Talk:Killian documents controversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Killian documents controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
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 article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The content of Lucy Ramirez was merged into Killian documents controversy on March 15, 2015. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
unsupported statement asserted as fact in the lede
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)
- Seconded. 47.54.58.175 (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)








