Talk:Iraq Study Group Report
This work is free and may be used by anyone for any purpose. If you wish to use this content, you do not need to request permission as long as you follow any licensing requirements mentioned on this page.
Wikimedia has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by an OTRS member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
Bastique 14:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
| Information about this edition | |
|---|---|
| Edition: | Published as a PDF on the website of the United States Institute of Peace (USIP). The PDF available for download went through several revisions before settling on the one now available. |
| Source: | http://www.usip.org/iraq-study-group/the-isg-report specifically http://media.usip.org/reports/iraq_study_group_report.pdf |
| Contributor(s): | Stevertigo, Sherurcij, Jmcneill2, Pmsyyz |
| Level of progress: | 
|
| Notes: | Concern over the copyright status. 5 December 2009 − Original source links invalid - updated George Orwell III (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC) |
| Proofreaders: | Pmsyyz |
Copyright status questioned
Talk about the copystatus of this is at WS:S and WS:COPYVIO. Current status is to keep as is public domain work of USGovt. -Stevertigo 00:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Two original PDF sources
Pmsyyz,
Upon checking the USIP web site again, [1] I just downloaded what appears to be a second PDF version of the ISG report. The first version is what I, and I assume others, have been working from since December 6. That version has the Random House title page that you have been deleting. It also has the italicizations that you aren't seeing in the 2nd version and lists the table of contents items in a different perspective.
It would have been nice if upon discovering all of the italicization discrepancies you would have checked to see if perhaps some people were working from different versions before editing out a lot of other people's work. I guess the people who have been working on this need to decide which PDF version is the true original and begin to work from one document instead of two.Jmcneill2 06:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, the official report PDF has been updated. I never saw a version with the preface or italics. The previous version which I have been working from and the current version[2] are very similar with very few changes. The latest version has no page numbers, different font, some bullet arrows. Other than those three things, none of which would cause any changes with it in Wikisource, I see nothing different between the two versions I have seen. If there was an initial version with the Preface from the Random House book, it appears to have been a mistake that has been corrected. I suggest that we go with the latest official version. --Pmsyyz 20:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)