Talk:Riegle Report

I have an archived copy...
I have an archived copy of the document that was at the now-dead gulfweb.org link. It's not an officially signed PDF; the doc properties show authorship and dating from the exporter that used to be on that site (dated 2007).

No clue if it's of any use to anyone, but I have it. As it's hosted on my commercial domain and I'm a political writer, I don't want to just link it here - even if it wouldn't violate some spam policy it would look like a conflict of interest to just edit the link to point to my site. But if there's any interest in the document by all means pitch a comment on this thread and I'll check it periodically, and I'm happy to follow up as advised/requested. Unless there's a reason to bother I'm not even going to create an account here, but...yeah. If you want it, I've got it, let me know. 2600:6C4A:787F:D069:19E4:356C:B2DB:9077 05:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


 * How does the document fit within the criteria at WS:What Wikisource includes? With regard to linking, we do not have concerns linking to publicly available documents that are hosted elsewhere on the web from a pertinent Author: or Portal: namespace page, and if the link within scope, then we don't see that as conflict of interest editing. We also find that the linking from those pages gets around issues where works cannot be hosted at enWS, though are relevant and pertinent to the author or the subject/portal. To note that typically conflict of interest issues are lower here as reproduction of works within scope are different.  — billinghurst  sDrewth  21:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)