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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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, 11: 90 days

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.

Bush family Low‑importance

	Killian documents controversy is within the scope of WikiProject Bush family, a project dedicated to creating and improving content related to the Bush family. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bush familyWikipedia:WikiProject Bush familyTemplate:WikiProject Bush familyBush family articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11

Index

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

Blacklisted link[edit]

There 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Manuel Miranda[edit]

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)[reply]

unsupported statement asserted as fact in the lede[edit]

This 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)[reply]