on the military, the culture, the diplomacy or the power of government. The big deal is that this had those types of impact. It also raised the question in society about the value of a human life, and the privilege of the rich and elites to avoid serving in combat. Some people refer to the current president as "president bone-spurs" as a result of the cultural change that the Pentagon Papers brought about. If you could simply boil down the value of a human life to a few short sentences, be my guest.
The impact of the disclosure is still impacting us today at this very moment:
Bradley Manning, the 23-year-old US Army private who is alleged to have leaked secret documents to WikiLeaks, and is being detained pending hearings on his own serious criminal charges, may not be so fortunate.
The impact of The Pentagon Papers 40 years on
[ A marine viewing the list of casualties in 1975 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_Veterans_Memorial#/media/File:Vietnam-memorial-soldier.jpg] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.75.140.124 (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the closing scenes of the movie "The Pentagon Papers" (2003) The following statements were displayed: "58,148 American Solders and over 2 million Vietnamese died during the Vietnam War. ( The Defense department, lists the official casualty list at 58,220 )
"The decision by Daniel Ellsberg to release the PENTAGON PAPERS in an effort to protect American Democracy, posed the Government’s lies to the public and placed the truth of the Vietnam War at the center of National debate.
"In 1975, America’s longest war ended.
References
Nixon's reaction was initially calm and then developed into rage as can be ascertained from the White House tapes.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB48/nixon.html
As aired on PBS tonight, Jan 5, 2019, the program mentioned that on the initial day, Sunday, that the papers were published, Nixon on the tapes was interested in how it would negatively impact the democrats, and on the reflection on the presidency of both Kennedy and Johnson, and not necessarily on revealing Nixon's secret bombings, in a few days, by Tuesday of that week, Nixon was in full form, discussing with the Attorney Jon Mitchell about creating an injunction to stop the publication. This page will reflect the source of this podcast [ https://www.npr.org/podcasts/452538775/on-the-media ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.75.140.124 (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Futher evidence: "In reference to the Pentagon Papers, President Nixon says that “My view is to prosecute the goddamn pricks {bleeped} that gave it to them” 52:00: President Nixon says “I want it implemented on a thievery basis. Goddamn it, get in and get those files.” [ The Pentagon Papers: Secrets, lies and leaks https://www.revealnews.org/episodes/the-pentagon-papers-secrets-lies-and-leaks-update/] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.75.140.124 (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did the papers cover the period from 1945 until 1971, as the current article states, or was it from 1945 through 1968 (May of that year ?) as some other sources suggest ?
Someone deleted a reference to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in the Papers -- it was my understanding that this was actually covered in the Pentagon Papers. Is this incorrect?--csloat 18:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does anybody per chance know if there exists a current publication of all the published volumes of the Pentagon Papers?
It says that all the original papers were locked away at the LBJ libary. Is this true? Somehow, at the end of the paragraph like that, it looks like an uncited amount of hogwash. With all the conspiracy theories surrounding this era in time, something like vital historical documents being sealed away (especially in so unlikely of place) needs sourced. Signed by Scryer_360, who needs to sign in more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.152.173.22 (talk) 06:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
PS: I deleted the comment that they were locked away for the time being.
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB359/
A timeline, consistant with Ellsburgs oral history:
[USC Annenberg Center on Communication Leadership & Policy http://topsecretplay.org/timeline/] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.75.140.124 (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I did not mean to move this, but when I was trying to sign my signature I did something wrong. So I'm putting back the original headline that was already here, plus my contribuution. I apologize to the original poster for messing up your stuff.
This what the original text said with in the headline:
Second paragraph contains:
> the government had planned to go to Vietnam even when president Lyndon Johnson was promising not to
Johnson inherited Vietnam. The US began financial support for the French military there in the 1950's, and I think it was Kennedy who first sent American troops, although advisors etc. may have been sent by Eisenhower.
This is what I added:
You're right. I believe Einsenhower had been involved with some inital activites that got the ball rolling on Vietnam in some aspect or another, but I can't get to my sources right now. As soon as I have some evidential proof, I'll return to ths section and update.
The Pentagon Papers' official title was "The History of the United States Decision-Making Process on Vietnam Policy". This is according to Katherine Graham's A Personal History (1997 Hardback edition p. 444, pp 4). Graham was the daughter of Eugene Meyer, the owner and publisher of the Post. She later became the owner and publisher of the The Washington POst Company was so during this PP and Watergate. This book was a great read for the history of the Washington Post and their involvment with this political controversy. I think this article would do well to elaborate a little on what both the Post and the Times went through to get this out there to the public. This book is a great reference and has a treasury of names, dates, and the emotions and consciousness of the times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.4.23 (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Vitaluv|Vitaluv]] (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)==[reply]
"however, none of the consensus actions recommended on September 7 involved bombing North Vietnam" Oh, yes? Maclear's 10000 Day War (PB, p.124) says the 2-phase bombing plan was endorsed 17 Mar 64.... TREKphiler hit me ♠ 06:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When discussing the naming of another incident Pentagon Papers was mentioned as an example. However, shouldn't the p in Paper be lowercase, as in Pentagon papers?WP:CAPS appears to agree with me. Any objections?
In the Impact section there's a list of precentages of reasons for staying in Viet Nam that's tagged with note [7] (the Nixonland book). It's introduced as a memo from the DoD under Johnson.
Was this list actually part of the Pentagon Papers? If not, it doesn't belong in this article, and should be removed, or made into a footnote itself.
If anyone has insight into the inclusion of this as part of the PP, then please respond. I'll wait, then do some checking to see if I can find out if it belongs, then move it to a footnote or elide it entirely if appropriate.
198.207.0.5 (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A line notes, "A majority of the justices ruled that the government could still prosecute the Times and the Post for violating the Espionage Act by publishing the documents." This is a patent lie - most of the judges do not comment on that. The source itself is very biased (Airforce Magazine), it states a line earlier that "The Supreme Court decision on the Pentagon Papers had nothing to do with freedom of the press." and yet the opinions of the judges are filled with statements about the intentions of the first amendment and three judges explicitly say that it prohibits any such case. Blahage23 (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard that the New York Times published the Pentagon Papers in a heavily edited (censored) version and subsequently Senator Mike Gravel arranged with Ellsberg to have the uncensored version published by the Unitarian Universalist Church. Senator Gravel also used his senatorial privilege to read the papers into the congressional record, thus making them legally public, so the Nixon administration was unable to suppress publication. Kissinger wanted Gravel prosecuted for treason, but the Supreme Court eventually ruled in his favor.
This info., properly sourced, should probably be included (or made clearer) in the article.173.77.97.119 (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your timelines are all off. Nixon initally welcomed them as damaging to the democrats, then in a few days went into a flying rage to Kissenger and Mitchell, and wanted Mitchell to prosecute Ellsburg for treason. (Nixons call, Nixons words ) Michell got the supreme court to stop the publication by the Times, and the next day, the publication went to the Washington Post, who were also to stop publication, which then went to the Boston Globe. A powerful game of whack-a-mole between Nixons administration and the Press, which Nixon hated. Ellsburg had arranged to have made multiple copies over the 6 months he had before he gave them to the Press.
The next event in the Watergate timeline was that Nixon wish to prosecute Ellsburg for disclosure/dissemination of them was that he hired the plumbers to get dirt on Ellsburg, which when Ellsburg eventually went to trial, the charges were not dismissed, a mistrial was declared, leaving open the possibility of a new trial, which never occurred. [1] [2]
References
Trivia? What were the exact addresses of the copy shop and apartments where the Pentagon Papers were first copied? and wouldn't this be of interest to Boston area tourism and tour guides like the Paul Revere House? The Edmond Pettus Bridge? and the St. Augustine Swimming Pool? and the boat factory that made the Granma? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.200.114 (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"("Sensitive" is not an official security designation; it meant that the study's publication would be embarrassing.) " I would like to see a citation for this use of the term sensitive. The way it is written now, it sounds like an opinion. Sensitive, when used by it self usually means a restriction on disemination. It is unlikely that this report was SCI. Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Pentagon Papers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The two paragraphs about Senator Mike Gavel's actions starting on June 29 should come after the court injunction and the Supreme Court case, which played out earlier in the month. Telling these stories out of sequence is confusing. I will work on changing this in a few days. HowardMorland (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How did you review my editd with your volume of edits, 5 in the minute concerned, where was the application of assume good faith? or why not help in the manner I requested? rather than go for volume?121.99.108.78 (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a relatively minor point. In the section titled "Role of the United States in the overthrow of Diem's regime", the last part currently states: "As early as August 23, 1963, an unnamed U.S. representative had met with Vietnamese generals planning a coup against Diem.[20] According to The New York Times, this U.S. representative was later identified to be CIA officer Lucien Conein.[21]" Citation 20 is to the Pentagon Papers and citation 21 is to the obituary of Lucien ConeininThe New York Times. The NYT obit does not specifically state that Conein was involved in the August 23, 1963 meeting, but this statement gives the impression that it was the NYT that revealed that information. Conein's meetings are even referenced a few pages later in that section of the Pentagon Papers, but as far as the August 23rd meeting it only states that Don met a CAS officer. Even so, it was Conein who met Don (see [2] and [3]). Not sure how to fix this, but this was known well before the NYT obit. - Location (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This entry claims the Pentagon Papers revealed secret US bombings of Cambodia and Laos ('Operation Menu'). What's the source fot this information? According to my records, it was not part of the New York Times scoop at the time. Nor could it have been: Operation Menu was instigated by president Nixon and happened (1969/1970)after the Pentagon Papers were completed. The Papers covered the American involvement in Vietnam up until 1968. What are the facts here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lastpak (talk • contribs) 13:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
McNamara accused China of harboring imperial aspirations like those of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. According to McNamara, the Chinese were conspiring to "organize all of Asia" against the United States:
- China—like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30s, and like the USSR in 1947—looms as a major power threatening to undercut our importance and effectiveness in the world and, more remotely but more menacingly, to organize all of Asia against us.
This quotation by McNamara does not support the preceding statement that he accused China of harboring imperial ambitions. It merely states that McNamara feared that China would "undercut" the United States' "importance and effectiveness in the world".
Only part of the preceding statement can be deduced from the quotation. I propose to either find a reference to support the statement that McNamara accused China of imperial ambitions or to modify the first sentence of the preceding statement to correctly reflect the quotation that follows it. --185.13.30.131 (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article says that the official title for the document is『The History of U.S. Decision-Making in Vietnam, 1945–1968,』but that is wrong. The correct name is "Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force." The mistake happened probably just because of misreading the quoted text: "documents from 47 volumes, that comprised the history of the U.S. decision making process on Vietnam policy, better known as the Pentagon Papers." StaciMore2004 (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]