Talk:Iraq Study Group Report
|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)
Copyright status questioned
Two original PDF sources
Upon checking the USIP web site again,  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 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)