Talk:Killian documents controversy
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Killian documents controversy 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 |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
| This page is not a forum for general discussion about Killian documents controversy. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Killian documents controversy at the Reference desk. |
| This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The contents of the Lucy Ramirez page were merged into Killian documents controversy on March 15, 2015. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11 |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Blacklisted link
editThere are instructions for changing the status of this link on the tag. Or query cyberbot operator or go to ANI. Please do not restore this link. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
It would be best to find some other acceptable link for this document. Also, cyberbot will come by later and remove this tag because the link has been removed. See instructions here: [1]. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Why does "Manuel Miranda" link to this article, then the name "Manuel Miranda" is mentioned nowhere in this article? 173.88.241.33 (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
unsupported statement asserted as fact in the lede
editThis sentence fragment asserts a fact which is unsubstantiated: "Proportional-print typewriters were in use in the early 1970s which could have produced the documents". If you read the citation in the article, the crux of the assertion is not supported as true by the linked-to WAPO archive article. In other words, the article which is used to validate the assertion "could have produced" does not validate it. And given that this is in the opening paragraph, it causes confusion. Including this unsubstantiated claim in the opening paragraph imbalances the article and insinuates that there was a thread of possible validity to the provenance of the documents. I recommend that the sentence containing it be re-written. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)