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.
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
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
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
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)
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)
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)
